What John Conyers has said about Impeachment

[cynatnite]

No Rush to Impeachment

By John Conyers Jr.
Thursday, May 18, 2006; Page A23

As Republicans have become increasingly nervous about whether they will be able to maintain control of the House in the midterm elections, they have resorted to the straw-man strategy of identifying a parade of horrors to come if Democrats gain the majority. Among these is the assertion that I, as the new chairman of the House Judiciary Committee, would immediately begin impeachment proceedings against President Bush.

I will not do that. I readily admit that I have been quite vigorous, if not relentless, in questioning the administration. The allegations I have raised are grave, serious, well known, and based on reliable media reports and the accounts of former administration officials.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/05/17/AR2006051701880.html



Interview With John Conyers, on Impeachment and Investigating Bush

January 27, 2007 at 18:32:12

"There are a lot of progressives on our site who were angry, the day after the November election," I tell him. (You know who you are .)

He smiles and says, "The day after... that soon? The new congress wasn't even sworn in until January."

"Yep, the day after," I reply, adding, "They've been angry that impeachment is off the table."

He pauses, purses his lips, then nods his head, agreeing, saying, "They have lots of good reasons to be angry. But, you know, the presidential race is coming, in 2008.. and it's already 2007. If you know a way to take care of all the domestic issues, to successfully prepare to take the whitehouse, to investigate and prosecute and impeach-- tell me..."

http://www.opednews.com/articles/opedne_rob_kall_070127_interview_with_john_.htm

And finally this one:

The Constitution in Crisis: Censure and Investigate Possible Impeachment
by Congressman John Conyers
Tue Dec 20, 2005 at 08:36:36 AM PDT

The Report also concludes that these charges clearly rise to the level of impeachable conduct. However, because the Administration has failed to respond to requests for information about these charges, it is not yet possible to conclude that an impeachment inquiry or articles of impeachment are warranted.

In response to the Report, I have already taken a number of actions. First, I have introduced a resolution (H. Res. 635) creating a Select Committee with subpoena authority to investigate the misconduct of the Bush Administration with regard to the Iraq war and report on possible impeachable offenses.

http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2005/12/20/113636/15

The way I see it...Conyers wants impeachment as much as anyone else, but he knows it's just not going to happen unless there is Republican support. They can't even get enough of repuke support on the war let alone enough for impeachment. He's in the trenches in D.C. and has a far better grasp of the situation than any of us.

[beam me up scottie]

1. Sounds like treason to me.

:hi:
Good work, recommended.




on edit: Ack! What the hell am I doing in GD again???

Every DUer for themselves...

[John Q. Citizen]

4. Yes, it does.

[beam me up scottie]

6. .

[Guaranteed]

8. So, now John Conyers is a traitor to his country. nt

[LittleClarkie]

10. And dead civil rights leaders look down upon him from heaven and weep

Because expressing one's own disapproval isn't enough. One must incorporate the disapproval of someone greater than oneself, even if one never met them.

This stuff makes my teeth itch.

[John Q. Citizen]

14. It's not about personalities. It's about our constitution. i know that's kind of an

abstract thing, our constitution, compared to the nitty gritty palpable reality of political parties, elections, FOX News reports, and political heroes.

But please try to think in the abstract. Otherwise you will not understand abstract concepts. Like treason. Or the constitution.

I hope your teeth feel better.

[Guaranteed]

17. Is that a yes? John Conyers is a traitor to his country? nt

[John Q. Citizen]

20. It sounds like Conyers may be violating his oath of office. That surely isn't treason as defined

in the constitution, but it might be criminal negligence. I don't know if there is a statute that covers willfully violating an oath of office.

In Conyers words as quoted in the OP:
"But, you know, the presidential race is coming, in 2008.. and it's already 2007. If you know a way to take care of all the domestic issues, to successfully prepare to take the whitehouse, to investigate and prosecute and impeach-- tell me..."

I do think chaney probably committed treason when he conspired to out Plame, in that it gave aid and comfort to our enemies.

Party politics seems to have crowded out protecting and defending the constitution from all enemies foriegn and domestic. Conyers didn't take an oath to the 08 presidential elections, after all.

I realize that you may not appreciate my analysis, but I happen to believe that protecting and defending the constitution is of greater importance than the outcome of the 08 elections. I think it's more important than domestic issues. Maybe I'm wrong about that, but I don't think so.

Not using the constitutional remedy of impeachment because there are elections in 08 seems extremely short sighted and very dangerous. It gives widespead credence to the idea that the constitution is "just a gawd damn piece of paper," as bush is reputed to have said.

When our elected official give strength to that opinion through their action or inaction, how long after does it take for the people to accept that as reality? And once the people accept that, it's all over.

[lonestarnot]

33. And he is right, once the people accept that, it's all over. Pugs are gona get it.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=389x1436698

[Blue_Roses]

27. what a load of bullshit...

But please try to think in the abstract. Otherwise you will not understand abstract concepts. Like treason. Or the constitution.

Good grief:eyes:

[beam me up scottie]

12. They confuse him with Santa.

Remember when you didn't get that pony?

[LittleClarkie]

15. Are you into Elvis Costello at all?

For some reason, because of your post, I have "God's Comic" running through my head "Sometimes you confuse me with Santa Clause. It's the long white beard I suppose."

[beam me up scottie]

16. I used to listen to him.

Can't remember that one, though. I just pictured a little kid stamping his feet and yelling "I wanna pony now!"

[LittleClarkie]

18. Tell them to keep digging.

It's in there somewhere.

[beam me up scottie]

19. !

:rofl:

[helderheid]

41. "I'm goin' up to the pole where you folks die of cold. I might be gone for awhile if you need me..."

[Marrah_G]

25. Here is my solution

I just systematically ignore each one of these pathetic morons who feel it is just fine to slander one of our very best liberal congressmen. If all of us did that then they could have their happy little "that will teach him to let Cindy get arrested" orgasmic circle jerk all by their lonesome.

I don't waste my time listening to freeper hatred and an I am sure not going to waste my time listening to the very same vomit coming from of the posters here.

[proud2BlibKansan]

26. Yes I want to vomit

when our elected leaders ignore the constitution.

Country over party. I know - it's hard to understand.

[beam me up scottie]

31. It's probably the only way to save my sanity.

I understand blind fury when it's leveled at members of the bush cartel, just not one of our finest.

[mondo joe]

32. Maybe you understand it better than you think.

As you say, it is "blind fury".

It's the blind part that levels it at good men like Conyers.

[beam me up scottie]

34. After everything he has done, they would run him out of town on a rail.

It's completely irrational.

They want an infallible super hero, anything less is unacceptable.

[mondo joe]

35. We sent Congress to the market to sell the cow, and the Cindybots want to trade it for magic beans.

There's no denying that magic beans sound more exciting, and singing harps and golden eggs are a fuck of a lot better than whatever you can get for a cow at the market these days.

But the magic beans are still just a fairy tale, and politics is a drawn out, dreary and extremely mundane reality.

[beam me up scottie]

38. Conyers lives in the here and now.

If he's defeated in the next election, that long lost cow will never be found.

[myrna minx]

42. I'm with you Marrah_G.

I can't believe the vitriol spewed against Conyers here.

[cynatnite]

7. ...

:rofl:

[beam me up scottie]

11. My hat's off to you.

And I thought I was tough.

[emilyg]

2. K&R

[Cameron27]

3. Great post

K&R

[cutlassmama]

5. makes sense to me eom

[puebloknot]

9. "He's in the trenches..."

We the People are out on the open battlefield. It's dangerous to become too obsequious to any leader. They work for us.

It would be nice if Mr. Conyers (whom I've long respected) would pick a lane!

[KharmaTrain]

13. It Also Has To Be On Criminal, Not Political Charges

There's smoke all over the place, no real smoking gun. He is trying to build the case and this can't be based on "he lied us into a war"...they have to be firm, direct and ones that will compel some Repugnicans to support. Both Nixon and Clinton's impeachments were based on criminal referals where Nixon and Clinton were directly named and involved. Conyers doesn't YET have such goods on boooosh or cheney and can't get it while this regime stonewalls. Inherent contempt is the next step here...and to keep digging and putting pressure on this regime.

Above all, I am sure Conyers wants a successful impeachment...including a conviction in the Senate. There's no one with more experience in these matter than John Conyers Jr.

[DCKit]

24. Well, I guess they could pull the same stunt they did with Clinton...

Put him in front of congress and levy another criminal charge every time he opens his mouth. Simple

[mmonk]

37. Not true. They only need to be crimes against the constitution.

Many of what would be considered constitutional crimes have no corresponding statute.

[KharmaTrain]

40. We Go Into Real Unchartered Waters There

The reasoning for basing impeachment on pending or existing criminal charges was to derail a using political charges. While criminal ones are solid and irrefutable (Clinton lied about the blowjob), political ones i.e. "he lied us into war" is a subjective charge that is all but impossible to "prove beyond reasonable doubt". Surely the defense would be that Clinton and Edwards and other Democrats voted for the IWR, thus booosh didn't act alone or unilaterally. Other charges bounce just as well as it'd have to be proven that boooosh himself directed the crimes as opposed to the crimes being committed on his behalf. The old "what did the president know and when did he know it" game.

Also, when one violates criminal law, that person is committing a crime against the Constitution by not upholding their oath. It's an actual action as opposed to an statement or abstract interpretation that any good lawyer should be able to put up a solid defense. So the criminal avenue...as well as being based on an independent verdict is also the path of least resistance.

[mmonk]

43. We'll agree to disagree.

While criminal charges are great and one should seek them when they find them and use them in impeachment hearings, it doesn't define crimes against the constitution. Impeachable crimes are by their nature political, but they all aren't codified into criminal law.

[mmonk]

44. And thanks for mentioning the Clinton impeachment.

It makes my case, not yours. Perjury is a crime but typically not an impeachable crime unless it involves a political crime. Lying about a blowjob isn't a political crime.

[KharmaTrain]

45. The Bar Was Lowered...

The worst Clinton should have gotten was a Censure. Nixon is a better example as he had been named an unindicted co-conspirator on real crimes...and this is what Rodino used as the basis for his impeachment articles. Clinton's were an absolute joke...and a major reason Repugnicans in the Senate couldn't vote to convict.

Now we could go into the question as to if Clinton committed perjury...and the entire process...which, yes was highly political...and designed to do so. The hopes were to "shame" Clinton out of the White House...put the pressure on him to resign ala Nixon. Fortunately Clinton stood his ground...and prevailed. Nixon, with solid criminal charges and evidence would have faced a far different result. His crimes of abuse of power vs. Clintons of a "personal indiscretion" is also the difference between criminal and political. No, the "perjury" about the blowjob isn't a political crime, but was stretched to fit impeachment whereas Nixon's real crime and "smoking gun" would have compelled a majority in the Senate to convict.

The real mess of impeachment is its a game that really doesn't have specified rules. It's tried as a legal proceeding in a political arena/circus. Your investigators, judge and juror are all partisans who are under no obligation to render a verdict based on the law...only their interpretation of the Constitution...and we saw in the Clinton inquisition how contorted those arguments were in favor...be assured when a booosh/cheney impeachment occurs, we'll hear it in reverse.

Cheers...

[mmonk]

46. True. We may hear it in reverse.

These offenses, however, are exactly why impeachment is a part of the constitution as it upsets the balance of power and removes safeguards from the people. We might not see eye to eye currently as to the urgency, but we'll carry forth together.

[KharmaTrain]

47. A Matter Of Tactics, That's All

I'm with you on 99.9% of what you say. Our differences are just on how this game is played rather than the need to play it. I've learned to be a contrarian or devil's advocate...especially on things I strongly believe in...see the other side and that's what I'm doing here...just presenting the obstacles and roadblocks that I perceive are going on and how to best overcome them.

The balance of power is way out of whack and I am hopeful that we still have enough of a Judicial system to stand up with the Legislative to reign in this massive abuse of power and to prosecute the criminals. Allow an impeachment without a conviction, I fear, sends the wrong message as the acquital would be a failure...and as Josh Marshall points out, precedence would have been set.

I'm sure when the time comes to draw up articles, the political will be included, but more for examples of abuse as opposed to the direct crime.

Yes...we will carry forth and onward. I know I won't rest until justice is brought to these criminals and I'm willing to fight for years to ensure this happens.

:toast:

[mmonk]

48. I'm with you.

:toast:
They are too formidable to go it alone.

[Senator]

21. Conyers 2/02/07 -- "The short answer is that there isn't time,"

Sorry, but this statement post dates the ones you've selected.

So does that mean we are in for a third set of impeachment hearings in little more than a third of a century?

Well … probably not. "The short answer is that there isn't time," the chairman said in his distinctive, measured voice.

"There isn't time, and it would stop the progress that the Congress would otherwise be trying to make between now and when the elections occur next year."

And, he added candidly, "We've made this very reluctant decision because we need to add to our narrow majorities in both houses of Congress, and get ready to take back the presidency in 2008, and this would work exactly contrary to that."

But never say never.

He goes on to hold out the possibility of impeachment after leaving office (for the odd Brooklyn Bridge shopper in the crowd, I suppose). But only after running the gamut of false memes of the moment to rationalize inaction.

Of course, he continues to been unclear as to what "progress" he (and the rest of them) imagine they have any hope of making on anything else in the face of filibusters, vetoes, "rule by signing statement," and outright criminality by the regime. Even a failed, partisan impeachment is at least a feeble cry of "Stop. Constitutional Thief!"

It the propaganda "trenches in D.C." that "has a far better grasp" of him than any of us in the "reality-based community."

---

[GeorgeGist]

22. As I see it ...

John Conyers wants power more than anything else.

[Blue_Roses]

28. there you go again...

you just don't like Conyers, do you? Admit it and stop hiding behind the drive-by insults about a man who actually cares.

[H2O Man]

23. Thank you.

Much appreciated.

Nominated.

[mondo joe]

29. Why muck this place up with reason and fact? Give us magic beans instead!

Magic beans!

[Marrah_G]

30. not just any magic beans.........

MAGIC JELLY BEANS!

:bounce:

[NeedleCast]

36. Hehe, Nice

Reminds me of My Cousin Vinny.

"Were these magic beans?!?" Did you get them from the same person that sold Jack his beanstalk beans?!?"

[mmonk]

39. Also from Conyers (courtesy from democrats.com)

But as recently as May 18, in a column in The Washington Post headlined "No Rush to Impeachment," Conyers wrote that a new Congress ought to seek answers about whether "intelligence was mistaken or manipulated in the run-up to the Iraq war" as well as the extent to which "high-ranking officials approved of the use of torture and other cruel and inhumane treatment inflicted upon detainees." A select committee would forward evidence of any potentially impeachable offenses to the Judiciary Committee, he wrote.

-snip-

[KAT119]

49. Treason