John Dean: I have no quesiton that Conyers will begin impeachment hearings

[Rose Siding]

From this afternoon's FDL Book Salon discussion, Dean's comment #13

Greetings to those of you visiting the FDL Book Salon. Let me address the first question. I believe there is a solid chance that Democrats will regain the House. (The Senate right now looks like it will be 50/50.) And if the Democrats gain control of the House I have no quesiton that John Conyers will begin impeachment proceedings.

But given the Bush/Cheney style, they will fight giving them so much as name, rank or serial number.

http://www.firedoglake.com/2006/09/03/fdl-book-salon-conservatives-without-conscience-week-2/

It's one expert's subjective opinion but for what it's worth.....:bounce:

[orpupilofnature57]

1. Let this be the thing to lay the groundwork for mission, Take it back

Impeachment is our responsibility.

[pinto]

2. I think that's a pretty accurate assessment. We take the House, Senate is

50-50 and Conyers brings Articles of Impeachment to the House floor.

[Disturbed]

3. It would be more advantageous if Impeachment was

started with Rumsfailed, then Cheney and Busholini.Work from the real do-able to the nearly impossible.

Rumsfeld Shouldn't be Fired, He Should be Indicted
by Matthew Rothschild

“Secretary Rumsfeld has publicly admitted that . . . he ordered an Iraqi national held in Camp Cropper, a high security detention center in Iraq, to be kept off the prison’s rolls and not presented to the International Committee of the Red Cross,” the report noted. The Geneva Conventions require countries to grant the Red Cross access to all detainees. “

http://www.commondreams.org/views06/0418-24.htm

Recently it has been found out that even more detainees were "ghost detainees". The fact that Rumsfeld has not been charged speaks volumes. If Congress wishes to garner any respect they should move forward with Impeachment Declaration of Rumsfeld.


Further Evidence Rumsfeld Implicated in War Crimes
Please read this important post by Marty Lederman, Army Confirms:

Rumsfeld Authorized Criminal Conduct.

Here's a key section, but there's more:

The Army's charges against Jordan reflect the view, undoubtedly correct, that the use of forced nudity or intimidation with dogs against detainees subject to military control constitutes cruelty and maltreatment that Article 93 makes criminal. It doesn't matter whether they are or are not "torture," as such; nor does it matter whether the armed forces should be permitted to use such interrogation techniques: As things currently stand, they are unlawful, as even the Army now acknowledges.

But then how can we account for the actions of the Secretary of Defense and his close aides?

On November 27, 2002, Pentagon General Counsel William Haynes, following discussions with Deputy Secretary Wolfowitz, General Myers, and Doug Feith, informed the Secretary of Defense that forced nudity and the use of the fear of dogs to induce stress were lawful techniques, and he recommended that they be approved for use at Guantanamo. (The lists of techniques to which Haynes was referring can be found in this memorandum.) On December 2, 2002, Secretary Rumsfeld approved those techniques for use at Guantanamo -- and subsequently those techniques were used on detainee Mohammed al-Qahtani.

In other words, the Secretary of Defense authorized criminal conduct.

...

Today's Army charge under UCMJ Article 93 against Lt. Col. Jordan -- for conduct that the SecDef actually authorized as to some detainees -- demonstrates that Rumsfeld approved of, and encouraged, violations of the criminal law.

http://www.discourse.net/archives/2006/04/further_evidence_rumsfeld_implicated_in_war_crimes.html

[Rose Siding]

6. Oversight in all areas will be like shock therapy. Mr Dean also says-

117 J. Dean says:

September 3rd, 2006 at 3:33 pm *

(question) At 40: “If Democrats regain control of the House and/or the Senate this November, what steps can they take to assert oversight and control over the Bush Administration’s authoritarian impulses?”

Since there has been zero oversight much can be done. In fact, I am told that the White House is interviewing attorneys in Washington to bolster the Counsel’s office staff, because they want to fight all efforts at oversight. But there are limits on what they can do when faced with subpoenas from congressional committees, because at some point they will find themselves in contempt of Congress (which can be taken to court to force the issue) and go to jail.

[pinto]

8. Yeah! Oversight is the kicker. I'm not a big fan of Impeachment,

but re-establishing some semblance of independent oversight on the part of Congress will be a great kick from a Democratic House.

[Rose Siding]

13. Re: impeachment

Re: impeachment hearings in the House, I'll quote myself downthread-

Impeachment hearings in the House won't remove bush from office,
-personally, I doubt that the Senate would ever try the articles, as the requisite 2/3 to find guilt is flat out impossible. Rather, hearings would serve as a valuable medium to educate the public of the severity of danger posed by bush-like flaunting of the law. In both the cases of torture and spying, there's a serious risk that this presidency could set precedent for the executive branch to leave behind its obligation to the law forever. We'd have no way back. People MUST learn of this.

[pinto]

10. Some "adjustments", as they say, in the Administration may be necessary

if a Democratic House looms over the budget, oversight committees, and the possibility of Impeachment. ::evilgrin:

[Independent_Liberal]

5. We need to pick up as many Senate seats as possible...

...so we won't need as much help from the Republicans for a conviction. We have to make it worth our while.

[elocs]

15. Check the numbers.

Democrats now hold 44 seats. There are 15 Republican Senate seats up for election along with 1 Independent. If the Democrats win all 16 and hold their own, that only adds up to 60. Which 7 Republican Senators would vote to convict and would all of the Democrat Senators vote to convict? In that case we would need the Republican Party to have an epiphany about Bush and to have a Republican Senator like Howard Baker during Watergate who asked at the hearings, "What did the President know and when did he know it?" to step forward. Conviction after impeachment will need to be a bipartisan effort to succeed.

[PresidentWar]

4. Question is, how many pink tutus will follow the lead?

I have this horrid thought that he will lead this charge, turn around in mid charge to see if his troops are nearby, and they will still be behind the lines wondering if they should make this leap.

Not to be a cynic, but the Democratic will on this issue has been alarmingly weak.

[orpupilofnature57]

7. Not if their jobs depend on it , culpability based voting is ours.

[NOLADEM]

9. Would someone please hire that man a body guard???

I love me some John Conyers.

What a wonderful man.

PLEASE PLEASE PLEASE dont let the DLC Dinos quash this effort.

[NOLADEM]

11. Also, a question??

How far down to we impeach?

I mean, do we REALLY want prez CHENEY? Or the subsequent "Veep"?

We would really have to clear out pretty close to the root to kill this weed.

Would it be better to keep Chimp in charge, sanction him, censure him, and neuter him by taking away signing statements, eavesdropping, the war, and all other black ops, then keep him in front of committee after committee for his last two years, explaining under oath exactly what the fuck he thought he was doing? We could toss Rove out by erasing his security clearance and legislatively getting rid of his salary, force the resignation of Wolfowitz, Rumsferatu, and Bolton, and force replacement with moderates acceptable to Dems.

Wouldn't that be better?

I fear that Cheney would become absolutely craven and vindictive toward the country and REALLY go batshit, and that the impeachment would divide the country and split our new majority.

Don't get me wrong, I want the Chimperor in the fucking Hague along with the rest of the PNAC war criminals, but I am practical above all, and the impeachment of the Pretzledent is not at the top of my list. Health Care for all, Bankruptcy 'unreform', School Funding, Getting us out of Iraq, and killing Bin Laden are.

Finally, on an unrelated note, when you run spell check on Wolfowitz's name, it tries to change it to Halfwits. How wonderful is that?

[Rose Siding]

12. Impeachment hearings in the House won't remove bush from office,

-personally, I doubt that the Senate would ever try the articles, as the requisite 2/3 to find guilt is flat out impossible. Rather, hearings would serve as a valuable medium to educate the public of the severity of danger posed by bush-like flaunting of the law. In both the cases of torture and spying, there's a serious risk that this presidency could set precedent for the executive branch to leave behind its obligation to the law forever. We'd have no way back. People MUST learn of this.

[elocs]

17. Right, too many forget that impeachment≠conviction.

Win the House back first and only then will even impeachment be a possibility. Then as much as we might like, conviction will not happen and Bush will not be going to the Hague. Were that to happen it would be the ultimate proof that there is a god.

[elocs]

25. That should be "impeachment does not equal conviction".

Evidently the "not equals" sign does not work. Why it comes out as "#8800;" I don't know.

[Independent_Liberal]

29. Never say never. Crazier things HAVE happened.

It was the Republicans who decided they had pretty much had it with Nixon and told him it was time to go.

And do keep this in mind about Bush, he's somebody who's never finished anything before in his life.

[elocs]

30. I'll concede your point.

I do remember working at the radio board at my NPR college station during the Watergate hearings and thinking nothing will come of this. But then, the Democrats did control both houses and where is a Republican Senator Howard Baker when you need one how?

[CollegeDUer]

14. Reid and Pelosi have reprimanded Conyers on his efforts

I read it in an article a few weeks ago that Pelosi called him into her office on the request of Reid to chide him for trying to impeach.

[Rose Siding]

16. Where did you read that? Can you provide a link?

Thanks.

[CollegeDUer]

18. It was somewhere on DU

A quick google finds this:

http://www.azcentral.com/arizonarepublic/viewpoints/articles/0813maceachern0813.html

[Rose Siding]

20. Looks like Harry was talking about a report that was broader than

the topic of impeachment hearings -And I agree with what he implies about articles being handed over to his ballywick, the Senate.

I don't doubt for a moment that Nancy Pelosi will relish an opportunity to orchestrate the kind of oversight that would be inclusive of hearings about whether the executive has the power to operate outside of the law.

[CollegeDUer]

21. Pelosi and Reid are spineless now and have always been

is my opinion. They're chiding Conyers for trying to act on behalf of justice. They're obsessed with partisan politics.

[Rose Siding]

22. Jury's out on Reid for me, but I've tracked Nancy too long to believe that

She's smart, self-sacrificing, and she's successfully leading an unbearably diverse minority Democratic caucus through some treacherous water.

[PresidentWar]

23. They are more concerned about their party than about the law

And it's making me want to puke. I've seen alot of folks lose sight of what the impeachment process was put in the constitution for - it's there precisely to deal with removing an leader who has abused power and or broken the law, FROM that power. Period. It doesn't have a subparagraph that says "only to be used if advantageous to the fortunes of a political party".

Nancy Pelosi is concerned that a new Democratic majority in the House that produces articles of impeachment will be seen as "revenge for Bill Clinton". Well do I look like I give a flying fuck how this all LOOKS to the pundits and the usual players? Ms. Pelosi how about taking off the PR hat for a second and doing the right thing? Bill Clinton wasnt removed from office because nothing he did rose to the bar of "high crimes and misdemeanors" according to the Senate. Do you honestly think that all Bush has done could never rise to that bar? Seriously??

So let's stop the namby pamby hand wringing about what we'll "look like" for pursuing a just course against a very very criminal man.

SUPPORT CONYERS.

[Rose Siding]

19. Whoa! Nixon distrusted Rumsfeld and Haldeman called him "slimey"-

266 J. Dean says:

September 3rd, 2006 at 5:13 pm *

At 80: “I’m curious about what you thought of Olbermann’s remarks ”

Keith Olberman is the most intelligent anchor in America, and he actually uses his God given talents to inform Americans. (Jon Stewart also plays in this league, even though he does comedy.) Slowly, steadily, people are discovering Olberman’s not only smart and savvy, but he can have fun as well. He knows what to take serious, however, and he was the first news person to recognize the seriousness of Rumsfeld’s insidious comments.

Rumsfeld came to the Nixon White House in 1970 some five months after I arrived. At the time, I asked White House chief of staff Bob Haldeman what Rummy was going to be doing. “Nothing,” Haldeman told me, explaining that they were placing him on the White House staff (giving him a sinecure) to bolster his chances to win a Senate race in IL.

In time, Haldeman — not to mention — Nixon came to distrust Rumsfeld. Many thought Nixon appointed him Ambassador to NATO as a promotion. In fact, they wanted to get him out of the White House. Haldeman called Rumsfeld “slimmy” in his contemporaneous diaries, and Nixon is heard on his tapes discussing Rumsfeld in less than flattering terms.

Most ironic, given Rumsfeld’s current position on Iraq, Rumsfeld argued that Nixon should get the hell out of Vietnam. Rummy was a cut and run guy back then.

Keith Olberman should be given a Pulitzer for his commentary on Rumsfeld’s remarkable behavior. It is because Keith is such an intelligent and stand-up person that I enjoy doing his show.

http://www.firedoglake.com/2006/09/03/fdl-book-salon-conservatives-without-conscience-week-2/

[TahitiNut]

32. "Keith Olberman should be given a Pulitzer"

I agree.

[4nic8em]

24. I am of the opinion

that as a united party, we should refrain from any "call to arms" for impeachment, and here's why: in the short term, we now have the opportunity to seize and accomplish at least a majority in the House and with a little more work perhaps a majority in the Senate. Any immediate agenda to publicly proclaim impeachment will serve to "rally" the disenfranchised repubs and indys back to their base. Their are some from the right and independent persuasion who are fed up with the current leadership and are willing to fore-go the status quo of what's been going on in Neonut land...not so much that we can necessarily expect them to vote Dem in upcoming primaries or even the general election, but instead, are pissed off enough that they might choose not to vote at all (which is just as good). Impeachment upon their great leader would be motivation enough for them to make that extra effort to support those which we strive to unseat. It is my personal desire to frog march everyone in the current Executive branch, in due time...but first things first, we need to take care of business at hand and get a Dem voted into every political seat that is now in jeopardy, by any legal and tactical means available. I think that calls for impeachment right now may remove a potentially useful tactic. In the long term, after we have secured every political seat possible in 06, THEN we start holding those in the administration accountable for what they have done to our country by vigorously calling for impeachment. Just a thought...

[immoderate]

26. Maybe, but....

A few months ago the Republicans were taking shots at Dems calling us the "party of impeachment." They said that all the Democrats wanted to do was get into office so they can impeach the president. Well why do you think they stopped doing that? Their polling must have shown that it wasn't doing them any good. Maybe it was even helping Democrats.

The public was against impeaching Nixon before the hearings started. But the exposure of his dirty deeds brought them around. Now, Bush makes Nixon look like Prince Charming, and it's important to remember that
Nixon was never impeached!

The exposure of his deeds forced him to quit. We need to get the ball rolling. I know it's not practical with the current house, but Bush is on the road to tyranny and something must be done to salvage our self respect as a nation.

--IMM

[4nic8em]

31. Any previous attempt

by the Dems in the House to bring this administrations illegal deeds to the attention of the American people has fallen way short, primarily because the Dems lack legal and Constitutional authority to do so. Recall the noble attempts of John Conyers (and every other principled Dem) regarding voting, Downing street, Iraq, and everything in between, gets banished to the basements and does not get the attention it deserves (i.e. no effect) I absolutely agree with you, however, accusations without the power of investigation or legal authority to subpoena or hold hearings, in the publics eye, is only accusation. This has been relentlessly referred to by the Repubs as "whining Democrats". We will be mostly ineffectual with any endeavor until we acquire legal "authority" which in turn will command attention by MSM, thereby putting these issues in the face of all Americans, not just those interested or concerned Democrats. The Repubs "bipartisan" committees" each and every time are framed, staffed, presented and conducted to result in a predestined conclusion. This is accomplished because they, and they alone, have the power to do so. At the very least, the Democrats need to be able to exercise and benefit from this same legal power, until then nothing will change...this has been consistently proven since 2000.

[immoderate]

33. I agree.

But I can't see what better we can do but keep the pressure on, that is, what little we have. Like Nixon, the weight of public opinion can be turned with persistence and truth. The advantage is the truth doesn't change, and we hope that there will be a critical mass, disturbed by the dissonance, that will eventually climb out of their trance.

In other words, we talk it up, people get used to the idea. It worked before.

--IMM

[DemReadingDU]

35. Ah, I posted similar thoughts, #34

[Kurovski]

27. K&R

It is the duty of those sworn to uphold the Constitution to begin impeachment when it is warranted, as it appears to be in such a case as this.

It is a duty. Nothing more, nothing less.

[BlueStater]

28. If we can't punish the Chimp for pissing on the Constitution...

...then we, as a country, are dead.

[DemReadingDU]

34. We need to first, get people out to vote

to win back seats in the House and/or Senate. It will be harder for some people to vote Democrat if the word 'impeachment' is part of the rhetoric. They still remember the Clinton impeachment proceedings as a circus.

So get the people to vote because the Iraq war is bad, the economy is bad, because we need a change.

Then, after we win the seats, then perhaps seek impeachment. But first we need to get people to vote Democrat.