CONYERS ON DEMOCRACY NOW on Impeachment

[yurbud]

While talking about Gonzo leaving, Amy Goodman asked him why they weren't starting impeachment proceedings.

He gave a kind of cryptic answer at first, "It would put the election in jeopardy," then tried to change the subject.

Amy circled back to that comment and he gave a number of reasons: we can't try to remove president and VP so close to an election, there isn't enough time left, the White House has stonewalled and foot-dragged on answering subpoenas, and finally, he said he doesn't have the votes in the house to send charges to the Senate nor votes in the Senate to convict. In the House, he said it's because of blue dog democrats and some new Dems from red areas who are skittish.

The transcripts from the show aren't up yet.


I can understand not having the votes for the charges, but the Senate could be influenced by the impeachment proceedings themselves.

He also talked about all the other stuff they have gotten done after being out of power for 12 years.

I wonder if Dems didn't make a deal with Bushies: we take impeachment off the table, and you give us x, y & z. If they made a deal like that, it would be very foolish and dangerous since the Bushies have a poor record of keeping their word.

I sincerely hope Conyers was lying and playing his cards close to the vest, and they will start proceedings after the recess.

[Junkdrawer]

1. Did you catch the bump music after his interview? "Would I Lie to You?"...

:rofl:

[mmonk]

2. They have made up their minds.

The risk of course is they don't get all the victories they feel they are protecting. And can the role of constitutional law be restored? I and others that support constitutional rule and justice feel pretty much defeated and uninterested in imaginary futures and guesses.

[groovedaddy]

3. What is necessary to bring in a "special prosecutor?"

With Nixon, you basically had one issue that applied to him - obstruction of justice. The numbers weren't there for impeachment in the beginning but as Archibald Cox found out more (people rolling over) the numbers quickly built for impeachment.
What I really don't like in this situation is that too many Dem members of Congress don't seem to think what Busy & co. have done is a big deal or that they really need to be stopped. It amazes me that ANY Dem would vote for expanded surveillance power after seeing what these people do with that power. They don't use it to just hunt "terrorists," they use it to hunt democrats. The whole U.S. attorneys firing episode shows that they are even willing to eat their own to get at Democrats.

THEY HAVE TO BE STOPPED!

[yurbud]

5. that's my feeling--it would gain momentum once forced into the limelight

[in_cog_ni_to]

4. Damn Blue Dogs have a stranglehold on our party. The biggest mistake ever made was

accepting them and giving them carte blanche to destroy the party FROM WITHIN. Dumb, dumb, dumb, dumb, dumb!

[yurbud]

6. what's the alternative beyond switching to a true multi-party democracy?

With the Chamber of Commerce party being the largest, composed mostly of republicans but a lot of democrats too, then smaller parties for the religious right and progressives, and smaller still for libertarians and racists.

[onenote]

8. right. it would be much better to have repubs elected in their place

folks that don't support a woman's right to choose, favor drilling in ANWR, oppose increasing the minimum wage, and vote against setting a timetable for withdrawing troops from Iraq. They would be much better than the Blue Dogs.

:sarcasm:

[peacetalksforall]

9. Knowing what we know now, we have to consider that the Repubicans

put some of these Democrats in office just as they are trying to put Sen Clinton into the race so they can smear her and rile up the hate and just as they are afraid of Edwards or Gore actually being the candidate.

Now we know having a majority by LABEL and TOTAL means NOTHING.

A two party system is a loser - in Congress and in situations like 2000 and 2004 where every vote was essential and veering was dangerous in light and retro-light of Republican and corporate thievery and cheating.

Sorry Jefferson and you other guys - it turns out we needed one more department to look after the people - a legal out by, of, and for the people.

[Vidar]

7. For two years (2004-06), Conyers was the point man on both

election reform & impeachment. I,and many others, rallied around him as a hero. Conyers & Feingold were almost the only glimmers of light in those days. Pelosi & Reid proved they were weak leaders at best early on, but we still had Conyers & Feingold.

Fast forward to present. We still have Kucinich and Feingold. Conyers has proven to be just another lying, triangulating politician, flip-flopping & pandering to the powers that be. His betrayal of our cause hurts more than anything since Kerry's supposed defeat. Shame on you, Mr. Conyers.

[EFerrari]

10. I don't think it's Mr. Conyers. But, the segment isn't on here yet

so I haven't seen him. Thanks for the heads up, yurbud.

[yurbud]

12. de nada. I have class today, so if you see the transcript link before I do, please post

[EFerrari]

13. Here it be:

http://www.democracynow.org/article.pl?sid=07/08/28/1526252

[yurbud]

11. Conyers is more perplexing than Kerry. He was tough when it was dangerous and went soft when things

turned around.

Kerry has been consistently medium soft all the way through, putting up the pretense of a fight before caving.