John Conyers On Impeachment - San Diego (Also Transcript)

[Hissyspit]

Run time: 04:57 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Sc2gNxk5ohw   Posted on YouTube: July 25, 2007 By YouTube Member: Views on YouTube: 0   Posted on DU: July 25, 2007 By DU Member: Hissyspit Views on DU: 1715

 
John Conyers speaks about impeachment in San Diego on Friday, July 20, 2007. Cellphone Video.

TRANSCRIPT:

CONYERS: Now, let me close with this one suggestion, is that I need some Members of Congress to come to me and say Mr Chairman of the Judiciary Committee, I heard you were out in San Diego, and they really put it to you, and you made commitments that we don't know if you were just saying, saying something to get out of that hotel alive or were you, or were you serious and here's what we need to do. We need to have three Members of Congress from anywhere come and say, "Congressman, if you... if you are willing to support an inquiry into a resolution of whether there had been acts of impeachability conducted by, the Vice President of, and the President of the United States, that could lead to High Crimes and Misdemeanors, then we will join you if you introduce such a resolution."

SPECTATOR: With House Resolution 333, you have that right now, do you not?

CONYERS: No, I, I, this is something that we are working on right now. We don't have it right now.

SPECTATOR: We do have House Resolution 333.

CONYERS: I'm talking about more. Look. And so let us, let us see how many people would be willing to back us up, in addition to the ones --

SPECTATOR: Maxine Waters.

CONYERS: Let, let us, let us stay in close communication. These are decisions that should not be taken lightly. We have, I want to examine and put forward as we move along a close, critical examination of all of the benefits and the costs involved in making this momentous decision. It's easy to say that this is an easy, this is a no brainer, the logic is all on one side, and I wish that were so. If it were so, you would be here congratulating me for doing what you had been asking me and others to do for so long.

So let's think soberly about it. There is no, let's say, now is the time and we don't have to worry about the future. I, with due respect, disagree with that. I have to think about the future. I have to weigh what this, the impact of this is going to be. And, by the way, you probably know, that there is such a thing as the retroactive impeachment process.

SPECTATORS: No, what's that? Tell us more.

CONYERS: If you introduced the resolution of impeachment after the person is gone.

SPECTATOR: Really? Wow!

CONYERS: When, I just, I just want you to know about all of the things. I am so glad that Bill Moyers did what he did. Those CDs and, we have to, print, and we want everybody to listen to them carefully and think seriously on this matter.

(from afterdowningstreet.org)

[BridgeTheGap]

1. Impeachment is about justice and accountability

this administration consistently acts as though it is above the law. They have committed serious crimes. Who will hold them accountable?

[lynnertic]

2. So like W, Conyers suggests we let "history" decide?

That's like throwing a burglar out of your house after he's crossed state lines in your car with your stuff.

I'm for impeachment in order to stop more high crimes and misdemeanors from occurring.

Not having the votes, and needing to consider things we don't know, I'll buy that, but it insults my intelligence for him to suggest I hold out for impeachment "after the person is gone."

[FreepFryer]

3. Kicking. Thanks for providing a link to what Conyers actually said.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Sc2gNxk5ohw

[TheOtherMaven]

4. Nice soundbites

Too bad that's all they were. Too bad he was just BS'ing us. Too bad that if he GOT what he supposedly asked for (three more Congresspersons on board) he'd just move the goalposts again, like Lucy and the football.

"Retroactive impeachment" has never been tried - probably because it's utterly USELESS. The point of impeachment is to make it possible to GET the person out of the office. Impeachment per se is not removal - something I don't think Rep. Conyers understands.

For that matter, in all 220 years of our history under the Constitution, there have only been three impeachments of high government officials (two Presidents and a Supreme Court Justice). NONE were convicted by the Senate, and NONE were removed from office. ALL had their reputations stained for posterity.

Tell me again why we shouldn't impeach because "we don't have the votes"?

[Hissyspit]

5. Welcome to DU, TheOtherMaven!

:patriot:

:toast:

[Administrator1]

6. Barbara Jordan

On this day July 25, 1974, the late Congresswoman Barbara Jordan (D-Texas)spoke before the House Judiciary Committee on the subject of impeachment and the Constitution. If you want to hear a real representative's defense of impeachment and the Constitution, click the link. Where are the Barbara Jordans of today? I promise if you listen to her, you will not be disappointed.

http://www.massachusettsobserver.com/barbarajordan.htm