Conyers not planning investigations!!!

[IWantPeace]

gnn.tv has the best up to date coverage and behind the scenes…
and it might be a surprise to some that it looks as if John Conyers is not even planning on pursuing investigations.

Will other members of congress support the action Congresswoman McKinney has brought forth?

At the table in what could be considered her impeachment “war room” the question is brought up a number of times.

Mike, an advisor to McKinney, mentions, “Conyers was supposed to have investigations. They were chomping at the bit 6 months ago to do subpoenas.”

McKinney quietly replies, “Now they say they aren’t even going to issue subpoenas.”

http://www.gnn.tv/articles/2791/BREAKING_Congresswoman_McKinney_Files_Articles_of_Impeachment

on edit: From Conyers himself...
"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...

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"
http://www.democrats.com/node/11050

[proud2BlibKansan]

1. LOL Nice try

Conyers has been investigating for a couple years now. Those of us who have been paying attention know this.

Enjoy your stay here at DU :hi:

[Dinger]

4. No Shit

Sheesh!

[SharonRB]

6. Hi, proud2Blib

:hi:

I'll let you know what he says Friday night. I can't imagine that he'll let up now that he has subpoena power.

[proud2BlibKansan]

22. Hey to you too!!

Is he your congressman? Man I just love him. Tell him, okay? :)

[SharonRB]

53. No, he's not

I live in the 'burbs. His district is mostly in the actual city of Detroit. Sandy Levin is mine.

[SammyWinstonJack]

7. It wasn't even a good try!

:evilgrin:

[proud2BlibKansan]

24. I give it a 5

on a scale of 1 to 100. :rofl:

[Warren DeMontague]

50. Here ya go:

[proud2BlibKansan]

59. LOL!

:rofl:

[IWantPeace]

72. He already has all the evidence he needs- I know this

so why did he say impeachment is off the table?

[Monkeyman]

76. LOL they been held in the basement of Congress

Replugs refuse to let them in the hearing rooms

[IWantPeace]

78. exactly

listen to Turley from one of the hearings

http://www.archive.org/download/illegal_spying/nsa_hearing1-turley.mp3

The Supreme Court has rejected the very claims being made by the President with regard to the NSA operation, it is in direct contradiction of FISA.

Now I want to be absolutely clear, what the President ordered in this case was a crime. Now we can debate whether he had a good or bad motivation, but it was a crime.

The federal law makes it clear- you cannot engage in this type of domestic surveillance without comitting a crime.

We can debate the wisdom of that, we can debate why the President may have done it, but in my view, the President committed a crime, and we have to deal with that as citizens. And unfortunately, you have to deal with that as members of Congress.

It strikes an alarming circumstance when the President can go into a press conference and announce that he has violated a federal statute 30 times, and promises to continue to do so until someone stops him. That is the most remarkable admission that I have ever heard from a President of the United States…

[SharonRB]

2. Conyers is holding a forum next Friday evening

A New American Agenda; A Vision for the New Congress

I'm planning to attend. I'm sure he'll open it up to questions. I'll post on DU what he has to say about his plans for investigations.

[proud2BlibKansan]

25. Take pictures

I might have to move, I so want him for my congressman.

[SharonRB]

52. I will!

[IWantPeace]

57. great, thanks!

[Vidar]

105. Thank you. We could use some reliable reporting.

[nam78_two]

3. Nonsense.nt

[AlCzervik]

5. i'm calling bullshit on GNN.

[IWantPeace]

8. I hope this isn't true!

But someone should ask Cynthia McKinney and Conyers about this.

[NYCGirl]

9. So why did you post this bullshit? NT

[IWantPeace]

11. because everyone seems to think that he and nancy are 'playing chess'

and I just read this from Cynthia and I think they might not even be planning on doing anything at all to hold BUsh accountable.

I am afraid they will continue to appease Bush and his cronies, as well as continue Iraq. It's sick. Enough politics. People are dying and our country is bankrupt.

[NYCGirl]

12. It sounds like it's all someone's OPINION, or someone's trying to stir up crap.

[IWantPeace]

13. It is a quote from Cynthia McKinney

who was in discussions with Conyers over impeachment.

[NYCGirl]

15. Then why did she file the act when she KNEW it was going to die?

This Congress is over. If she wanted it to make a difference, she should have started it sooner.

Edited to add: Others on this thread have posted about what Conyers is doing, so Ms. McKinney is probably wrong.

[IWantPeace]

30. what is Conyers doing?

I read in a blog after the elections that he felt the eleciton was enough accountability.

Has he stated he will pursue investigations since then?

[NYCGirl]

34. Why don't you wait until the Democrats have the power to do something, OK?

I note your concern and I will give it all the attention it deserves.

[ebayfool]

51. You "read in a blog"? Well, that's authoritative!

Got a link?


Or can it not be named?

[IWantPeace]

54. It was Conyers who wrote a letter saying the election was enough accountability

http://www.democrats.com/node/11050

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.



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

[Warren DeMontague]

43. Join me in a little Bob Marley?

"Stir it up..."

[babylonsister]

16. Continue to appease * and his cronies? Conyers has never done

that; he's been a huge thorn in the side of this admin. You really need to read up on what's going on, from reputable sources. Here's a start:

www.johnconyers.com

[IWantPeace]

21. I am well aware of what has been going on

Conyer's investigations have led nowhere.

He told everyone when Democrats were in power, everything will change.

Once that happened, he said that the election was enough accountability.

Now he tells Cynthia McKinney he will not pursue investigations. I dunno but I trust Cynthia, the one person brave enough to introduce articles of impeachment.

[xxqqqzme]

28. I thought she lost her seat.

was I mistaken?

[NYCGirl]

31. You're correct, she's history. NT

[Mind_your_head]

104. Yes, she did lose her seat......that doesn't mean she wasn't 'brave'

The brave are rarely rewarded. In fact, they're often 'punished'.

Some people who have 'lead the way' (Conyers?) might be 'being pushed beyond his limits' and trusts that others will step in? to continue what he had the courage to begin/set in motion initially....

...those 'others', of course, are US.

[NYCGirl]

29. Hey, Hotshot — you do realize that the Democrats are not in power until January,

don't you?

[IWantPeace]

37. They took the time to tell us Impeachment is off the table!

We cannot allow them to stall any longer.

Our troops are dying! AND murdering innocents!! Every day that goes by, Halliburton gets more $$

The only way to stop the war is stop funding it and remove Bush from office.

Does it really look to you like they will stop the war? Will they stop the funding?

Do you really thing they will suddenly take a strong stand on impeachment?

[NYCGirl]

41. What part of "Congress is not in session until January" don't you understand?

[EFerrari]

95. What part of "civil discourse" is opaque to you?

[NYCGirl]

113. I don't do "civil discourse" with a disruptor troll. (Who, BTW, has now been

tombstoned. Thank you, Mods!)

[Ahpook]

89. I share your concern..

They were voted in to do a fucking job, and they better damn well do it

[babylonsister]

35. Investigations led nowhere because the rethugs were in charge.

Remain aware, and await January 07. I can pretty much guarantee Conyers will not be silent.

And McKinney is out of the game; who knows what conversation took place, if any, between them?

[IWantPeace]

42. Has Conyers said he will pursue investigations after the election?

I read that he thinks the election is enough accountability.

Then he said he agreed with Pelosi, Impeachment is off the table.

[babylonsister]

49. If you're specifically talking about impeachment, yes, he said that.

My feeling is he's holding his cards close to his vest; once the war profiteering investigations, which will be numerous, get going and facts unfold, I think Americans will demand many heads roll, and I'm thinking this is the Dems' feeling. They don't have to 'call' for impeachment to make it happen. WE can make it happen if there are enough people who are totally outraged. Win-win for Dems. They don't look like they're after blood, investigations get done, and the truth is finally revealed.

[IWantPeace]

55. "If you're specifically talking about impeachment, yes, he said that"

Do you have a link?

[babylonsister]

69. He said it was off the table; I'm sure there's plenty to be found in

google if you do a search, or search DU when you contribute. My point is that I will be waiting to see sparks fly in January.

[alfredo]

67. It could be that others are covering the same

ground that he has covered or planned to cover. It could also be that too many ongoing investigations would tie up too many resources.

[AlCzervik]

10. or maybe someone should ask gnn.

[aquart]

17. Thank you for your concern.

[AlCzervik]

20. "I'm worried and concerned"

[IWantPeace]

26. we all damn well better be!

This is bullshit. The majority want impeachment. How do we look strong as a party when we back down on something so obvious. Even Republicans are expecting it. WE have nothing to lose. The arguments against impeachment are crap. REad the piece by David Swanson. There is no excuse!

[AlCzervik]

38. uuuhhhh yeah i am

[alittlelark]

80. "WE have nothing to lose"......

Find your own clique.

I'm sick of Reindeer Games.

[stevedeshazer]

32. HAHAHA!

Great comeback.

[Warren DeMontague]

39. I know. The amount of concern shown by the OP is truly touching.

I'm sure all of DU will join me in roundly expressing our appreciation for the deep level of concern, concerning his concerns.

[proud2BlibKansan]

27. And now you bring up McKinney!

Sheesh, you must think we are really stoopid.

[IWantPeace]

33. the whole post was about what Cynthia McKinney

said that Conyers said in a private meeting.

I would like to know the truth. Where's Will Pitt? Maybe he can call Conyers and do the reporting.

[Warren DeMontague]

46. I smell something that *rhymes* with "Will Pitt", all over this thread.

:eyes:

[Vidar]

106. Funny how those two seem to go together.

[Greybnk48]

14. I find this really hard to believe

so I'll just wait and see. I don't think he'll do anything frivolous or ridiculous, mainly because he's a democrat, not a repug. But I seriously don't he will allow criminal behavior to go unchecked.

[IWantPeace]

18. He already said impeachment was off the table

when everyone was counting on him.

[Greybnk48]

88. I trust John Conyers completely, absolutely, period.

I will wait and trust whatever he decides. He has been our champion when they were few and far between. He can do absolutely NOTHING to lose my confidence. Clear enough??

[IWantPeace]

97. now Conyers is the decider?

weird

[xiamiam]

111. my thoughts exactly..and i have a copy of constitution in crisis...george bush vs the constitution

a labor of duty and right signed by conyers on my coffee table...i consider it history in the making...an about to be event..i am not worried...i trust conyers absolutely...truthfully, i don't care if they are impeached..i just want them to go to jail...where they belong...

[Bluebear]

19. Does it concern and trouble you? nt

[IWantPeace]

23. I'm pissed!

These bastards should have been impeached right after we discovered they were illegally wiretapping!

That is all we need to remove them from power, and we need to remove them ASAP before they can do more damage.
Who knows what evil they have planned. Remember Katrina?

[Warren DeMontague]

47. You know, ever since the election I've been a little nostalgic for these expressions of CONCERN.

Makes me feel a little old-timey. :evilgrin:

[Warren DeMontague]

36. Oh Noooooooooo! Waaaaaaaah! Booo Hoooo! Conyers! That Fiend!

So. Was that the response you were looking for?

Um, How about: Why don't we wait and fucking SEE.

[IWantPeace]

40. If you have been pursuing impeachment like the many who have been

working hard to push our congress into doing the right thing, you would be pissed too.

[Warren DeMontague]

44. Right. I have no fucking clue as to what I'm talking about.

Welcome to DU. Enjoy your stay.

[IWantPeace]

58. dupe

[Warren DeMontague]

61. Thank you for your concern.

Concerning your concern, your concerns have been noted. If you are concerned about any concerns regarding your expression of concern, please contact the mgt.

[IWantPeace]

62. Your name is ImpeachDubya

How much effort have you put into this endeavor? You do not seem concerned about holding Bush accountable. You do seem concerned about shutting me up.

[Warren DeMontague]

65. No, I'm thanking you for your concern.

Really. Thanks.

[IWantPeace]

60. Wait and see is stalling.

Another DUer suggested sending 500,000 letters to Pelosi to demand impeachment, because as it did with Nixon, Impeachment begins with the people demanding it. That is what I am suggesting. Waiting and seeing sounds like stalling, which will lead to just wait until the election 2008. That is not good enough.

I am not the only one that feels this way I am sure...this is a great quote...
"What we should do is gather in DC when the new Congress meets and tell them flat out that WE THE PEOPLE refuse to allow anything else to be done until the liars who tricked us into war are impeached, removed from office, and tried for war crimes.

We The People sent the new Congress to DC with a clear mandate. REMIND THEM OF THAT. Practice snarling now. Make a point of opposing any new legislation, no matter what it is. Stop every Congressional action in its tracks. Bring all congressional business to a dead halt until they deal with the task YOU SENT THEM TO WASHINGTON TO DEAL WITH."

[Warren DeMontague]

64. We do appreciate your concern.

Really. Thanks for coming all the way to DU to express your concern.

[pinto]

45. Conyers has been consistent on investigations. Dems don't take over till January.

The sky is *not* falling.

[IWantPeace]

101. you call this consistent???

From Conyers’ report, The Constitution in Crisis:

Our investigation has found that while the allegations set forth in this Report rise to the level of impeachable misconduct by the President, the Vice President, and other high ranking officials within the Administration, more information and investigatory authority is needed before recommendations can be made concerning specific Articles of Impeachment.

<after election 2006>
"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...

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"

[H2O Man]

48. Emmett Kelly n/t

[troubleinwinter]

56. Sad, aint it?

[H2O Man]

84. Indeed. n/t

[Jon8503]

63. Why Not Impeach Bush? Dick Cheney

The degree to which the new Democratic leadership on Capitol Hill despises Vice President Dick Cheney is a big plus for President Bush. Consider why incoming Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid scrapped an idea to impeach Bush: "Two words: Dick Cheney," he says, joking that it would vault the veep into the Oval Office.


http://www.usnews.com/usnews/politics/whispers/articles/061119/27whisplead.htm

[IWantPeace]

66. great article from David Swanson disputes all of these excuses

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=364x2891607

[IWantPeace]

71. one silly lie perpetuated by many is that Dems will lose if we pursue impeachment

"When the Democrats held back from impeachment during Iran Contra, they lost the next elections. And many of the people they failed to go after came back in the form of the Bush Jr. Administration to make life hell for the Democrats and the rest of us. When the Democrats led the effort to investigate and impeach Nixon, they won big in the next election"

[Jon8503]

94. Agree. N/T.

[Eric J in MN]

68. "Don't believe everything that you read in the press."

-The Newtown Neutotics

Of course Conyers will investigate Bush. Maybe not in the first few months, but within the next two years.

[IWantPeace]

70. Bush has admitted to impeachable offences on national TV

If we stick to illegal wiretapping alone, he should be impeached in a week. He admitted it. He lost in court already.

I wonder how many people will die in Iraq within the next two years?

[Eric J in MN]

73. If we impeach Bush, then I want him impeached for diverting money

...appropriated for the Afghanistan War to the buildup of the Iraq War.

Bob Woodward wrote about it.

But I don't want a President Cheney.

[IWantPeace]

75. We do not need to waste time getting hung up in endless investigations

Bush is delusional. He must be removed immediately.

The fastest way to do that would be to impeach on illegal wiretapping alone. There is no investigation needed. He admitted it. He has no grounds to support his illegal behavior. The pursuit of impeachment will force him to resign. Remember Nixon?

We owe this to our troops, our country, our children's future.

BUSH IS DESTROYING OUR COUNTRY. THEY ARE LOOTING THE NATION! HE MUST BE REMOVED so we can bring our troops home and return sanity to our government.

[puebloknot]

91. Exactly. It's on the record that he has committed this patently illegal act!

In case you haven't read the posts by pat_k on this subject, here's a link to her journal. She agrees: We don't need long, drawn-out investigations. We have enough evidence already to go through formal impeachment proceedings and hold Bush/Cheney, et al. accountable.

http://journals.democraticunderground.com/pat_k

[xiamiam]

112. the work has already been done...just a matter of fine tuning...that is what keeps me going...nt

[Peace Patriot]

74. There are bound to be a lot of rumors flying. I wouldn't credit them much.

And I would recommend regarding statements like "impeachment is off the table" the way we regard "I am not running for president" which often just flips over when the time is ripe. Routine denials.

This IS a grave matter, however. The integrity of the Congress as an equal branch of government is at issue. And I don't like Pelosi's statement--"impeachment is off the table." I think it is a violation of her oath of office. How dare she take it off the table! It is our ONLY tool to reign in a rogue president! It is a requirement and duty of the Constitution. Congress has been utterly derelict in demanding accountability from Bush and Cheney. It is Congress' DUTY to bring them to account! If Pelosi doesn't want to show her hand just yet, she should have put it another way.

That said, what we are looking at is a fascist junta, which used tools that the Democrats agreed to, knowingly or unknowingly, to keep itself in power--namely the fast-track installation of electronic voting systems, run on TRADE SECRET, PROPRIETARY programming code, owned and controlled by Bushite corporations, during the 2002-2004 period. There is no reason to install non-transparent voting systems except fraud. I am certain that that was Tom Delay's and Bob Ney's intention in ramming through the "Help America Vote for Bush Act" of 2002.

The ACTIONS of the Bush Junta make their illegitimacy apparent. They are ACTING LIKE people who feel NO ACCOUNTABILITY whatsoever to the American people. And they are correct. They owe their power to the winger nutballs behind Diebold and ES&S. And you see how difficult it is for even Daddy Bush and the Cartel to rein these people in (--if that isn't all just a dumbshow). SEVENTY PERCENT of the American people want this war ended. Do they care? Not a bit. What does that tell you about the legitimacy of their re-election?

These people, Bush and Cheney, and the corporate powers behind them, are bad, bad, bad. They are master criminals. They are immensely powerful. They've had six years to entrench themselves in ways we cannot even imagine yet. It is not clear that the Congress CAN impeach them. It is not clear that Congress has that power any more. We are in a grave situation--a grave Constitutional crisis.

And the Democrats have several problems in addressing it: 1. They backed electronic voting. 2. Many of them backed the war. 3. They don't have the strength they should have--even with the Dem wins last week--the FL-13 is just the most obvious of the fraudulent vote counts; there are likely more; and these voting systems have been entrenched by means of corruption (the $3.9 billion in HAVA money, lavish lobbying) on a bipartisan basis. 4. The strength of the real Democrats is hampered by a faction of Bushite Democrats, like those who voted for torture and suspensions of habeas corpus a month ago (and they are VERY hampered in the Senate, with Lieberman a pivotal vote). 5. Bush and Cheney have abrogated to themselves powers of pervasive domestic spying--they likely have dirt on many Congress critters. 6. Cheney has stated that he will not answer Congressional subpoenas. 7. Bush has written, time and again, in "signing statements" that Congress' laws do not apply to him and his junta. 8. We are emerging from the most spineless, rotten, lapdog Congress we have ever known in this country--it will be difficult to reestablish precedents of Congress as a coequal branch of government in this circumstance.

I don't know where we go from here. I don't know where Pelosi is going from here, or I'm not sure of where I think she should go (as a strategy or as a goal). And I don't think we have all the cards on the table either--we, the citizens of this country. I think a lot of stuff--real serious stuff--is going on behind the scenes. One other thought, Pelosi is in line to become President after Bush and Cheney. She may consider it inappropriate to lead the charge on impeachment. And, finally, if they do intend impeachment, the last thing in the world they may wish is for Bush and Cheney to know it. And the other last thing in the world they would want is for the war profiteering corporate news monopolies to know it and to start nosing around in efforts to derail the end of their darling war regime.

All this is not to say that impeachment is not righteous--and even imperative, if our Constitution is to be restored. If not impeachment, I hope to God they have something else in mind, to curtail this regime. What are they going to do if a committee chair issues a subpoena, and Bush or Cheney refuse to answer it? They MUST assert their power in some way.

I am not ready to say that Pelosi and Conyers and others are in some kind of military-industrial complex conspiracy to keep the war profiteers in private jets and caviar, by keeping the war going indefinitely, and/or to keep the entire US military in the Middle East indefinitely, with the constant threat of instigating or becoming embroiled in a Mideast-wide war. I think it is a possibility--I repeat, a POSSIBILITY--that they are, willingly or unwillingly. We don't have a lot of reason to trust our representatives--even the best of them. Any of them can be subject to fear or blackmail, or just to the filthy, collusive atmosphere of the Washington DC war profiteering hogpen. But PLEASE do not jump to conclusions, that somehow they are chickening out, on the basis of current information. It is not fair to them. We really do not know what they are up against. They have not yet even convened with full Congressional powers in their possession. And I am speaking of the best of them right now--those who opposed the war--as well as any who are honest and want to do the right thing. Congress is in an extremely shaky position, unlike at any other time in our history. Let's give them a bit of breathing room on how to proceed. Doesn't mean we shouldn't work on impeachment petitions. I just think it's too soon to condemn them for not acting. Much too soon.

[IWantPeace]

77. I am not ready to say that Pelosi and Conyers and others are in some kind of military-industrial ...

complex conspiracy to keep the war profiteers in private jets and caviar"

Well, why don't they cut the funding then?

Why did the both vote for the Iran Freedom Support Act?

[alittlelark]

79. Ha, Ha, ha. Hah Hah ha.

Uh, yeah.
.
.
.
.


Are you still here?

[IWantPeace]

82. Should I be kicked off for not toeing the party line or something?

The party will look pathetic if they do not hold Bush accountable. Does that seem like a good plan?

[Warren DeMontague]

83. Have no fear, friend. Bush will be held accountable.

People who are phony, full of shit and misrepresent themselves are always found out, eventually.

[puebloknot]

87. No. See my other post! nt

[alittlelark]

92. Are you still here? WOW.

I guess you are riding the line well.... for now.

[spanone]

81. I ain't buyin' any of that .

bs

[lonestarnot]

85. Har har har 300 some pages of investigation already published.

[puebloknot]

86. K&R Many of us are concerned about Conyers' apparent 180!

BTW, welcome to DU. I'm kind of new here, myself. Well, actually, I've been around for close to two years, but I have not done a lot of posting.

As far as I know, you don't have to pay your dues and become an "old timer" to speak your piece. I lurked for a long time, feeling a little intimidated by some of the folks here, and then decided to just post when I feel like it. You can't win them all, and there are a *lot* of friendly and supportive people here.

A quick hint: When I first joined DU (actually a friend who is a prominent DUer chose my name and insisted I should come here, so I did), I didn't realize that when you make a contribution to DU (even a small one), you get a yellow star by your name ("Star on your chart for being good, maybe?) I wasn't holding back because I'm cheap. I just didn't know the drill!

I guess a lot of people think if you haven't contributed, you have less of a right to post here. So you might want to throw a few bucks in the direction of DU (when you can afford it), and then you'll be one of the good guys/gals! You'll have *star power*! :)

The above doesn't guarantee respect for your point of view, but I guess it makes you a member of the club!

I now contribute here when I can, as well as to Truthout and others. It just takes a little while to learn the protocol here, and I'm SURE that everyone posting in this thread will want to help you feel comfortable -- even if they don't agree with the premise of your post.

Finally, I very much agree with the premise of your post. Ms. Pelosi's eagerness to cooperate with Mr. Bush and his buddies, in a blur of bipartisan harmony, has me greatly disturbed. The thing is, I actually think she means what she says. If she doesn't, she shouldn't be saying it. The last thing we need is for Democrats to get a bad rap for not speaking the truth. I don't want our most powerful Democrat playing pals with criminals and murderers. That old cliche about lying down with dogs and rising up with fleas comes to mind. If it turns out that the Dems have something to hide as well as the Repubs, then we're in trouble. And if I'm wrong about my forebodings, I'll "mea culpa" until the cows come home, starting in January!

Mr. Conyers has never struck me as someone to play political games, and I'm very concerned that he's being pressured to forget about impeachment. I've had the pleasure of meeting David Swanson very briefly, I read his opinions, I trust his intelligence, and if he is disturbed about Conyers' remarks, I take that as reinforcement for my own concerns.

Every Democrat who enables the status quo in D.C. is complicit in their crimes. I just can't see it any other way, and history has pretty much shown that appeasement never works. It might buy a little time here and there, but England's Mr. Chamberlain came to rue the day he tried that in WWII.

As to calling for impeachment NOW, we who do that are *not* idiots. We know nothing official can take place until January, but there is already enough evidence of impeachable offenses for Conyers and others to come out of the starting gate with enough to get the ball rolling.

As I've said here many times, calling for "Impeachment Now" is like "Bring them Home Now" or "End the War Now." We're savvy enough to know that such events take time. But we must pressure them NOW, and in our many NOWs in the next few months, to move a reluctant new Congress into:

1. Issuing subpoenas in support of investigations.

2 Impeachment, without that tired mantra -- "But we don't have the votes."

3. Refusing to further fund the war (while still supporting the troops -- or more to the point, really *beginning* to support the troops).

And just a quick note: If your post doesn't make the Greatest Page, at least you tried. A venue like this is important because it lets all of us have a place to express our thoughts and add to the greater good in terms of trying to take our country back!

Nice talking to you, and I want peace, too.

[Bakunin]

90. Lots of folks are tossing poop at the OP but...

I am preparing myself for a letdown. Maybe its from growing up in Red Sox country until 2004 but I dont get my hopes up past 6 on the thrill-o-meter.

[alittlelark]

93. Defending the uninformed....

gotcha! I'm cool w/ that - in a funny Clouseau Kinda way.

If that not your intent.....




SIGH.

[wtmusic]

96. Welcome to DU Bakunin

:bounce: :toast: :bounce:

[Warren DeMontague]

98. Ah! More CONCERN! Thanks & Welcome To DU!

Hmmm. A veritable flood of new faces, wearing sad frowns and telling us to abandon all hope. Maybe it's the weather?

[Nutmegger]

99. Freeper TROLL!!!

:sarcasm:

Welcome :hi:

[pnorman]

100. "oversight, accountability and checks and balances"

Frankly, I'd be satisfied. That should be enough to slowly undo much of the evil that had been done. Any attempt at impeachment of that silly twerp, would just be a long and tiresome distraction.

pnorman

[IWantPeace]

102. He should have been removed already for illegal wiretapping

Look at how many lives he has harmed....9/11, Afghanistan, Iraq, Katrina...look at what he has done to our Constitution! our freedoms!!!

What might he do in the next two years?

[pnorman]

103. As long as John Conyers proceeds, and at his own pace,

that might just come to pass. And I see NO indication at all that he's going to let up. That man is HARD! Perhaps a Truth and Reconciliation Commission might be next. Who knows what might come of THAT? (heh heh!)

The important thing right now is not only to consolidate and strengthen the new populist-Democrat faction, but to make sure it isn't co-opted amd/or hamstrung by the DLC.

pnorman

[Mythsaje]

107. Dubya's not even my primary concern...

I want to go after the Republican Party. My thought is that they'll throw Shrub to the wolves to avoid getting caught up in the investigations.

I say start with congress and the war profiteers and follow the trail where it leads.

[Warren DeMontague]

108. Well, color me surprised.

Who Knew? :shrug:



http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=user_profiles&u_id=199120

[New Earth]

109. I thank this thread

for my morning entertainment today :rofl:

[Laurab]

110. Damn - now I can't share my concern

for his concern.

Why haven't they done anything yet? I mean, just because they're not sworn in until January is no excuse - they're falling down on the job and they haven't even started yet dammit.

I'm concerned - CALL CONGRESS NOW!:sarcasm:

[xiamiam]

114. this thread should have read:OMG, OMG, THE SKY IS FALLING

have faith...there are few to have faith in...but conyers is definitely one of them...and with waxman leading investigations...i would think that impeachment would be welcome to what they truly deserve...

[wakemeupwhenitsover]

115. I'm going to lock this

since the original poster is no longer with us.

best,
wakemeupwhenitsover

DU Moderator