I know there was a lot of talk about what Conyers said and didn't say. Not sure if this was posted already. Received this from David Swanson.
-----=-=-=-=-=-
Playing With Us and With People's Lives
By David Swanson
Last Friday, Congressman John Conyers spoke in San Diego. Here's a
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.
Here's the video:
http://afterdowningstreet.org/node/25051On Monday, in Washington D.C., Conyers told a group of citizens that he had
no interest in pursuing impeachment. He had 45 of them arrested for sitting
in his office.
Opposing impeachment when the case is so clear is bad enough. But toying
with us about it amounts to playing with people's lives. Every day that
Conyers holds off on impeachment, people die as a result of Cheney and
Bush's crimes.
It is for the best that the sit-in on Monday has exposed the truth of
Conyers' position. We can now all stop saying "He wants impeachment and
will do it very soon," as so many people have been saying for the past 7
months. That deception leads to apathy. We can now say "He opposes
impeachment and will do it as soon as we force him and his colleagues to do
their jobs." That understanding leads to activism.
Printer-friendly format
Email this thread to a friend
Bookmark this thread
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
