Conyers: Impeachment is not a no-brainer

[Enrique]

which I guess makes it a brainer.

http://www.tinyrevolution.com/mt/archives/001630.html

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 (laughter) 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"...
QUESTIONER: We do have House Resolution 333.

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

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. Um. It's easy to say that this is, this is a no brainer. It's, 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. 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...If you introduced the resolution of impeachment after the person is gone.

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

1. Hmm.

"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..."

So is Conyers going to step up and be one of those three? If not why not?

[proud2BlibKansan]

2. Sounds like he is more concernd about the impact of impeachment

Translation: he is worried it will hurt the 2008 campaign.

[mmonk]

4. It will hurt either way.

Too many people know impeachable offenses have occurred. It takes only a relatively small percentage to swing an election.

[C_U_L8R]

5. that's a valid concern... any chess players here?

how are things looking several moves forward?

[Enrique]

7. I think he would admit that

he would say that the next elections, and future elections, are part of the cost-benefit considerations that must be done.

[Buns_of_Fire]

10. Which would also explain the "retroactive impeachment" comment, I suppose

Although, for the life of me, I can't see what THAT would accomplish.

(On edit: I know, it's "impeacH" not "impeacE". Why do they put all these different letters on the same keyoard?)

[nadinbrzezinski]

12. They lay the same bet in '88

you do remember the Walter Mondale Presidency, don't you?

[proud2BlibKansan]

13. Yes I was just reading your other post

Thanks for the history lesson!

When I heard David Swanson speak a month ago, he detailed what happened to the party that impeached or threatened to impeach every time it happened. And it has NEVER hurt the party bringing the impeachment charges. Quite the opposite most of the time.

[ORDagnabbit]

3. so why was he so gung ho for it before the dems got into power? actions are louder than words.

[mmonk]

6. He is being directed not to.

Probably had his position on judiciary threatened. I intend to pursue who is calling the shots and why.

[proud2BlibKansan]

8. Good strategy

[Enrique]

9. Conyers has been in Congress for 40 years

he is not controlled by Nancy Pelosi or anyone else. He would resign his chairmanship before caving in on something he thought was truly important. Otherwise we wouldn't respect him as much as we do.

[goclark]

11. Absolutely agree ~ he is a real leader

and I believe he would move to impeach if he had anywhere near a change to push it.

Keep it rolling Conyers! :bounce:

[mmonk]

14. That may be so and why he was in position for his

position on the judiciary. However, he does not control the party and the party could very well have told him not to pursue it. The obvious is most likely true and he did a 90 degree turn.

[Enrique]

18. if he's cooperating with the leadership, it's because he has chosen to do so

I trust his judgement, which includes allowing the possibility of impeaching Bush.

[EFerrari]

20. True. And the Democrats have been out of power for so long,

I understand that there are very serious decisions to be weighed here.

And, we need to impeach the Decider and his puppetmaster.

[onenote]

40. Sure, he's in mortal danger of losing his position.

Not. There's not a snowball's chance in hell that Conyers' position on judiciary has been threatened. In case you didn't know, committee assignments are made by the Democratic Steering and Policy Committee which has around 50 members. Pelosi would put her own position as speaker at considerable risk if (1) the Democratic caucus as a whole was demanding impechment and (2) she tried to take down Conyers for honoring their wishes.

The fact is that the Democratic caucus as a whole isn't demanding impeachment and Conyers and Pelosi are doing what leaders do --- counting votes and picking their fights.

[LSK]

41. I would bet it is Rahm

[GOTV]

25. Obviously, it's easier to talk tough when you know you don't have to back it up....

... now people can expect him to act on his words, being in the majority now.

[merh]

15. Damn cowards

And, by the way, you probably know, that there is such a thing as the retroactive impeachment process...If you introduced the resolution of impeachment after the person is gone.

If there is a nation left to worry about and if the shits don't do something before 2008 to retain office and power.


Damn it to hell, do it now, get them out now before they can do more harm. Distract them from the plotting and planning and bombing and killing. Hit their pocket books for their defenses.

NOW!

[Enrique]

16. Conyers knows that Bush is gone in 2009

and that the nation will be there, with all of the problems and challenges that need to be met.

[mmonk]

21. What kind of nation?

We're in unchartered waters now if impeachment is not pursued. What has been restored? What kind of precedent is set by not impeaching such an impeachable executive branch? It is always a bad idea for those in power to toy with the rights and protections guaranteed to all citizens. I don't accept any of this lightly if at all.

[Enrique]

23. if that was the case, then how would impeachment solve it?

what's so magical about impeachment that would restore America to its rightful condition?

I posted a Bernie Sanders video in the video forum where he says that there are no easy fixes, that it will take hard work, smart political policy, to achieve his goal of defeating right-wing extremism, which he says is currently on the ropes.

[GOTV]

26. "There are no easy fixes" - not according to many here....

... with spray-on, lemon-scented IMPEACHMENT, now with scrubbing bubbles, our nation can be cleaned while we relax!

[mmonk]

28. Fine, let it all slide.

Let America be ruled by people above the law and creating new laws that conflict with the constitution on the fly. I'm tired of arguing for applying the constitutional remedy for breaches of the constitution. I guess there is no mechanism then (I don't believe this, just don't how to convince people we need to take a stand).

[GOTV]

30. That's not the other option. It is a common strawman however...

... I used to get that all the time when I argued against the Iraq war. "Fine, just let Saddam get away with everything. I'm sure Saddam is actually a great guy. You and he would probably be best buds".

You characterize an opponent with a ridiculous statement attributed to him. In this case the view that he wants to "let it all slide" which is not what he said.

It's not the previous poster who ends up looking ridiculous.

[mmonk]

32. Not impeaching is letting impeachment slide or am I missing

something?

[GOTV]

34. You are missing something. That's why you resorted to a strawman. n/t

[mmonk]

35. Then tell me what I'm missing instead of throwing accusations

around. There is no malice on my part. There is no reason for me to keep arguing the point if I can't change someone's mind. That was my point. Impeachment is the remedy for malfeasance and abuse of power granted to us by the constitution. There's no body of laws and punishment codified when addressing the POTUS or OVP. So please tell me. What did I miss and what was my intent (which must have been subconsciously)?

[GOTV]

36. Why don't you go back and address the previous post without the strawman for a start....

... I'm not going to discuss your strawman but if you can re-respond to the poster above without accusing him of wanting to "let it all slide" maybe we can get somewhere.

You started with questionable debate tactics (no malice?). Go correct that and we'll see if you've something reasonable to add.

[mmonk]

37. I will apologize to the poster.

I do not change my position that hearings and threats without bite or consequence to the president or vice president do little to protect us.

[GOTV]

39. Then, as far as I can tell. We're all in agreement. n/t

[mmonk]

42. I think the current course is not proper nor adequate.

The Iran Contra hearings showed us if you fish for minnows, you catch minnows.

[mmonk]

38. I apologize Enrique for my letting it all slide comment.

[KharmaTrain]

17. He Needs More Evidence

He wants a criminal impeachment, not a political one. Here's a man whose sat on two Impeachment panels. If there's anyone in the Congress who knows what's involved here it's John Conyers Jr. There needs to be real crimes here, not hypotheticals. This requires solid investigating and evidence...things that can be put forward...in specific date and time...as to real crimes committed by booosh and or cheney. It can't be what Rove or Gonzo did or that they did it at his behest...there needs to be direct evidence...the "smoking gun"...that can be written into specific articles.

Political crimes present a slippery slope...as this truly lowers the bar. What precedence is set in this manner surely will come back to bite a possible future Democrat...and sorry, this needs to be emphasized as the Repugnicans used Watergate as their motivation for the endless Clinton inquiries and they'd use a lowered bar in the future to oust a Democrat on just looking the wrong way.

The focus has to be on doing anything to put the brakes on this runaway regime...cutting its funding, forcing its enablers to testify and provide information (evidence), diverting its attention from its ongoing plundering to play defensive. Yes, impeachment of this regime is one that must be visited...but first, let's get some real solid rope...not one this regime can slip out of.

[mmonk]

24. So the legal scholars and constitutional lawyers have all this wrong?

[KharmaTrain]

29. And They're On The Judiciary Committee?

They'll have a chance to testify when the time comes...and I have a feeling Cong. Conyers will have those hearings in the not so distant future. It's part of the process.

Also part of the process is determining the crime that is used in the articles. It can't be vague or hypothetical as "lying"...but specific as pejury. It can't be the appearance of crimes, but the actual documentation that can be used in writing up the articles, just like an indictment is written in a criminal trial. Again, the emphasis here is criminal, as political charges can be easily beaten while solid criminal ones are far more compelling.

Sadly, for every scholar we can come up with, this regime will throw up a Ted Olson or Bork or some other "respected scholar" who will say those other scholars are all wrong...and sadly, they may hold sway in such arguments presented in the SCOTUS.

[GOTV]

31. Maybe. Scholars sometimes disagree, so even scholars can be wrong n/t

[debbierlus]

19. I am calling my Congress member now

I have a lot of respect for Conyers - I think he wants to impeach & he is smart enough to set it up so he will have the best chance of success.

I will call my Congress Person today.

[dorkulon]

22. Honestly, I think this issue is too important to weigh against

political considerations. This is about whether we live in a country that follows the law and punishes those who break it. If we don't impeach the most criminal administration in our history, I frankly don't think the Democrats deserve to win any elections anyway. If Conyers is such a man of integrity, he would see it that way too.

[GOTV]

33. Ah, but impeachment doesn't punish, only conviction does. Cen we get a conviction?

If we can't get a conviction, we can't get punishment. If you don't care about conviction can you really care about punishment?

[OPERATIONMINDCRIME]

27. Keep It Up John! We're With You And Got Your Back!

That's why I love John. He's one of our best and brightest. He knows what he's talking about here. I give him the world of respect and pray he'll make it through the attacks from the far left irrational extremists alive. We're with ya John!

[3waygeek]

43. He's right...

if it were a no-brainer, the Rethugs would support it.