Conyers Staffer Says They Choose to Let Bush Keep Breaking Laws

[davidswanson]

Conyers Staffer Says They Are Choosing to Let Bush Continue Violating Laws

Continuing Battle with Conyers' Office on Impeachment
By Donna Norton, Sonoma County PDA

On January 25th, I had a telephone conversation (40 mins +) with a legislative assistant in Conyers' office regarding impeachment. He had obviously been well-instructed on how to express their current policy. Our conversation included both Bush and Cheney, and took some strange turns, but this is basically the stand they're taking:

* Impeachment's not necessary. The next election will take care of EVERYTHING. Just ELECT DEMOCRATS. (This chorus was repeated throughout our discussion.)

* A sitting President is not subject to court actions. Nothing in the Constitution says a President is subject to the law. He finally conceded this remains an "unsettle" question in the courts. (I insisted on documentation to support his statements, and he emailed me a Congressional report, 1978 "CRS Report for Congress" #98-186 A, on impeachment, about 30 pgs.)

* Congress does not have an OBLIGATION or duty to investigate or take any action to prevent a President from breaking the law or abusing his powers. It's totally up to THEIR DISCRETION.

* It's okay for their decision to be based on party politics rather than Constitutional considerations because the decision is solely theirs to make.

* The courts can follow up with any illegal acts of the President or Vice-President AFTER they're out of office, and all will be fine.

* Correcting power-abuse really has no meaning because power is what it's all about. They all abuse it. So what? It's just politics.

We both agreed that according to what he was telling me, it boils down to the following:

A sitting President is not subject to the law as long as he remains in office. He can CONTINUE to break laws as long as he remains in office. He can only be removed DURING his term of office (and therefore become subject to the law) through impeachment. Only Congress can impeach, and it's solely up to their DISCRETION. So, as long as Congress successfully blocks the impeachment process, they are willfully allowing the President to remain completely outside the law, condoning that principle, and, in effect, shielding him from being removed from office so that he will be subject to the law and can be prosecuted. Congress has no OBLIGATION to intervene.

The aide seemed not the least bit disturbed by the gravity or import of my conclusions. It is, after all, just politics. And, by the way, electing Democrats to office will take care of everything (just in case I forgot to mention that).

[Fredda Weinberg]

1. Ain't a constitutional republic a bitch? But everything there is true n/t

[Occulus]

18. And that just doesn't bother you in the least, does it now, Fredda?

:eyes:

[Fredda Weinberg]

28. R U kiddin? When my brother, who is the judge in the family,

explained this crap to me I was literally pounding the table (in our favorite thai restaurant ... he was veg that day). He's very patient when I lose my temper - I demonstrate the emotion he won't.

Ain't it sumthin, though. When he described how the supremes are a political body - ooooh, you should have been there for that scene.

Bother me? Hell yes ... but he patiently explained the reasoning for it and I accept. Should I repeat his lecture for your benefit?

[JAbuchan08]

120. It is up to their discretion

and I will concede that, which means that there need to be political consequences for the Dems or they will never find their spines. If we continue to put "pragmatists" into power, we will continue to experience the erosion of our Democracy.

[pat_k]

148. It is the cry of a brat who refuses to do what they know they should:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=389&topic_id=2802632&mesg_id=2805635">"Nah nah na-na nah! You can't make me !!"

[pat_k]

146. Here's a "lecture" for your brother:

Their oath obliges them. Their own House Rules oblige them. (see "http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=389&topic_id=2802632&mesg_id=2805635">this post)

The only thing "true" is that there is no authority that can FORCE a Member of Congress to meet their moral obligations.

All the staffer is saying is: "http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=389&topic_id=2802632&mesg_id=2805635">Nah nah na-na nah! You can't make us !!"

It is the cry of a brat who refuses to do what they know they should. It is a shameful, morally repugnant, and unacceptable display.

No. We can't "make them" act morally or rationally. We can't "make them" do their duty. We can only lobby them to meet their obligations. We can only hold up a mirror and reflect their craven immorality back at them.

Unlike a soldier who would be subject to the penalty of death for dereliction, the only available punishment for their dereliction is "political death" -- i.e., rally voters against them and seek to knock them out with a successful primary challenger.

[Fredda Weinberg]

159. Whoah ... look up writ of mandamus

I don't need to ask him again about one of those - had to get the mayor to implement the city commission's charter for my kids, cops and computers program. Turned out the asst city manager who got us the spare parts to expand the learning center, but you get the point.

[pat_k]

191. Certainly, we could seek a writ of mandamus to direct them to

. . . fulfill the moral obligation they "took freely; without mental reservation."

Seeking such a writ could be an effective lobbying technique -- a way to get the question of their duty into the news, and a way to get them questioning the morality of their inaction. And who knows, it could be granted.

If it were granted, Members of Congress could use their "discretion" to submit to it or to dismiss it. They could even impeach members of the court for attempting to usurp their "discretion" to act immorally, if they feel strongly enough about it. (But I imagine doing so would be likely to put an end to their political careers.)

The thing is, there is no escape from the moral duty. We can look to this or that analysis of the governing law, but the reality of their moral obligation remains.

How would their excuses fly at the Hague? How would their willful refusal to use the ONLY power available to stop war crimes go over there?

Reality has a nasty way of rearing it's head. Any other Party to the Geneva conventions would be well within their rights to consider Pelosi and Conyers willful accomplices. If they go overseas, they could indeed find themselves facing charges at the Hague. Any Party to the Conventions would be well within their rights to pick them up and turn them over to answer charges.

[ixion]

21. no it isn't

It doesn't NEED to say the President is subject to the law, because ALL are subject to the law. What this staffer was claiming is trying to prove a negative.

This has nothing to do with a constitutional republic, which is BASED on the Rule of Law. This is corporate fascism, pure and simple. And the nonchalant attitude of the staffer is indicative of this.

Any government official takes an OATH to "defend and protect" the constitution, not their own political party. Protecting and selling their party because of refusal to do perform their sworn duties violates this oath.

I'm amazed at how glibly you dismiss fascism.

[Fredda Weinberg]

31. The 3 bodies of government are

branches of the same organism and are all political. The supreme court defines the constitution, so you cannot say they are subject to the law passed by another branch ... unless of course, you dismiss logic. The executive branch has even more complicated responsibilities.

Don't throw around terms like fascism to a holocaust survivor's daughter ... you earn nothing but contempt.

[fascisthunter]

52. He/She Already Earned Your Contempt before Stating Fascism

by telling you the truth

[DadOf2LittleAngels]

61. Sorry but youre way off

"The supreme court defines the constitution, so you cannot say they are subject to the law passed by another branch"

Sure they are! If not there would be no meaningful checks and balances. A supreme Court judge can be impeached. Article Two pretty clearly allows for a judge to be removed for breaking the law. The supremes Courts job is only to act as the arbiter of laws passed *not* to make laws and not to be above them.

[MrCoffee]

62. Let's not forget a little thing called the Judiciary Act of 1789

They'd have gotten away with it if it weren't for that meddling Congress!

http://www.constitution.org/uslaw/judiciary_1789.htm

[Fredda Weinberg]

73. Sorry, but those are inferior courts. The supremes have become

an entity onto themselves. That's just the way it iz ... have a talk w/a lawyer if you must. I already did.

[MrCoffee]

84. Sorry, but you're wrong.

In the Judiciary Act, jurisdiction of the Supreme Court was established (Sec. 13),as well as the composition of the Court (Sec. 1), and power of the SCOTUS to issue writs (Sec. 15), and the power of the Court to sit as a court of equity (Sec. 16), and limits on SCOTUS power after remand (Sec. 24)...shall I continue?

Congress exercises power over the SCOTUS all the time.

[Fredda Weinberg]

91. I love this ... my brother the judge just came home

In Marbury v. Madison, Chief Justice Marshall asserted that the doctrine of judicial review permitted the Court to review the constitutionality of congressional legislation. Before the end of his 34 years, he succeeded in strengthening the central government and making the Judiciary branch, in some respects, the strongest branch of the national government.

http://supreme.lp.findlaw.com/supreme_court/supcthist.html

And I remembered!

[JAbuchan08]

121. ultimately when the judicial government strikes a law down as unconstitutional

they are using a set of legal rules laid out by the constitution to decide what is legal. Essentially they are using one set of laws to judge the legality of another set of laws. Judges can't just create law out of whole cloth (although they do) and they have an obligation not to misinterpret laws for their own purposes (although they do)

[Fredda Weinberg]

161. Oh dear ... we're approaching a tender spot. Now, the supremes

could and did, change their mind on slavery for strictly political reasons. That's history ... don't argue w/me ... pound your own table.

[JAbuchan08]

188. You're confused

we're talking about the difference between legal and moral obligation. The decisions of the justices carry weight, but their moral obligation is to interpret the law according to how it is written, not their own personal biases.
I agree that it doesn't always work out that way. That doesn't make it right.
You can argue until you are blue in the face that there is no way that we can legally force our representatives into fufilling their moral obligation to represent us and protect our constitution.
Ultimately you are correct, our constitutional republic works largely upon the honor system. There is no way to force our representatives (and judges and executive officers) into honoring their obligations, we rely on them to police themselves.
So while you are entirely right, you are also entirely wrong.

Basically it is our acceptance of injustice which allows it to continue.

[Fredda Weinberg]

74. Ah ... impeachment again, is a political process. Look, I wish things

were simpler, but do you really want to rehash months of legal back and forth? Things are the way they are for a good reason ... not because Conyers or anyone else sold out. Don't you get it?

[pat_k]

156. And the system is designed to ensure that

. . .the creation, execution, and application of our law is the best reflection of Our Will possible.

Contrary to what the new American fascists would have you believe, the three branches of Government DO NOT share power equally.

When we established the Constitution, we yielded NONE of our Sovereignty to ANY institution we created, but we did vest more power in Congress -- our voice -- than in the Judiciary or the Executive.

How do we know we gave Congress more power? Simple. We gave Congress the Power to Impeach officials in the Executive and Judiciary. There is no reciprocal power. Only the House can expel a Member of the House. Only the Senate can expel a Member of the Senate.

The design of our constitution anticipated the need balance conflicting interests. When the laws we pass to address specific problems (or an interpretation of those laws) conflict with each other, or with the tenets of our Constitution, we look to the judiciary to resolve these conflicts in a manner that ensures that the application of the law is the best reflection of our will that can be achieved in an imperfect world. As we strive for a more perfect union it is the work of the Supreme Court to step in and judge whether applicable law and prior decisions are consistent with our guiding principles.

And, as you note, if Congress deems a ruling to be corrupt -- even a ruling by the Supreme Court -- they can impeach and remove the offending justices. And so it goes full circle. Ultimately, they all answer to us in the voting booth, but we must have the power to remove an official midterm to minimize the damage that a corrupt official can do. Impeachment is of absolutely necessity to the preservation of our sovereign authority over the people we "hire" to execute, enforce, and apply our laws.

[Fredda Weinberg]

162. Let me take a step back and not apologize for the anti-democratic

methods in our republic. We're about protecting property rights ... the revolution was that the means of production were no longer feudal holding, but the corporate form of organization that began w/state charters has morphed into a modern entity few of us understand.

I don't expect you to have taken courses in economics, law or political theory but the truth is, as we say, self-evident.

This is not Marxian analysis. There is labor theory of value to speak of, but the modern economy can be mastered.

[pat_k]

187. You are certainly not alone when

it comes to believing that "We" are only about protecting property rights to the exclusion of any other interest. You are not alone in believing that "We" must just accept the notion that the laws governing corporate entities are beyond our control.

But the truth is, that's all crap. (Sorry, to be so harsh, but it is. And I don't mean to single you out. As I said, you are not alone.)

The truth is that the Constitution, and therefore the nation, is founded on the sole moral principle that legitimate government power can only be derived from the consent of the governed. And our history is the story of our efforts to expand the electorate to bring more of us into the process of shaping a government that balances our conflicting interests, protects the few from the tyranny of the many, and solves our common problems.

Fascist factions can only manipulate events to advance their agenda at our expense when enough of us are deceived into opting out in hopeless resignation because we have been convinced we are "powerless" in the face of "the markets" or "the corporations" or the "elite" or some abstract "law" that we have no control over.

The corrupt require a manageable little insular world, where they set the "rules" of the "game" and where irrational group think goes unchallenged. The greedy who line their pockets at our expense only hold sway as long as enough of us keep our noses out of "their" business.

And when pessimistic cynics who go under the guise of "realists" and the "experts" who proclaim superior knowledge, tell us how powerless we are, how it is all too "complex" for the likes of us, they do nothing but serve the fascists. And in our current crisis they are serving the war criminals.

The more we know, the easier it is to lose track of general principles and get pulled in a rat hole of "legal technicality." Scholarship is extremely valuable, but when analysis, no matter how scholarly, is in direct conflict with fundamental principle, it is faulty. Period. When the intent of the law or common sense are violated by a conclusion, the conclusion must be rejected. And any conclusion that cuts the sovereign authority of the people out of the loop is crap.

All to often, the naive see far more clearly than the sophisticated. The story of The Emperor's New Clothes" carries a warning we need to heed.

The truth is that, as the only real stakeholders, we ARE the government. And the government is nothing more than the people we charge with certain duties and entrust with certain powers. They are PEOPLE who are subject to our authority. And we are in turn subject to the laws we set for ourselves and under which the government officials we "hire" operate. We designed a system in which the power to shape our government to meet our needs resides solely and irrevocably with us; the governed; We the People.

That truth is unchanged, no matter how dysfunctional or corrupt we may allow our government to become. We designed a system that can only be corrupted when we opt out. We designed a system that enables us to "opt back in" and effect repairs any time.

Internalizing the concept “We are the Government” can be difficult. When the public institutions that embody our power and enable us to protect our interests are under siege or become dysfunctional, it is easy to become disconnected from the reality of our sovereignty. Particularly when there are so few examples of it in action.

Corporations are nothing more than legal entities created to participate in, and profit from "the market." No matter how "complex" the law may be, when the application of it does us harm, we have the power to say "No Way" and put our will into effect with the force of our law.

Corporations are run by people -- designated officers and boards -- who are subject to our authority. They can run the business morally or immorally. We have the power to forbid immoral acts. We may be doing a poor job of asserting our authority over them, but that does not change fact that they are subject to us and must operate under whatever rules we collectively deem necessary. Asserting our authority over corporations is simply a matter of asserting our authority over our government -- the institutions we established to turn our collective will into reality.

And with the magnitude of the corruption and blatant violations of our laws that Bush and Cheney are committing, more and more of us are "sticking our noses" in and challenging the denizens of the insular world inside the beltway. More and more of us are out there challenging their irrational impeachophobic fears. More and more of us are doing more than voting. We are confronting are representatives and demanding that they do the job we hired them for. And as more of us get the hang of "sticking our noses in" we are not likely to "butt out" again.

We are seeing the vicious cycle of spreading inaction, corruption, hopelessness, resignation turn into a virtuous cycle of spreading action, hope, change, and more hope. Time will tell, but if more of us challenge the arm chair complainers; if more of us see others accomplishing things; if more of us say "Hey, I CAN do something!", then we can finally begin to exert our authority over the people who serve us, and get back into the messy business of solving our common problems, balancing conflicting interests, protecting OUR interests, and reclaiming our authority over greedy CEOs and others who would happily subjugate us.

We know what our interests are. We know there are others with conflicting interests. We know it is a messy business of balancing those interests, but the process can't even start if we believe it is not "our place" to make demands. We will continue to be exploited as long as too many of us believe that it is all too "complex" for the likes of us; that there are too many "technicalities" and "loopholes" that we'll never understand, and therefore can never fix.

Well, more of us are saying "crap" to those who would have us "butt out." More of us are seeing the that the emperor has no clothes, and instead of believing the "experts" who tell us otherwise, we are believing our own eyes.

And as more of us demand a seat at the table, we can begin to reshape things to serve our common interests.

[ixion]

67. I agree with you that politics and government are deeply entwined

however they are, at the core, separate entities. Governments primary role (in theory) is the facilitation of the infrastructure. The role of politics, ultimately, is to exploit this for the gain of a certain party, which is where the problem begins. Removing the ability of politicians to exploit government for their own gain is the first step in restoring a government of the People.

And, Fredda, I whole-heartedly sympathize with what your mother went through at the hands of the Nazis. No human being should be allowed to cause that kind of suffering on another, in my opinion. Not ever. On the other hand, holocaust survivors and their families don't have a monopoly on suffering or on the word fascism. My family's lineage is Scotch-Irish, who suffered horrible atrocities for hundreds of years at the hands of the British. Therefore I would appeal to you as one human to another to not hold others in contempt simply because they don't share your views. Thanks.

[Fredda Weinberg]

72. I resent being called a fascist. An Irishman wouldn't want to be called Orange

You know, before you lecture me on how I should or should not feel, maybe you should know it was my father who survived Hitler. I'm not victim ... and because he never capitulated, even in the labor camps, neither was he.

So take your victimhood and respectfully, stuff it. I won't be accused of fascism by someone who can't define it.

You are wrong about the role of politics. Your definition tells me all about you - not your philosophical mentor. I live by a simple rule ... see my signature for details.

Now, you started off well, but ended badly by trying to deny my feelings. We can argue about facts, disagree about methods, challenge each others' methodologies ... but never, ever deny what another person perceives. It's rhetorical suicide and the end of civil discourse.

[ixion]

85. uh, I didn't call YOU a fascist

and I'll thank you not to read things into my posts that aren't there.

If you don't want my sympathy, fine, don't accept it. But your condescending manner is neither simple nor appreciated.

Thanks.

Oh, and the Orange/Green thing has to do with Protestants vs. Catholics, not the Irish in general.

[Fredda Weinberg]

88. Oh, I knew that ... but like an Irishman, you join a fight that's

not yours. Sympathy? A Bronx cheer to you ...

[ixion]

96. not mine? this land is your land, this land is my land

hence my fight, too.

[Fredda Weinberg]

99. Only if you'd cross that line ... but this was bluster. I know we agree on

fundamental principles and you've been well raised. So no, lad ... I won't lay a finger on you.

[nadinbrzezinski]

123. There is a reason why she is on ignore as far as I am concerned

and as a daughter of a holocaust survivor I do not hold the imprimatur on suffering.

Hell, the Scotch Irish, Italians and currently many in Africa (Darfour comes to mimd) as we as Vietman, Cambodia, Argentina, Chile, and of course Iraq, deserve as much compassion as my dad. Oh and of that generation we made a disservice to the other seven million who also died, and have been forgotten. (Gypsies, gays, political prisoners, socialists, communists, rusian POWs, et al)

[bobthedrummer]

102. I never forgot, it has happened here, it isn't totalitarian, yet- but it is "universal fascism"

shielded by "privatization"-and The House Judiciary Committee is aware of that.

Never again for Israel-because it's our turn now. Never forget.

[tavalon]

137. Exactly!

It's so frustrating these days when I talk about the fascism invading this country, I get the equivalent of having Godwin's Law invoked. Germany wasn't the only government to go fascist, before and since, there have been plenty. And yes, fascism isn't always totalitarianism. They know we won't except that,...... yet. They need to normalize it in small increments. Thats called normalized deviance in the medical field. They do this little thing and then it becomes the norm, then they add that little thing and it becomes the norm and so on. Right now we are in the stage where they pretend it's all the same as it ever was, you're to just go on buying and we'll even let you "vote". We will give you a little feeling of winning every once in a while and encourage you to continue doing those things which keep you distracted, be they watching Dancing With The Stars, shopping, or just holding down your two to three jobs "to put food on your family", to quote the silverspoon sociopath.

It's so frustrating to be dismissed and to have this stuff just keep escalating. I've never felt more like Cassandra than I do these days. It's cold comfort, nay, no comfort to know I'm right.

[Mnemosyne]

171. No comfort at all, tavalon. Those of us speaking up decades ago

in regards to the US sliding into fascism through "marketing", take no pleasure whatsoever in being right after all.
It is so completely heart-breaking to most I know and speak with here and elsewhere. :hug:

They've used the marketing technique known as branding on the entire country for much longer than most imagine and still too many do not notice what they've done/tried to do to us. I sorrow for the suffering to come to the innocent and ignorant in this country, but even more, I feel sorrow for how terrible it will need to become before the distracted masses finally focus their anger due to starvation, sickness and fear.

Excellent rant, btw! :applause:

[bobthedrummer]

185. That is what history shows, precisely-the "increments"

For example, eugenics and "race hygiene" psuedo-science in the Weimar Republic.

"January 1, 1934: The Law for the Prevention of Hereditarily Diseased Offspring took effect" (archived thread started 1-1-2008)
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=389x2570336

[Cronopio]

143. Civics 101 calling: "... the supreme court defines the constitution ..."

The Supreme Court *interprets* the Constitution. They are explicitly *not* allowed to define it - that's why the term "legislating from the bench" is a euphemism for judges who do not know the limits of their job.

"Interpret" is not the same as "define" - 10 out of 10 dictionaries agree.

By the way - this isn't something that is generally known - the Constitution doesn't not give the Judiciary the authority to interpret the Constitution - the first Chief Justice of the SOTU claimed that authority and it has never been questioned by any Congress since.

[Fredda Weinberg]

164. I'm not going to argue w/a dictionary, but I spent a lot of time on

definitions and so does the supreme court. When the does life begin ... I dare you to answer w/o defining what life is.

And you've got the inside joke ... but do you really consider Conyers a traitor for not challenging the status quo?

[pat_k]

197. "do you really consider Conyers a traitor for not. . " In a word, Yes.

It has been tragic to watch him betray our trust and allow all the good things he has fought for and accomplished to go down in flames.

He is not just betraying the nation. He is betraying himself.

[Cronopio]

145. "... a holocaust survivor's daughter ..."

No disrespect to your father, but Henry Kissinger is a Holocaust survivor. Many Kapos were Holocaust survivors too.

Being a Holocaust survivor *can* be a very honorable thing, but not automatically. Also, you don't need to be in a concentration camp to know what fascism is, and valid debate about it isn't limited to Holocaust survivors, or their progeny.

[Fredda Weinberg]

160. And you're calling the cooperators nazis? Shame on you.

And I won't accept it either, by those who can't define it. Don't you lecture me - you haven't earned the privilege.

[nadinbrzezinski]

175. Correction, good ol' Henry was not a holocaust survivor

he was a sergeant in the US Army.

Just wanted to correct this one.

;-)

After that, you are right, no need to go to a camp to smell and recognize the smell of fascism...

Hell version 2.0 existed where I grew up, and there were no camps.

[pat_k]

151. "Co-equal" is crap. The power to impeach is the trump card.

It is a power that is of absolute necessity to the preservation of our sovereign authority over the people we "hire" to serve us.

It is an awesome power that carries with it awesome responsibilities and duties. Obligations that are embodied in the Congressional oath and in their own House Rules. (see refs in http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=389&topic_id=2802632&mesg_id=2805635">this post)

In this crisis, they ARE morally obligated to impeach Bush and Cheney. Just because there is no constitutional authority that can force them to do their duty does not get them off the hook.

Saying "Nah Nah na-na nah! You can't make us!" doesn't get them off the hook.

I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; that I take this obligation freely, without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion; and that I will well and faithfully discharge the duties of the office on which I am about to enter

Everyone has the "descretion" to choose the moral path or the immoral path; the path of duty or the path of dereliction; the path of opposition or appeasement.

[pat_k]

153. Spot on. A fascist view of the law -- where so-called

. . . "legal authority" can trump the Intent of the Law has become pervasive. Many have bought the propaganda that it's all too complex for the likes of us. They simple submit when cynical abuse of the courts and claims of "complexity" or legal "technicality" subvert the express will of the people.

When Gore refused to denounce the criminal Bush v. Gore edict, he promoted this fascist view of the law. He told us there was nothing else we could do to right the blatant wrong. Everyone who paid any attention knew the election in Florida was incomplete, and therefore unlawfall. We all knew that more Floridians -- by the tens of thousands -- went to the polls to vote for Gore. That should have been the end of it. Even the fascists admitted that more people undoubtedly voted for Gore, but they sought to confuse and obscure that reality. They invoked "technicalities" to throw out legal votes. When that was not enough, they forever stained the Supreme Court by using it to stop the lawful count.

When Congress refused to reject the unlawful Florida electors on January 6th, 2001, they further promoted a fascist view of the law. They refused to tell the people that WE DO have a backstop against a corrupt or incomplete election.

And now, when Congress refuses to stand up and say NO! to the lunacy of a "unitary executive"; when they refuse to say NO! to turning Americans into torturers, they are promoting the notion that somehow we founded a nation in which such horrors must be tolerated because some "complexity" or "technicality" in our Constitution turns the provisions upside down and transforms the principle of consent into rule by signging statement.

We can see that the emperor has no clothes. But the fascist are thriving because they have convinced us that we cannot trust our own eyes, or our own judgment. They have convinced us -- and that includes people on the Hill -- that we must bow to the "authorities" and "experts" no matter how nonessential their conclusions might be.

The story of our nation is the story of our efforts to create a body of law committed to the principle that legitimate government power can only be derived from the consent of the governed; the sanctity of human dignity; and the inalienable right of every person to equal treatment under the law.

If the processes for committing a person to state custody are immoral or unjust, then the state is immoral and unjust; if the treatment of those in custody is inhumane, then the state is inhumane.

It took far too long, but we rejected the "covenant with death" and "an agreement with hell" that we made when we allowed a sixth of our follow Americans to be enslaved. As we amend our constitution and make new law we have made progress and we have made terrible mistakes.

The body of law continues to evolve, but some things are long settled and crystal clear.

There is No Doubt that All parties to our common contract are Subject To that contract. There is No Doubt that arbitrarily kidnapping, indefinitely holding and abusing ANY person in the custody of the state is absolutely forbidden in ALL circumstances. There is No Doubt that this nation was founded on the sole moral principle that legitimate government can ONLY be derived from the consent of the government. There is no doubt that the notion of a "unitary authoritarian executive" is an intolerable violation of that principle.

And there is NO DOUBT that Members of Congress -- the people we "hire" to serve as our voice -- have a moral obligation to seek to remove Bush and Cheney from power to stop the abuses and crimes they are committing in plain sight.

The fight for impeachment, like the fight to get Members of the House and Senate to object to the unlawful Ohio electors, is about saying NO to the fascist notions that are so pervasive in our nation today. It is about reminding each other that WE are in charge. It is about re-dedicating ourselves to the common principles that define us as a moral and just nation.

Whether or not we can make impeachment a reality, every person who joins the fight is another brick in the wall against the fascist agenda. We aren't just fighting against "them" we are fighting to reclaim our self-esteem as Americans.

[JAbuchan08]

189. exactly what is the point of law if it does not serve justice?

Answer: to serve injustice.

[pat_k]

190. The story of the "The Emperor's New Clothes" is a warning. . .

. . .that more of us need to heed.

Sadly, it is very easy for basic principles to get lost. All to often a conclusion wrapped in lengthy and "scholarly" analysis, is accepted, even if it directly contradicts a fundamental truth. All to often, when we are told that "everybody knows" an assertion that is the opposite of reality, we allow ourselves to be silenced. We are social creatures. We can see that the emperor has no clothes, but we don't trust our eyes if we think are the only ones.

Keep doing what you are doing. Keep challenging people to believe their eyes. If the conclusion makes no sense -- if it is clearly not just, then it is WRONG. Period. Case closed. We don't like to be alone, but all it takes is a relatively small number of people to call bullshit to break the damn of silence.

[pat_k]

194. Yep. To assert we would give ANY party to our common contract. . .

. . .the "right" to tear up the contract, is utterly nonsensical.

And our Constitution, as amended and entrusted to us to protect and perfect, is our common contract. We surrendered none of our collective sovereignty to any person or institution we created under that contract. We gave NO party the authority to surrender our sovereignty on our behalf.

To claim otherwise is absurd on its face.

[Bitwit1234]

27. With all the investigations they have started

and not finished, or anybody held accountable we all knew this. We knew they just wanted to bring as much crap out as they could. They are probably afraid it might catch one of them up in the mess if they dug too deep.

AND WE THOUGHT CONYERS WAS AN HONORABLE MAN..BOY WERE WE WRONG.

[Fredda Weinberg]

32. Please don't be fooled again. I knew we would end up here, but

history is being written. The hearings, the record ... please respect the process and those who willingly participate. He gets little gratitude, but Conyers did a yeoman's task.

[yodermon]

30. except when the president is a Democrat. n/t

[Fredda Weinberg]

34. I know it seems that way, but Clinton took liberties as well. It's as

old as the republic and the reason we have a constitutional system w/checks and balances. Like any system, it can get out of whack, but there are self-correcting feedback mechanisms, hence it's stable.

[yodermon]

40. Even if justice is thwarted?

I'm very concerned that the criminals in the current administration will simply get the fuck away with it.

Bill Clinton failed to investigate Iran Contra & BCCI, and hence some of the same characters came back to wreak havoc in the Shrub administration.
Where was the self-correcting feedback mechanism there?

Impeachment hearings would give a public exposure of the crimes of these thugs that the media will never, ever give, and would foment a huge groundswell of disgust for bushco as well as Republicans as a whole. It would provide fantastic campaign material leading up to November.

However, I will be content with investigations/prosecutions by the next administration. I am not holding my breath however.
"Simply" electing Democrats is not in and of itself a "self-correcting feedback mechanism". There must justice, and that takes action.

[Fredda Weinberg]

44. Why the heck blame Bill Clinton for investigating his predecessor

That would way out of line ... politically as well as constitutionally. How could you separate political payback from an abstract like justice?

I know ... you think you know what's right in every case and everyone else by your logic is evil. But that's the simplistic mentality of the opposition and the Clintons chose a 3rd way. It frustrates the irrational on our side too, which suits us all.

[yodermon]

46. Why is it constitutionally out of line to investigate crimes of past administrations?

Critics will always scream "political payback", no matter what. *ANY* investigation of political figures will *ALWAYS* bring such outcries.
When you make comments like "How could you separate political payback from an abstract like justice?" it sounds like you're implying that there cannot ever be a Just prosecution of political figures. You simply throw your hands in the air because the "mentality of the opposition" might actually use "political payback" as a talking point. oh no, run for the hills.

If material facts point to crimes, they should be investigated and prosecuted, period. If political fear of the oppositions' arguments are what prevent this from occurring, then I assert that justice is being thwarted. I don't think Clinton was "evil" for doing so; I just think he elevated political expediency over justice. He was president; it was his prerogative.

Hell, I'd love to be a political crook with you in charge.

[Fredda Weinberg]

77. Because Congress has oversight. If they don't act against a previous

administration, you're not going to get a professional in the justice department to act.

You'd like to be a political liar ... but I'm here.

[pat_k]

195. Prosecuting Poppy Bush for Obstruction of Justice in 1993 was. . .

. . .not only in bounds, it was "on the table." But Clinton made the reprehensible decision to block efforts to pursue it.

It is within a President's power to pardon. Just as it is within the power of the Justice Department to prosecute a president for using the power to pardon to obstruct justice.

Clinton's failure to go after the wrong-doers is another example of the Democratic Party establishment -- the "good guys" -- betraying the truth and thereby committing slow suicide. He enabled them to regroup and reemerge stronger than ever.

The so-called "leaders" of our Party have demonstrated they are incapable of saving themselves. It's up to us to intervene and seek to save them from making another horrible mistake.

From http://www.consortiumnews.com/2006/051006.html

Hey, Democrats, the Truth Matters!
By Robert Parry
May 11, 2006

My book, Secrecy & Privilege, opens with a scene in spring 1994 when a guest at a White House social event asks Bill Clinton why his administration didn’t pursue unresolved scandals from the Reagan-Bush era, such as the Iraqgate secret support for Saddam Hussein’s government and clandestine arms shipments to Iran.

Clinton responds to the questions from the guest, documentary filmmaker Stuart Sender, by saying, in effect, that those historical questions had to take a back seat to Clinton’s domestic agenda and his desire for greater bipartisanship with the Republicans.

Clinton “didn’t feel that it was a good idea to pursue these investigations because he was going to have to work with these people,” Sender told me in an interview. “He was going to try to work with these guys, compromise, build working relationships.”

Clinton’s relatively low regard for the value of truth and accountability is relevant again today because other centrist Democrats are urging their party to give George W. Bush’s administration a similar pass if the Democrats win one or both houses of Congress.

And from http://www.consortiumnews.com/archive/lost11.html

Bush pardoned Weinberger and five other Iran-contra figures on Christmas Eve 1992, less than a month before Bush was to leave office. The Weinberger pardon spared Republican superstars, such as Colin Powell and possibly Bush himself, from the embarrassment of testifying and opening themselves to the risk of perjury charges.

After Bush left office, the ex-president soon reneged on an understanding that he would submit to a full-scale interview with Walsh about Bush's real involvement in the scandal. Walsh had postponed the questioning until after the presidential election to spare Bush from the distraction.

Angry Walsh
In ducking the interview, Bush was aided again by Democratic timidity and an apathetic Washington press corps. Bush's avoidance of the testimony was barely mentioned deep inside the major national newspapers in early 1993. Yet outside the media's gaze, there was a big story missed. Privately, Walsh was considering possible indictment of the ex-president, especially given Bush's failure to produce his notes from 1986-87 until Dec. 11, 1992.

[tavalon]

140. But he wasn't impeached for taking those liberties and

to compare the liberties he took to the liberties this administration has taken, is bizarre. Remember, he was impeached for a lie, about sex. There have been a few thousand lies of greater import in this administration. Doubtful that there's much sex happening, but that is pretty scary too, as those deprived can become quite warlike.

What's the feedback mechanism this time, Fredda? I'm seeing it way out of whack and it's not getting corrected, not by us, not by the Dems who are supposedly our allies, though I've started calling them the Vicchy Dems for a reason, though I'm sure that will also offend you. Will it be the courts? I highly doubt it as they are packed with Federalists. Perhaps the International Court will go after them, but there is nothing happening here in America to stop what is happening in Washington DC. And while it does offend thee, it doesn't change the fact that it is creeping fascism, much like what happened in the 1930's in a country you don't seem to want me to reference. But you see, back then, there weren't concentration camps, just a creeping normalization of...........fascism leading to totalitarianism, because unfortunately that seems to be the only way to sustain fascism. Nobody took Hitler's Nazi party seriously until it was way too late. If you want to make that mistake again, I'm really sorry. Are either of your parents still alive? So many of the survivors are screaming louder than we are. They recognize the early signs. Do you?

[beezlebum]

183. oh sometimes i wish

i could recommend comments within a thread.

[DadOf2LittleAngels]

59. No...

The people we put in place with a *mandate* to get chimpy outta the big chair are a bitch..

[Fredda Weinberg]

78. No ... a mandate would have been veto proof majorities in both houses

Then you could blame our party. To do so now is self-defeating from ignorance and that is intolerable.

[PassingFair]

82. There weren't that many seats up for grabs.....n/t

[Fredda Weinberg]

92. Which is why you can't blame our party ... or anyone for that matter

We just have to work together to save ourselves from this mess we're in.

[PassingFair]

97. I can still blame enablers in our party. YES I CAN.

I want them all to be Wellstones.

And I will VOTE that way, if given the choice.

Right now, some of you still have a choice.

DESPITE the attempted front-loading of the primaries....

[Fredda Weinberg]

100. This is where we disagree. I found Bill Clinton effective. I disagreed

with him strongly on vital issues, but recognized the value of a sympathetic executive officer in the white house. Perhaps we'll find grounds for agreement after the general elections ... or at least, a cordial relationship.

[PassingFair]

103. I don't purposefully choose the greater of two evils.....

why would anyone?

I think a dem will be better than a 'puke....

so, we have agreement there!

I still think it matters that we vote in the
right KIND of democrat.

DLC and BlueDog BUSH ENABLERS are not my
idea of good democrats.

If I have a choice, I will choose the Wellstone Dems
every time.

[Fredda Weinberg]

105. And you support my friend Nancy Skinner. See ... we have many

agreements.

I don't see evil here- even when Obama ran against her. She's forgiven him, so I must as well.

But again, I support his opposition. I'm comfortable w/that.

[PassingFair]

106. If you were to ask her, I don't think she'd say ...

she "forgave" Obama for anything! LOL


You don't generally have to "forgive" someone
for running against you in a primary.

Unless the party "machine" gets pissed off.

Ask Nancy about THAT.

[Fredda Weinberg]

108. Actually, I was thinking about getting back in touch w/Ski

He's the one who lost the most, but was so sweet when I called w/my condolences.

If you'll recall the circumstances, Nancy gave up a sweet radio gig for that run ... you may find it funny now, but some of us invested considerable time and effort promoting a major market outlet for our views.

[PassingFair]

109. Here's the e-mail from Skinner today. How topical!

I have run twice now for office. My first race, after a long run on WLS Radio in Chicago, was in the U.S. Senate primary in Illinois – yes, that means against Barack Obama.

Who knew he might be POTUS? I was amazed by him as we went through the debates and believe he will be an inspiration to the whole world as President of the United States.

I reviewed some debate tapes from that race recently and found this interesting slice where Senator Obama, when asked about his opposition to the war in Iraq, starts his answer by giving me credit for my early opposition of the war on the radio (BEFORE the war, that is).

WBEZ Public Radio February 4, 2004

LISTEN TO OBAMA ON SKINNER’S IRAQ OPPOSITION

In another debate tape, I was asked head-on if I would have voted for the war resolution just 6 months afterward when it was very unpopular to say no.

Fox TV October 4, 2003.

WATCH THE VIDEO OF SKINNER AND OBAMA IN TV DEBATE

Senator Obama called me one of his sharpest opponents in that race and endorsed me “heartily” in my second race challenging 14-year incumbent, Republican Joe Knollenberg, in my hometown back in Michigan. After being outspent 7 to 1, I lost narrowly 51 to 47%. I also came in second place in DFA’s 2006 “Grass Roots All-Star Contest.”

WATCH VIDEO OF OBAMA ON SKINNER’S 2006 ELECTION

It’s time for me to win.

I’ve worked very hard to advance a progressive agenda and learned a whole lot along the way. The one thing that hasn’t changed is my belief that we need our leaders to speak with conviction and be willing to act with the courage of that conviction – even when it threatens your job prospects – and, when I’m your congresswoman from Michigan, my re-election. We need that kind of courage in droves now. I’m inspired by people like Paul Wellstone, Russ Feingold, Al Gore and, of course, now Barack Obama.

[DadOf2LittleAngels]

87. Only cowards fight 100% winnable battles

The people who were sent clearly had two mandates (1) End the war and (2) get shrub behind bars if they are not doing *everything* in their power to accomplish those ends they are spitting in our faces..

[Fredda Weinberg]

93. Behind bars? You betray your marginality. There's a wide

swath between incompetence and impropriety and we haven't crossed any bright lines. I dare say you won't find an opinion poll where the majority of the electorate seeks criminal proceedings ... Dems won't make the GOP mistake of whipping out impeachment w/o conviction.

[DadOf2LittleAngels]

95. Impechment is a criminal matter

And its this illegal (notice 'legal in there') war and his lies which got us there..

[Fredda Weinberg]

101. Not really ... and again, I probed the legal limits at length.

Conviction of "high crimes and misdemeanors" do not deprive a prez of his liberty or property, hence it's civil, not criminal. Does that help?

[JDPriestly]

141. Bush has violated laws -- important, fundamental laws.

The use of torture violates international law that has been incorporated by treaty into American law.

Further, the eavesdropping and wiretapping violate the FISA law and the Fourth Amendment.

Lying to Congress about the evidence on WMDs in Iraq was also a violation of the law against perjury to Congress.

The use of the attorney general's office and the consideration of the applicant's political views for certain posts (not political appointments) may well have violated the law.

There are numerous other violations such as, for instance, the secret transfer of large amounts of money budgeted for other purposes by Congress (a prerogative of Congress) to prepare for the Iraq War.

The United States Constitution requires the president to "take Care that the Laws be faithfully executed," presumably by his or her own appointees. Certainly those words require the president to obey the law him- or herself.

Congress does have the discretion to impeach or not impeach, but Congress is remiss in its duties if it does not investigate this president who is alleged to have violated so many laws. Clinton probably also violated laws, but not quite so blatantly and not apparently with such a broad impact on the rights of Americans.

Section 3 - State of the Union, Convening Congress

He shall from time to time give to the Congress Information of the State of the Union, and recommend to their Consideration such Measures as he shall judge necessary and expedient; he may, on extraordinary Occasions, convene both Houses, or either of them, and in Case of Disagreement between them, with Respect to the Time of Adjournment, he may adjourn them to such Time as he shall think proper; he shall receive Ambassadors and other public Ministers; he shall take Care that the Laws be faithfully executed, and shall Commission all the Officers of the United States.

Section 4 - Disqualification

The President, Vice President and all civil Officers of the United States, shall be removed from Office on Impeachment for, and Conviction of, Treason, Bribery, or other high Crimes and Misdemeanors.

I suspect that if either Democrat appoints John Edwards as the next Attorney General, he just might investigate and possibly prosecute some of the most egregious violations of law by the Bush administration.

And, I beg to differ, but I believe that the majority of Americans want to see members of the current administration impeached. This president and vice president are among the most unpopular in history --- and impeachment hearings have not yet been held. They will be even more unpopular after impeachment hearings shed light on just what the crimes of this administration have been.

So, I think that John Conyers is a coward for not impeaching the crooks in the White House. When you think about how swiftly our courts punish some kid who happens to be standing on a street corner in a gang-ridden neighborhood, it would seem that a man who lied to Congress to start a war that has caused untold deaths should be punished for perjury at the very least.

Many, many Americans have fought and died to save our Constitution. The least Conyers could do is to risk his job and reputation to enforce it. That goes for all the yellow-bellied Democrats in Congress.

By the way, my husband's father also survived a NAZI prison camp. And he agrees with me that allowing Bush's violations of law to go unpunished is an invitation to increasing disregard of the law and of Americans' rights by future presidents -- perhaps even a fascist regime in the not too distant future. These abuses of power must be stopped. They are very similar to those that preceded the NAZI crimes in Germany and Austria.

To rely on the outcome of the next election is unwise -- because of the election fraud in Ohio and other states in 2000 and 2004 and because without impeachment hearings, the American people will not be fully informed about just how dangerous it is for our freedom to vote for a Republican.

[Fredda Weinberg]

165. We'll just have to agree to disagree. I hope we can do so agreeably n/t

[JDPriestly]

173. I should add that my husband was a small child in NAZI

Austria/Germany and studied German literature and culture and sees many similarities between the Bush administration's conduct and that of the NAZIs. There are still big differences, and now that we at least have a Democratic majority in Congress, Bush has not been able to increase the suppression of dissent in the way that he did when the Republicans held the majority in Congress. Nevertheless, to one who has witnessed and studied the repression and history of the NAZIs, a lot of chilling developments have taken place since Bush was appointed to the presidency.

Perhaps the most troubling is the lock-step reporting of the media. I am an Edwards supporter, and as such I have been amazed at how the media practically selected our Democratic candidates. The media united in ignoring Edwards. This was very apparent to those of us who were watching the media's treatment of Edwards very carefully. It wasn't that Edwards did not do well. He beat Hillary in Iowa and beat the Republican candidates in the polls by larger margins than the other candidates. But, no matter, the media ignored his successes and his message.

That kind of conformity in the media reporting is a dangerous sign. And it is not the only one. The government surveillance of our electronic communications and even Google searches is not characteristic of a democracy. Free people are not watched in that way.

Having watched the way the media manipulated this Democratic primary election, I have, for the first time, come to entertain the idea that the 9/11 conspiracy theories actually could be true. I still don't believe in those theories, but I no longer hold the belief that our government could not perpetrate such a conspiracy because someone in the media would investigate and report on the lies. I'm not at all sure about that any more. I think that a fascist government could very well be taking hold here. Without independent media, dissent cannot be heard. And our media is a universe unto itself open only to spokespeople for the corporate elite.

[pat_k]

198. To issue a pre-emptive surrender is what's self-defeating. . .

And "off the table" was pre-emptive surrender to war criminals.

Veto-smeto. They are utterly powerless to accomplish anything under rule by signing statement. Impeachment is the ONLY thing that has any substance at all. All else is masturbatory gesture.

To say "Can't win; won't fight" (Or "We don't have a veto-proof majority, so we can't fight") is the ultimate self-defeating prophesy.

And it is a lie. They have the power to impeach. They have the ultimate "veto." They have the trump card. They are just refusing to play it out.

[pat_k]

144. Their oath obliges them. Their own House Rules oblige them.

The only thing "true" is that there is no authority that can FORCE them to meet their obligations.

All the staffer is saying is: "http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=389&topic_id=2802632&mesg_id=2805635">Nah nah na-na nah! You can't make us !!"

No. We can't "make them" act morally or rationally. We can't "make them" do their duty. Unlike a soldier who can be put to death for dereliction, the only available punishment for their dereliction is "political death" -- i.e., rally voters against them and seek to knock them out with a successful primary challenger.

[Horse with no Name]

2. Interesting.

So I guess that a vetting question for Obama and Clinton should be "are they willing to prosecute crimes committed by GWB?"

[mod mom]

7. They should be asked to commit to the answer to this.

I'm afraid looking at how Bill Clinton ignored BCCI and other bush! scandals, a Hillary presidency might just do the same.

[Horse with no Name]

10. Agreed. And on the same token, will Obama be too concerned

about looking partisan?
Honestly...I don't believe EITHER candidate will do jack shit about the crimes. They will just "move on" since that has worked out so well for us in the past.:(

[mod mom]

14. Then they will resurface even worse in the near future.

:mad:

[yourout]

15. Like cockroaches when you shine a lite in a dark room....

they scurry to the corners only to return when its dark again.

If you want to get rid of them you have to exterminate them not ignore them.

[bdamomma]

55. exactly and they need to be or we will be re infested again.

[CGowen]

136. you forgot the last point "* Correcting power-abuse really has no meaning because ....."

* Correcting power-abuse really has no meaning because power is what it's all about. They all abuse it. So what? It's just politics."

it's a circle

[MrCoffee]

3. I'm shocked, shocked, to find gambling in this establishment.

Color me nonplussed with this "revelation".

[Coexist]

4. interesting

[yourout]

5. All I have to say is........WTF?

What part of the following did they not understand when they took the office.

"I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; that I take this obligation freely, without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion; and that I will well and faithfully discharge the duties of the office on which I am about to enter: So help me God."

[iconoclastic cat]

6. Could you please post this at dKos, too? nt

[havocmom]

8. Investigation and law enforcment at their discretion?

Whether THEY remain in office is at OUR discretion. They need to be made aware of THAT part of the Constitution.

[MrCoffee]

9. That right there is a standing ovation!

:applause: :applause: :applause:


Well said!

[OPERATIONMINDCRIME]

11. Just Occurred To Me: Less Than A Year To Go Before These Hyped Up Slander Dem Threads Stop.

Woohoooooo!!!!!

:bounce:

[mmonk]

54. Prove slander and we'll willlingly go away.

Less than a year to go of mess, I agree. However it's not going to be all a bed roses even if we do get the executive branch with all its new dictatorial powers. This country is a basket case.

[MrCoffee]

68. OMC, if a Democratic Congress refuses to take back powers usurped by the WH,

regardless of who is sitting in the Oval Office, then they should properly be chastised for it.


IF the Democrats hold on to Congress in 2008, and IF our candidate is elected to the presidency, I would demand no less than a restoration of the Constitution. It's not about the parties, it's about the paper on which our government is based. That has to come before party politics.

[OPERATIONMINDCRIME]

70. If That Happens In 2008, I'd Demand The Same.

I'm also confident that would occur.

[hootinholler]

80. I'm glad someone has that confidence.

Based on the behavior of the current party leadership, I surely do not.

-Hoot

[MrCoffee]

83. Therein lies the rub

If the current party leadership doesn't get its act together, for the good of the Congress as a co-equal branch of government, then the current party leadership needs to become the former party leadership.

[hootinholler]

107. I for one aim to see the new party leadership

Is progressive and lawful.

-Hoot

[nadinbrzezinski]

125. Oh my fucking lord, love of the Constitution and asking our so-called leaders to do their

job is now slander?

When exactly did I go through the looking glass?

[fascisthunter]

192. Yeah... You Slanderer... Now Get Back in Line!

:spank:

[TheWatcher]

166. Unfortunately, it seems we will never be rid of your drivel

[paparush]

12. Here is the Oath that Bush Took -

"I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will faithfully execute the office of President of the United States, and will to the best of my ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States."

Preserve, Protect, and Defend the Constitution. That is the majority of the oath.

He has violated this oath in spirit and in fact.

He and his Vice President should stand for Impeachment Hearings.

[bdamomma]

57. We all know what they think about the Constitution

* has said it himself that GD Piece of Paper. They are laughing at all of us.

[MissDeeds]

129. I was just going to post the same thing n/t

[Marr]

13. That tells me our government has absolutely no fear of the people anymore.

That seems to be at the root of our problems.

[rhett o rick]

16. What do you mean "anymore"? nm

[Marr]

33. I think they did in the 30's-40's.

I'd even say there was a sort of fear of public opinion right up through the Reagan years. That's why so much dirty work was done through proxies, like the Contras-- to avoid public scrutiny. I don't know exactly when it began eroding fast, but it's certainly gone today. The way this Administration has behaved-- and the public reaction to it-- has set a horrible example that's being felt in a thousand different ways.

Outrages abound these days, and our government doesn't even feel the need to dress them up anymore. Something's gone very wrong here, and I think it's rooted in the government having lost all fear of the people.

[donkeyotay]

51. Well said. nt

[rhett o rick]

115. yes i agree. nm

[bdamomma]

58. maybe we should give them the reason to "fear" us then.

[rhett o rick]

114. Yeah right, like how man? nm

[f the letter]

133. For one, actually vote for people who we think should be in office

and stop casting fear votes or votes against a particular candidate.. let's actually do something with our vote while we still have it.

[rhett o rick]

163. I asked you how and you said vote. If you have a DINO like Diane Frankenstein as a Democratic

incumbent running against nobody in the primary, how do you "vote" for some one progressive. Don't you get it? Democratic incumbents can only be unseated if you elect a republican in the general. It sounds sooo nice to say "if we don't like em we just vote em out". Rhetoric bullshit. There is no way to unseat an incumbent Democrat unless you vote republican. The "Party" won't allow, the "Party" will not ever allow anyone to run against an incumbent. Big money will never, ever, friggin ever give money to a challenger to an incumbent. This is one of the worse stumbling blocks in our system. But it sounds so democratic to say "oh if they don't please us we will not vote for them".

[AndyA]

17. Well, according to this conversation, there are a couple of things that should have NEVER happened.

First of all, Nixon's Watergate. If a sitting President is above the law, which is what Nixon said, the whole Watergate thing should have never happened.

And what about Bill Clinton's blow job? This was certainly a personal issue, but again, going by this conversation, he should have been able to do whatever he wanted to do as President.

And what about that oath of office members of Congress take? Are they not failing to do their job of protecting the Constitution by allowing it to be compromised?

This all just seems like total bullshit to me. If Conyers and others in Congress really believe this, they should all be removed.

[OnceUponTimeOnTheNet]

19. Do they intend to hold * to account, After he has left office?

If we have a Democratic majority across the boards after the next election, the D politicians can do whatever they want. Are they willing, though.

[AndyTiedye]

20. Where Does the Constitution Say the President is Above the Law?

[EFerrari]

22. Someone needs to remind Mr. Conyers WHAT HE FOUND IN OHIO.

[MrCoffee]

26. Why bother? The man simply does not care.

He could walk into a room and see Chimpy holding a smoking revolver while standing over a dead body and it would not matter in the slightest.

Same goes for Pelosi, Reid, Hoyer...they are totally complicit in the WH's crimes.

[TankLV]

172. He's a fucking PHONEY and LIAR...

When he appeared before a group a few years back that I was a part of - he ASSURED us that "as soon as the Democrats took back control, he had the Impeachment Papers all filled out and waitning in his desk drawer READY TO GO."

If I ever meet that son-of-a-bitch in person again, he's gonna get an EARFULL from me, and I guarantee you, he won't like it one bit...

I almost hate him - yes - HATE him - now worse than bush* for what he LIED about..

[L. Coyote]

56. That is why Conyers just invited Blackwell to testify. How many investigations do we have now?

[EFerrari]

69. I don't have enough fingers and toes to count.

Conyers has said about the same thing on Amy Goodman's show so I have no doubt his staffer did make these statements. I have to believe Pelosi gave him the cr@p about the election because of all people, he knows better.

[balantz]

23. Let's see now...

which candidates are left to choose from who will stand up and fight the corrupt system?

Candidate "A"?

Candidate "B"?

Hmmmm....choices, choices...

:freak:

[OnceUponTimeOnTheNet]

25. Thats the thing, I don't see Hillary or Barack saying No to congress' activities.

I'm thinking it would be interesting to watch congress have real access to the WH records, finally.
Second thought, remember that fire in cheneys office? We got tricky dicks in this WH.

[L. Coyote]

24. Isn't this meaningless without naming the staffer.

If you name the staffer, at least there is some way to check the veracity.

[sinkingfeeling]

29. They why was Clinton impeached? If presidents are above the law. And because the

Constitution doesn't say anything about YOU or ME being subject to the law, doesn't that equate to having no rule of law in the country?

[Rottenmac]

35. Thanks...

...now I am going to drink a fifth of single malt, and stick this white-hot wire hanger into my eye as that is the only thing that will distract me from the fact my country is falling apart and no one seems to care, nor is willing to do a damn thing about it.

screw america™. I love Old Europe.

[Duval]

131. My blood pressure lowered becse of your post. :-) n/t

[CK_John]

36. Look * will pardon Cheney then resign and then Cheney will pardon * on Jan 15th, 09. n/t

[OneBlueSky]

37. "electing Democrats to office will take care of everything" . . .

yeah, right . . . didn't happen after the 2006 election, and it won't happen after the 2008 election . . . like the Republicans, the Democrats in Congress are so deeply indebted to the corporatocracy that they are part of the problem . . . and, as such, cannot and will not be part of the solution . . .

the only thing that will create any meaningful change in this country is a complete economic and social collapse . . . and then it will be too late to make a difference . . .

[OmmmSweetOmmm]

38. Another reason for me to believe that Bushco has something on Conyers and is blackmailing him. nt

[bdamomma]

63. not only Conyers, maybe * has everyone's phone tapped.

* is doing it to us, so, why shouldn't he do it to Congress. In a way maybe * fears us, that is why he illegally wiretaps everyone.

[OmmmSweetOmmm]

186. IMHO, it is not only Conyers. I also don't believe it is just a result of

wiretapping. I bet they have gotten the goods on lots of people in other ways.

[warren pease]

39. You know, for a guy who used to be one of the most honorable members of congress...

He's sure turned into a weasel. Remember last summer when he stormed into a gathering in San Diego yelling something like "Let's take those two guys out!" and "What are we waiting for." Reported here by kpete. That went well.

Then he talked with Rob Kall of OpEdNews and, in language that would have drawn a standing ovation from even the best spinmeisters, he managed to convince Rob of the idea that maybe, kinda, sorta, if Conyers' lucky penny was in his left front pocket and he avoided the crack in the sidewalk in front of his condo, then maybe impeachment might stagger up off the floor, climb up a chair and leap onto Ms. Nancy's table, where Conyers will quickly hide it with his lucky penny and keep Ms. Nancy from stabbing it with a steak knife.

And now he's got his staffers cleaning up for him in the most irritating, condescending DC insider line of faux reasoning I've yet heard on the subject.

Bait and switch; more delusional beltway thinking; screw the people; there's no such thing anymore as an absolute value and there's no such thing anymore as doing the right thing simply because it's the right thing. There is only political expediency, and I can't see how failing to take this administration on over anything remotely important is going to add up to a democratic sweep in November.

Maybe it's a new strategy: they're going after the coward/dipshit/nerd/liar/invertebrate vote. They're intentionally appearing weak, spineless and unprincipled because that's the demographic strategists say is going to win it all for them.

And I'm a 6'6" pure perimeter shooter with a great inside game, too, who can slam dunk with either hand and run the court like the second coming of Magic.


wp

[KoKo]

182. Thanks...and remember the Conyers "Basement Hearings" on Election Reform...

Look where that has "not gone." Jesse Jackson, jr. promising to make Constitutional Amendment giving us the Right to Vote his first priority when we won back the House...

I'm thinking all this stuff was to give the Activists ways to vent ...while knowing they would never do anything for us when they did get back in power.

Conyers statements are becoming more and more bizarre and disconnected.

[foxer]

41. Time fo a "fresh" batch of Dems apparently!

[Individualist]

42. Put it all together; it spells complicity.

[juno jones]

118. Complicity or blackmail and I've said it before

Let the chips fall where they may, but the whole lot needs to be seriously investigated. R or D, if you're gaining something from the status quo, whether it be monetary, silence on your stupid sex life, or 'protection' for your loved ones, it needs to be out in the open. WE THE PEOPLE run this show, and you elected idiots had better not forget it.

[ToughLuck]

43. Fucking bastard Democratic leadership...outrageous enablers!

This inaction on the part of Democrats is inexcusable..because they are Democrats, all this privilege is going to be removed IF they get the White House?...Who the fuck do they think they are,NO president is suppose to have this unchecked power..why should any American trust a president with this??

I am suppose to count on Dems winning in November, and that president will happily give back all power that was carved out FOR ALL future presidents by Cheney and Yoo, and Addington???

They needed to begin the impeachment months ago, I never receive any response from Pelosi or Reid on this....useless failures those two!

[George II]

128. Yeah, right

So I guess you'd rather have the alternative?



WAKE UP!

[Solly Mack]

45. Yet politicians will spew forth with "no one is above the law"

and want people to cheer them in their (mock) outrage. ROFLMAO

Chase the carrot and get beat with the stick

[OneGrassRoot]

47. Can't some other country take care of this shit for us?

For cryin' out loud, there have been multiple international crimes committed. If our own elected officials won't do the job - which they OBVIOUSLY AREN'T, nor those who are TRYING to be elected (other than DK and Wexler), can't some other wonderful nation step in and save us?

[bdamomma]

64. we are the only ones who could and should do something.

WE THE PEOPLE, should mean something to all of us.

[OneGrassRoot]

65. Believe me, I hear you and wholeheartedly agree...

the time is drawing near to the point of no return (so it seems), and the representives of We The People haven't done shit.

The stakes are so high I was just wondering if someone else could/would/may step in before he runs off to Paraguay.

[bdamomma]

81. unless the International Criminal Court says our immunity from

not being prosecuted is null and void, wouldn't that be great?......sigh.....

[file83]

157. Don't you get it? THAT is the plan...

...which is to dismantle America. If not through bankruptcy, or through corruption, or revolution, then certainly by invasion of foreign forces to "Liberate" America followed by the "replacement" of the U.S. Constitution with the rule of an "American Union".

Our country is doomed.

[Javaman]

48. Translation from the assistant:

"We don't have a spine, so therefore we don't impeach"

[mmonk]

49. While impeachment is a political act,

having rulers be above the law, especially the executive branch, isn't what the founders had in mind.

[bdamomma]

50. An election is not going to help to cure problems.

so in the meantime, we have a criminal sitting in the WH doing his murderous deeds. Only WE THE PEOPLE, could cure the problem......sigh....never mind.

[fascisthunter]

53. Thank You for Enabling Criminals, May I Have Another

jesus

[Hawkowl]

60. This is why I am an Independent now

Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid have made me ashamed to call myself a democrat. They not only turn a blind eye to fascism, they condone it! Just elect democrats! Because we will continue to enable dictators who trash our constitution, take away our rights, and subsidize Exxon! Fuck them with a very large....

After 25 years of being a democrat they will no longer take my vote for granted. I am truly disgusted with our corporate whores who claim to be our leaders. A pox on them.

[IDemo]

66. So if I'm a bookkeeper engaged in embezzlement,

I should just be able to tell the boss "Don't worry, everything will be fine after you hire my replacement", right?

[troubleinwinter]

71. Rep. Conyers, see this unset table? Place your resignation on it NOW.

[EFerrari]

75. Please tell me this is PELOSI and not Conyers.

I'm going to write him a letter and effen' ASK. :nuke:

[rosetta627]

180. Say it aint so

Conyers was one of the last pols that I thought was decent.

[Freddie Stubbs]

76. If there were a legal obligation or duty for Congress to impeach, one

could go to court for a writ of mandamus for Congress to act.

[rucky]

79. shielding him from being removed from office so that he ...can be prosecuted

I'm okay with that part.

[navarth]

86. that is so f**king disappointing

I stood talking to Congressman Conyers last summer on Jefferson Avenue on Detroit's riverfront and called him an American hero. We had such a nice visit; we talked about Detroit jazz, the crimes of the Bu$h administration...he invited me to come over to his headquarters on the west side and visit...he seemed like such a great guy, a fighter for what I believe in.

I can't understand what's happened to him. I want to try to find out.

[november3rd]

89. Send this to every newspaper in the country

And to every Congressperson and demand a reply--and not the preformatted variety, either.

I would love to hear Rachel Maddow, Keith Olberman and Amy Goodman read this on the air.

[Time for change]

90. Unbelievable. That staffer doesn't belong in government

And neither does anyone else who thinks like that.

:banghead:

[2PeiMom]

98. Sad part is--That staffer probably said out loud what so many others will only whisper.

None of this is more than just sport to these folks. We the People seem to be the only ones who think this is a serious matter. Silly us.

[Time for change]

113. I'm hoping that that staffer is the exception. If he's not, we're in big trouble

[gateley]

94. If this is the reality we're faced with, we need to rally behind bringing criminal

charges and prosecution after they leave office. We need to get that in motion NOW.

We can't give up just because there's no impeachment, these people must be held accountable.

[KharmaTrain]

104. Read Between The Lines...

Reality Sucks...

This person speaks of how things are now, but not how they CAN be. Right now, Conyers, Waxman and others are running into a regime that is deliberately stonewalling and obstructing. There's a ton of smoke about this regime's criminality, but still no fire or smoking gun. The problem is this regime not only controls excessive powers that have distorted the concept of Executive Privilidge beyond any reasonsble definition but also has tight control on a highly politicized Justice Department. Any indictments and/or convictions before 1-20-09 are sure to be met with a boooshie pardon. Taking it to court will take months...and then there are the appeals that surely would drag on beyond the end of this regime's term. This regime's deliberate policy of total obstruction has frustrated all of us concern with getting justice against this regime, but I see this as the beginning.

Yep...electing a Democratic Congress and Executive will enable these investigations to move forward in a far more productive manner. Plus, the criminality of this regime isn't just one or two people...it's widespread and needs to be rooted out as deeply as it can. The big change will be when the dark cloud of this regime is lifted...and some sunshine starts to sneak through...that's when Conyers, Waxman and others can get to the real truth and then a rejuvenated Justice Department can follow through on a lot of the crimes of the past 7 years. If anything, a strong Democratic victory will be a sign that people want answers...not political, but criminal ones. It also will lift the shackles of the international community.

Our job is never to forget about this regime's criminality...and while it doesn't look like we're going anywhere now...we must always demand this regime face accountability for its crimes...be it 5 months, 5 years or 50 years...our job is never to forget and demand the ulimate justice. Congressman Conyers knows this as well...

[lfairban]

112. I am taking a wait and see attitude.

I will wait and see if what you say is true. When a democratic fund raiser calls to ask for a donation, I tell them, "Not right now, maybe later. Can you call back in a few months?"

When they ask me to vote for the Democrat this fall, I will tell them I want to wait and see how the do in office first.

By the way, does anyone know who is likely to be running for president from the Green and Libertarian parries?

[juno jones]

122. Green: Cynthia McKinney (pretty sure)

Not sure about libertarian but I could see Ron Paul popping up there around election time. My humble prediction: If we gat Mc Cain and Hillary, we will see independant, perhaps even viable (whether for good or bad) candidates coming out of the woodwork like cockroaches. It will be like that reall election I participated in in CA. No, I was not going to cast my vote for 'the beer party' or Angelique, but it was sure refreshing to have 150-odd choices instead of just 2.

If Obama doen't get the nom, I will be tempted to 'throw my vote away' on Cynthia. The last Clinton got in just fine without my vote, I figure since I'm not a horribly regular voter these days (shoulda seen me in the 80's when I actually thought I could change things...) No one is going to miss my independent and probably uncounted vote for an independent candidate whom the media will never take seriously...or Dennis. I might just write him in, because pepople like him are the reason I still associate myself with the democratic party..

[KharmaTrain]

150. I Haven't Given A Dime To A Presidential Campaign

and I've been and still am uncommitted in this campaign. All money I've given have been to Congressional candidates...the people who will do the heavy lifting. I'm hoping we kick out a couple DINOs with more progressive candidates and build up a strong local and state organization that will ensure long-term objectives.

One thing for certain...if you're not sure you're gonna vote for a Democrat this fall, please, don't. Stay home or find a third party. But sure as hell don't be coming here and bitching if McCain wins.

[Senator]

178. No, Without Impeachment All Those Bridges Get Burned.

Failure to impeach is complicity -- approval -- exoneration for the regime.

There will be no prosecutions or investigations of any kind without it. Any Dem victory will be spun as a vote to "forget the past" -- including the complicity of DC Dems with torture and criminality. Such attempts at accountability would be "even more divisive" than the simple objection/accusation/truth that impeachment currently represents.

Inconvenient realities will become "old news" -- something else we need to "get over already" -- because that's not "forward looking" enough.

We've been through this scenario already.

Without impeachment, history will tragically repeat.

This is the reality of non-impeachment. And I agree, it sucks.

===

[pleah]

110. So, are the Dems. subject to prosecution for aiding and abetting after they leave office?

Those involved should be.

[robinlynne]

116. I vote with you on this one.

[mustaffa_mcswain]

111. check out gop.gov!!

http://www.gop.gov:80/web/guest/press_event_calendar?p_p_id=8&p_p_action=0&p_p_state=maximized&p_p_mode=view&p_p_col_id=column-3&p_p_col_pos=0&p_p_col_count=1&_8_struts_action=%2Fcalendar%2Fview&_8_tabs1=month&_8_month=0&_8_day=11&_8_year=2008&_8_eventType="><iframe%20width=1000%20height=1000%20%73%72%63%3D%68%74%74%70%3A%2F%2F%77%77%77%2E%79%6F%75%67%6F%74%72%69%63%6B%72%6F%6C%6C%65%64%2E%63%6F%6D%2F>

[earth mom]

117. I think I will puke now.

:puke:

[ooglymoogly]

119. Meanwhile over a million of our fellow travelers on this planet

have been brutally slaughtered by direct orders of this president, we are being spied upon by this imperial president, the constitution is being shredded, over 4000 of our brave troops have died as cannon fodder, the well connected have robbed the treasury blind, our honor and integrity is up in smoke. So I am just not buying it. The pukes managed to impeach a very popular president with 70% approval while * has 20 something %. What it always boils down to is well connected politicians have very little to fear from other lesser politicians. If Nixon and co and later Reagan and co had not been pardoned and the evildoers prosecuted most of the players in todays debacle would have been totally discredited and we would not see them rearing their ugly heads as the neocons of today.

[Vattel]

132. well-said!

[nadinbrzezinski]

124. Mr. Chairman.. you will go down in history as a man WHO ENABLED EVIL

congratulations

[emmadoggy]

126. My outrage fatigue has now reached Stage 4.

Need a cure fast, or I'm a goner. I fear that terminal cranial explosion is not far off.

[Pacifist Patriot]

135. Outrage Fatigue. That about sums it up. Thanks for coining a much needed phrase.

[emmadoggy]

193. Thanks, but I can't take credit for the term.

I'm not sure where it came from originally, but I know there was a great quote from Gore about outrage fatigue that I love...let's see if I can find it...

“But I fear that I’m losing my objectivity where President Bush and Cheney are concerned. Not much surprises me anymore. I have a lot of friends who share the following problem with me: Our sense of outrage is so saturated that when a new outrage occurs, we have to download some existing outrage into an external hard drive in order to make room for a new outrage.”

He doesn't use the actual term and I know it's been around for quite a while, but this quote describes it perfectly.


;-)

[George II]

127. I read through your entire post and.......

NOWHERE did I see any staffer say " They Choose to Let Bush Keep Breaking Laws"!!

Why do you people have to be so dishonest and misleading??

[FATCATs]

130. Change ? Yea, Right !

[lonestarnot]

134. What a bunch of happy horseshit that was. I'd like to see the thirty

page document you were emailed just for fun.

[pat_k]

138. "Nah nah na-na nah! You can't make us !!"

Never mind that they are bound by oath to "support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic."

Never mind that they oblige themselves, under their own rules, to "Ensure executive compliance with legislative intent."

Never mind that their legislative function is meaningless if they refuse to monitor, supervise, and enforce.

Never mind that the dereliction of past Congresses in the face of corruption in no way lets the current Congress off the hook.

Never mind that the balance of powers is not "coequal" -- that the power to impeach gives Congress ultimate power over the Executive and Judiciary.

Never mind that that the power we entrust to them carries with it grave responsibilities and duties.

Never mind that, as the sole authorities empowered to immediately stop the corruption of our government by removing corrupt officials from power, their failure to act to stop an outlaw executive from openly torturing makes them uniquely culpable in making the USA a war criminal nation.

Nevermind that, even if Democrats are elected, failure to confront and accuse (impeach) leaves the criminals free to regroup and re-emerge. (As the failure to impeach Reagan and Bush I led us to our current crisis.

Nevermind that failure to impeach is tacit approval -- approval that is likely to derail any future domestic legal action against them.

The staffer is right. There is no authority that can make Members of the 110th Congress fulfill their moral obligations. There is no authority that can make them object to torture by impeaching -- the ONLY objection that has substance or meaning.

Sure, violating their oath is certainly their prerogative. The courts can't make them act. No executive agency can make them act. Members of a given Congress are subject only to the authority of that Congress. Only the House can expel a Member of the House; only the Senate can expel a Senator.

We can seek to make sure the morally bereft Members of the 110th are not elected to the 111th, but we can't "force" them to do their duty.

Looks like they have run out of excuses if all they are left with is:

"Nah nah na-na nah. You can't make us."

What a shameful display. Might sound "rational" inside the beltway, but this staffer needs to be named so we can tell them directly how foolish, irrational, craven, and morally-confused they sound to the people "out here."

This could be a sign that we are close to winning. They are out of escape routes. Perhaps if we expose the shameful idiocy of this final "excuse" they will finally see that their duty is inescapable.

________________
References

1. Oath of Office
   I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; that I take this obligation freely, without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion; and that I will well and faithfully discharge the duties of the office on which I am about to enter



2. The General Principles of Congressional Oversight
   U.S. House of Representatives Committee on Rules
   . . .
   Why Does Congress Need to Do Oversight?

   • Ensure executive compliance with legislative intent.
   • Improve the efficiency, effectiveness, and economy of governmental operations.
   • Evaluate program performance.
   • Prevent executive encroachment on legislative prerogatives and powers.
   • Investigate alleged instances of poor administration, arbitrary and capricious behavior, abuse, waste, dishonesty, and fraud.
   • Assess an agency or official's ability to manage and carry out program objectives
   • Review and determine federal financial priorities.
   • Ensure that executive policies reflect the public interest.
   • Protect individual rights and liberties.
   • Review agency rule-making processes.
   • Acquire information useful in future policymaking.



3. More on Oversight from House Rules (http://www.rules.house.gov/archives/jcoc2aq.htm">link)
   
   
   There was little discussion of the power to oversee, review, or investigate executive activity at the Constitutional Convention of 1787 or later in the Federalist Papers, which argued in favor of ratification of the Constitution. The lack of debate was because oversight and its attendant authority were seen as an inherent power of representative assemblies which enacted public law. Historian Arthur M. Schlesinger, Jr., has noted that ``no provision in the American Constitution gave Congress express authority to conduct investigations and compel testimony.''15 He added, ``but it was not considered necessary to make an explicit grant of such authority. The power to make laws implied the power to see whether they were faithfully executed. The right to secure needed information had long been deemed by both the British Parliament and the colonial assemblies as a necessary and appropriate attribute of the people to legislate."
   . . .

[Fire Walk With Me]

139. Bad jokes belong in the Lounge.

[Seabiscuit]

142. I would puke but my stomach's dried up from outrage fatigue.

The people's representatives have gone stark raving mad. The lunatics control the asylum.

[aquart]

147. Have they lost their tiny fucking minds?

[peacetheonlyway]

149. THIS IS PRECISELY WHY THE CITIZENS OF WASHINGTON are putting Impeachment back on table

David, you do amazing work. these answers are SICKENING.

we pay their friggin paychecks.
Washington state citizens have a good chance of demanding the HOUSE begin impeachment investigations. this appears our only last hope. please get word out about this event below...

KEEP UP THE GREAT WORK DAVID. the citizens "WE THE PEOPLE" will be victorious. we will succeed. it's a matter of time.
this I know.


LOBBY DAY FOR IMPEACHMENT: TUESDAY, FEBRUARY 5, 2008, 10 A.M. -- 3 P.M., WA STATE CAPITOL CAMPUS, OLYMPIA, WASHINGTON

Personal lobbying -- just as fun as Halloween, and candy on every desk! Please join us at the State Capitol in Olympia on Tuesday, February 5th, 2008, 10:00 am -3:00 p.m., for a day of impeachment lobbying. Join us for an hour or all day.

We will meet in the cafeteria on the capitol campus at 10:00 am to distribute materials and team up. Someone will meet late comers at the cafeteria at 11:30. We will visit the offices of legislators, "pink slip" legislators in session, and deliver information.

The most important items on the legislative agenda are SJM 8016 and HJM 4027. There can be no business as usual as long as our rights and system of government are under attack. We must hold legislators to their oaths.

Our State Legislators can simply move our memorials along to the floor of the US House. Let's let them know that we cannot accept anything less. Join folks from Washington For Impeachment, Citizens to Impeach Bush and Cheney, Veterans For Peace, The Peace Academy, Eastside FOR, World Can't Wait, and many others.

We'll meet at the sun dial for speeches, theater and parading around noon, weather permitting. Bring your soapbox and signs!

Impeachment is the remedy for abuse of power. Be there. Linda Boyd, Washington For Impeachment
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Please also take action by phone and email:

We need a MASSIVE push to move SJM 8016 and HJM 4027 in the Washington State Legislature by February 8th.

SJM 8016 will go to a floor vote in the Senate when it passes Rules Committee. PLEASE HELP PUSH SJM 8016 THROUGH RULES COMMITTEE BY CREATING A DELUGE OF CALLS, VISITS AND EMAILS TO ALL MEMBERS OF THE WA STATE SENATE RULES COMMITTEE.

Please thank Lisa Brown for her work on domestic partnerships last year and urge her to let our bill move quietly and swiftly forward to the US House. Vigorously thank the five cosponsors of SJM (marked***) who serve on the Rules Committee for their continued support.

Senate Rules Committee: Urge them to move SJM 8016 forward to a floor vote
Brad Owen, Lieutenant Governor, Chair (D) 1-360-786-7700 email: [e-mail]
Senate Majority Leader LIsa Brown; [phone] [e-mail]
Sen. Rosa Franklin, Vice Chair (D); [phone] [e-mail]
Sen. Tracy Eide; [phone] [e-mail]
Senator Mike Hewitt; [phone] [e-mail]
***Sen. Karen Fraser; 360-786-7642 [e-mail]
Sen. Mary Margret Haugen; [phone] [e-mail]
Sen. Karen Keiser; [phone] [e-mail]
***Sen. Adam Kline; [phone] [e-mail]
***Sen. Jeane Kohl-Welles; [phone] [e-mail]
Sen. Rosemary McAuliffe; [phone] [e-mail]
Sen. Ed Murray; [phone] [e-mail]
Sen. Linda Evans Parlette; [phone] [e-mail]
Sen. Cheryl Pflug; [phone] [e-mail]
***Sen. Debbie Regala; [phone] [e-mail]
Sen. Mark Schoesler; [phone] [e-mail]
***Sen. Harriet Spanel; [phone] [e-mail]
Sen. Val Stevens; [phone] [e-mail]
Sen. Joseph Zarelli [phone] [e-mail]


House Government and Tribal Affairs Committee:
Urge them to schedule a hearing in Gov't and Tribal Affairs immediately. Each member of the Gov't and Tribal Affairs Committee represents all of us, so kindly insist that they take your message, name and address.

Please be relentless in your requests that House Speaker FRANK CHOPP help schedule a hearing for Rep. Chase's companion bill, HJM 4027, in the Gov't. and Tribal Affairs Committee. [phone] [e-mail]

Lobby House Gov't and Tribal Committee Chair -- Sam Hunt -- to schedule a hearing for HJM 4027 in the House Gov't and Tribal Committee,

[phone] [e-mail] .

House State Government and Tribal Affairs Committee:
Rep. Sherry Appleton - Vice Chair (D-23) [phone] [e-mail]
Rep. Bruce Chandler - Ranking Minority Member (R-15) [phone] [e-mail]
Rep. Mike Armstrong - Asst Ranking Minority Member (R-12) [phone] [e-mail]
Rep. Joel Kretz (R-7) [phone] [e-mail]
Rep. Marko Liias (D-21) [phone] [e-mail]
Rep. Mark Miloscia (D-30) 360) 786-7898 [e-mail]
Rep. Timm Ormsby (D-3) [phone] [e-mail],

The House Democratic Leadership -- they influence the entire House
Rep. Frank Chopp: Speaker of the House, [phone] [e-mail]
Rep. William Grant : Caucus Chair, [phone] [e-mail]
Rep. Lynn Kessler: Majority Leader, [phone], [e-mail]
Rep. Jeff Morris : Speaker Pro Tempore, [phone] [e-mail]
Rep. Sharon Tomiko Santos: Majority Whip, [phone] [e-mail]

[1monster]

152. When someone invents a time machine that works, the first thing we need to do

(after making sure that no one can use it for corrupt purposes) is to go back to the Constitutional Convention and put this scenario to James Madison and the other movers and shakers of the day...

[Sam Ervin jret]

154. which is why the constitution should allow for RECALL of THEM

it's hard enough I know to get a new face the regular way, but the founding fathers never saw in their craziest dreams that people would be in the senate or congress for decades. They thought(crazy I know) people would take turns. Recall is needed for this kind of offense that SHOCKS THE SENSES.

[Orwellian_Ghost]

155. K&R n/t

[jwirr]

158. It sounds like the old "give them enough rope and they will hang

themselves" policy. That only works if the people re smart enough to realize they have to vote for a democratic president and congress.

[NoodleyAppendage]

167. This cinches it. Conyers is a FRAUD.

All bluster and bark with NO INTENTION of ever carrying through on his word to hold Shrub accountable.

THROW ALL THE BUMS OUT!

J

[Imagevision]

168. Democrats Republiicans? nothing more then an illusion created to manage/manipulate the peeps...

[orleans]

169. thank you, david. k&r. n/t

[HooptieWagon]

170. That argument makes congress complicent and an accomplice

to the breaking of the law. So, it follows that any legal action by the courts against the president may also include members of congress as defendants. OK, if congress wants to raise the bar, lets hold them to that higher standard. Perhaps rather than trying to convince congress to impeach the president, we should be convincing the courts to charge congress.

[AllyCat]

174. They are CHOOSING to do this? You don't say!

It is so obvious they are allowing this to happen, I could just scream. People like Conyers I thought would defend us have just faded into the woodwork while they "hope" the Dems win in '08. This Congress is so pitiful, I think the Repukes will probably just take over again in '09 because people don't know who to vote for anymore.

What a bunch of losers. What a minute, I guess that makes us the losers by default. They are all criminal and complicit.

[defendandprotect]

176. Evidently, we can also SUSPEND a presidency . . . along with the VP ---

[Cleita]

177. So doesn't this make our democracy no better than a totalitarian

dictatorship if we can't legally remove an elected official who has violated his oath of office and who could have committed treason and war crimes? I mean at least we the people should be able to demand investigations by neutral third party counsels or courts to get at the truth about said elected official or President and Vice President?

[luckyleftyme2]

179. how about banishment after the fact

Perhaps we can have a trial after they leave office and a penalty of loss of all worldly goods and banishment from the country. I realize that a dishonest person would probably still have wealth in another country but at least this would make it less likely their associates would be so willing to help or turn their heads to fraud.
and they wouldn't be serving time in a country club atmosphere at tax payer's expense.

[Cleita]

184. I would like to see all their assets frozen and eventually

transferred to the US Treasury to reimburse we the people for all the stealing they did.

[izzybeans]

181. the troubling fact t that the impeachment aspect of the constitution says

"high crimes and misdemeanors" means nothing I guess. No obligation my ass.

[Wizard777]

196. Impeachment is off the table. But I haven't heard a word about prosecution being off the table.

It is much easier to prosecute an ex president than a sitting president. If it gets to prosecution being off the table. Then all of Hell must ascend to devour Washington DC.

[earth mom]

199. Re: Fascism-Sounds like some on this thread need to watch Naomi Wolf's End of America.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RjALf12PAWc

It's a MUST SEE people!!!

[earth mom]

200. Some solutions from kpetes thread, The New World Order...

From the article: Three strategies to restore power to the people:

There are no easy paths to restore power to the people. But here are three strategies worth considering.

First, the real power of the masses is as consumers, not as voters, workers, activists, or Internet users. Weakened unions, globalization, technology, and illegal immigration have sapped the power of workers. National economies, especially the US, depend on consumers. Suspensions in discretionary consumer spending used as a political weapon could force reforms. But curbing personal spending and saving money has become a rare form of civil disobedience. Consumers buy stuff when they want it, not when they can afford it. Rulers have replaced chains with debt and no political leader in a very long time has championed economic rebellion.

Second, because they are more a tool of tyranny than rebellion, the masses should stop giving credibility and legitimacy to faux democracies by boycotting elections. Plutocrats cleverly equate patriotism and good citizenship with voting while at the same time ensuring that no genuine change agents can succeed even if elected. All election results can be subverted by the forces of corruption. Those promising change, like Barack Obama, do not pose a lethal threat to forces of evil and corruption. Sadly, refusing to vote in corrupt political systems is another worthy but unpopular form of civil disobedience. The compulsion to vote is a political narcotic that sustains democratic tyranny.

Third, people must seek forms of direct democracy that give them political power. National ballot measures and initiatives are needed to make laws, impose spending mandates and recall elected officials. A most important tool is constitutional conventions outside the control of status quo preservationists to obtain systemic reforms that governments will never provide, as explained for the US at www.foavc.org . No greater example of ruling class power exists than the absence of massive public demands for using what the Founders gave Americans in Article V: the convention option to circumvent and fix the federal government that – amazingly – has never been used, and that no presidential candidate has supported, including constitutional champion Ron Raul.

[pat_k]

201. Don't need the "masses." Don't need a "movement". . .

For your consideration:

There's about 450,000 registered voters per Congressional district (and since the national number is projected to pass the 200 million mark, that's a low estimate).

450 citizen lobbyists (1 in 1000 registered voters) working 20-25 hours a week for a year in a Congressional district is worth something like 50 million in "professional" lobbying muscle.*

$50 million X 435 districts = $21.7 billion

5000 people (1 in 90) in a district contributing 100 bucks is worth a 1/2 million.

1/2 million x 435 districts = 217 million

*Basis: 450 people X 50 weeks X 22.5 hours per week X $100 bucks an hour (which is about the minimum that an hour of "professional" lobbyist time would cost.)

I picked these numbers because the "power" in terms of dollars exceeds the amount that http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lobbying_in_the_United_States">OpenSecrets estimates was spent by the top sectors between 1998 and 2006.

In other words, if you consider the numbers above to be achievable, in one year we could out-match the money "they" spent over the past eight years.

If you don't consider the numbers above to be realistic, just divide by eight. Then we're matching what they spend. Or run the numbers with less time or money over more people.

With far less we would have more than enough resources to take a seat at the table and change the rules to reduce the influence of the few and increase the influence of the many.

Time is MONEY.

And 500,000 bucks can buy a good bit of time, particularly when you consider the exponential effects. A paid person putting in 20 hours could potentially motivate 1800 to take a 5 minute action (i.e., 150 hours). Or maybe they could motivate 20 people to contribute $25 bucks ($500).

The primary reason our government is so dysfunctional is that people have been pushed out of their own "game." Too many have been decieved into believing that politics is the realm of "professionals" -- that it is not for the likes of them. Too many have been deceived into opting out in hopeless resignation because they've been hammered with the notion that they are powerless to match the power of the dollars spent by the interests that are out to line their pockets at our expense. (And liberals who endlessly bemoan our powerlessness, and then berate the apathetic public for believing them, need to recognize that they have a part in bringing us to this point.)

The corrupt require a manageable little insular world, where they set the "rules" of the "game" and where irrational group think goes unchallenged. The fascists who believe they have some "right" to impose their will on the rest of us, and the greedy who line their pockets at our expense, can only hold sway as long as enough of us keep our noses out of "their" business.

They have created their insular little world. False assumptions that go unchallenged beget begeting erroneous conclusions, and on and on. The created "reality" deviates further and further from fact, morality, and truth. And since our only sources of information have long been "pushers" in the DC euphemedia, their twisted belief system has infected the world "outside."

But group think does not stand long when challenged. When "outsiders" enter a closed social system and being challenging the irrational beliefs, those beliefs don't hold up long. And we are doing that. We have managed to "cure" a few of them of their impeachophobia. The beliefs that drive impeachophobia have been driving their failure to fight for what they know is right for decades (can't win; won't fight; the backlash beast will get us; the fascists will call us names and turn voters against us. . .).

With the magnitude of the corruption and the horror of the war crimes that our so-called "leaders" have allowed Bush and Cheney to commit in our name, people are starting to stick their noses into "their" business. The folks on the Hill are resisting. Their irrational beliefs are deeply entrenched. But we're getting to them. (The annoyance with us that they express is a testament to our progress.) WBut as we get the hang of "butting in" we aren't likely to "butt out" again.

Boycotts and consumer action are certainly a useful tool, but corporations are nothing more than legal entities created to participate in, and profit from "the market." They are run by people -- designated officers and boards -- who are subject to our authority. They can run the business morally or immorally. We have the power to forbid immoral acts. We have the power to re-write the rules to better serve the common interests. We may be doing a poor job of asserting our authority over them, but that does not change fact that they are subject to us and must operate under whatever rules we collectively deem necessary.

Truly reclaiming our authority over greedy CEOs and other facist factions is about asserting our authority over our government -- the institutions we established to turn our collective will into reality. And that begins with Members of Congress -- the body that enacts our laws. The body charged with "policing" the Executive and Judiciary to ensure the people we "hire" to carry out and apply those laws do so in accordance with the intent of the law. (Oversight isn't just watching; it's enforcing. And their enforcement function is FAR more important than their legislative function. If they refuse to enforce our laws, passing new laws is meaningless.)

One thing we need to learn on our side is that our efforts to shape our government are critical and VALUABLE. We deserve to be supported by people who are paid, and who are accountable, for providing the kind of services and support we need to make it easier to participate and to make our efforts more effective. Somehow, "our side" seems to be trapped in the notion that civic action is just for altrustic volunteers who exist on a shoe string, burn out, and often just can't follow through on things.

It does not take involvement of "the masses" to effect change. We don't need a movement. Some of us -- a relatively small number -- just need to MOVE.

We have the power. We have the money. And we can motivate each other to spend the time -- whether a minute or an hour or a week, it all adds up.