Kucinich Promises Conyers: "If There Is No Further Action-We'll Come Back With 60 Articles Not 35"

[kpete]

Impeachment Bill Passes, with an additional promise

Well, it passes to John Conyers, where it may be ignored. Except Kucinich promises to resurrect it again in July, with others reading it into the record.
http://www.reachm.com/amstreet/archives/2008/06/11/impeachment-bill-passes-with-an-additional-promise/

"Leadership wants to bury it, but this is one resolution that will be coming back from the dead," Kucinich told Capitol Briefing. "Thirty days from now, if there is no action, I will be bringing the resolution up again, and I won't be the only one reading it."

Judiciary Chairman John Conyers (D-Mich.) has not commented on whether he plans to hold hearings, and Kucinich said he would meet with Conyers this week to present him with documentation for his charges against Bush. But if there is no further action, Kucinich said, "We'll come back and many of us will be reading this (on the House floor), and we'll come back with 60 articles, not 35."


http://blog.washingtonpost.com/capitol-briefing/2008/06/kucinich_vows_to_keep_up_impea.html

[Forkboy]

1. LOL...bless that man.

:applause:

[seemslikeadream]

2. Who were the repbulicans that voted for it?

[Frank Cannon]

69. Amazingly, Heather Wilson of NM was one of them

She's had her lips firmly attached to Bush's ass since day one. Maybe since she just lost the primary for the Senate to the other Republican Congressman, she doesn't give a shit anymore.

[NM Independent]

102. I think you're right, and I'm finding it hard...

to keeping hating her with the vigor I did before. I could not freaking believe it when I saw her name on the list.

[JPettus]

104. But as the article says

Some Republicans wanted to take the matter to hearings so they could paint the Dems as partisan posturing hacks.

[mzmolly]

157. Yep.

A consideration for sure.

[guruoo]

106. RW'er or not,, we should still be emailing her, thanking her for that vote...

[e-mail]

[NikolaC]

149. Probably Done Out of Cynicism

and fear for her seat. Pugs who have helped things get as bad as it did get no support, respect or sympathy from me.

[Hydra]

3. You go Dennis!

Too bad their are so many people willing to protect Bush. We'll probably hear from all of them up until the point when he nukes Iran.

[libnnc]

I'm sure DK could keep adding articles allllll daaay looooong

Add another one.

...and another

...and another

...and another

[Swamp Rat]

4. YAAAAAAAAY Kucinich!

:patriot:

[EFerrari]

5. Go, Dennis!

:woohoo:

[Solly Mack]

6. Excellent!!!!

[cui bono]

7. Rock and Roll...

KUCHIE KU!!!

[ljm2002]

55. Okay, if that doesn't deserve a DUZY...

...then I don't know what does!

(trying to get song out of head... trying to get song out of head... trying to get song out of head...)

[cui bono]

61. I think if you sing the whole song or watch the entire video

it will help. At least that's what my coworker swore to me when I had a song stuck in my head.

[Individualist]

8. BRAVO!

:applause: :patriot:

[ORDagnabbit]

9. waking up to the fact that most dems are in collusion with the Repukes. throw the bums out start

over!

[malaise]

10. Hey Dennis

:yourock:

[slipslidingaway]

11. You mean I wasted my vote on this guy...

:sarcasm:

[mikelgb]

12. fuck, why give him 30 days?

do it everyday until there is action

[Amerigo Vespucci]

13. Yes, let's double Speaker Pelosi's "distractions"

Kucinich’s Impeachment Measure Gains Co-Sponsor, But Pelosi Believes It's a 'Distraction'

http://www.pubrecord.org/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=117&Itemid=16

U.S. Rep Robert Wexler, (D-Fla.), said Tuesday he will co-sponsor a resolution introduced Monday night by Ohio Congressman Dennis Kucinich calling for the impeachment of President George W. Bush for lying to Congress and the public to win support for an invasion of Iraq five years ago.

However, the resolution, which is expected to be sent to the House Judiciary Committee Wednesday where it will likely be shelved, does not have the support of Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi. The California Democrat has said repeatedly that impeachment is "off the table."

"Speaker Pelosi will continue to lead legislative efforts to find a new direction in Iraq but believes that impeachment would create a divisive battle, be a distraction from Congress's efforts to chart a new course for America's working families and would ultimately fail," Pelosi's spokesman, Nadeam Elshami, told the Cleveland Plain Dealer Tuesday.

Congress has not considered impeachment because the Democratic leadership believes it will hurt their party's chances of securing the White House in November's hotly contested presidential election between Senators Barack Obama and John McCain. Additionally, Democrats said they do not have enough votes to support a move to impeach the president.

[dixiegrrrrl]

165. Anybody know for sure if there ARE enuff votes to impeach?

The Senate has to vote on it if it gets that far....

I thought the Senate had a slim Dem majority..

anyone know?

[Wizard777]

14. Go Dennis! Keep our Constitution alive!

[Zorra]

15. Excellent. If nothing else, the publicity increases public perception of republican corruption.

immensely.

And if it moves on to trial before the Senate, McCain won't have a snowballs chance in hell at serving Bu*h's third term.

[ixion]

16. Kucinich is one of the best...

thank you, sir, for fighting tooth and nail for our republic. :woohoo: :applause: :woohoo:

[Occam Bandage]

17. Let him come back with 600 articles. Whatever. If he wants to waste Congress' time grandstanding

on doomed impeachment proposals that have absolutely no support in either party, then let him.

[The Doctor.]

22. Yeah, shame there weren't any votes for it.

:eyes:

[Occam Bandage]

23. I agree. It's too bad that there isn't enough support in Congress for this

to remain viable until the floor, to say nothing of passing the House, to say nothing of obtaining conviction, to say nothing of doing all that before January.

However, since there isn't that support, impeachment isn't a realistic option. I guess it's nice that DK is attacking Bush, but Bush is yesterday's problem. McCain is today's problem. I'd much rather Congress work on setting legislative booby traps / poison pills (such as yesterday's windfall tax proposal) to trip up McCain.

[Jack Rabbit]

41. When Bush and Cheney bomb Iran

. . . please tell us again that the Bush junta is yesterday's problem.

[Occam Bandage]

50. And what, pray tell, is an impeachment resolution lacking

so much as the support to make it to the house floor going to do to stop Bush?

[TheWatcher]

56. Yes, let's just let them walk away Scott Free and get away with everything

Let's just sweep it all under the rug, and give a sigh of relief, knowing that the Bullys are going to magically go away forever and never abuse us again.

Then we can all get back to feeling good and feeling powerful, beating our chests for our "football team" in November.

Let's get back to our false paradigm and illusory "power" no matter what the cost, even if it includes ignoring High Treason and War Crimes as if it never happened.

It isn't that simple. And if you think it is, you're part of the problem, not the solution.

Either that or you simply cannot grasp or understand the consequences of inaction against these CRIMINALS that have hijacked our country.

I'm not willing to sacrifice what's left of whatever chance we have to TRULY get our country back so people like you can get back to feeling good and comfortable in their Matrix again.

[Occam Bandage]

58. That's what's going to happen, whether the House votes on impeachment or not.

There aren't the votes for impeachment in the House, and even if we flip the ten most centrist Republicans (which we are rarely able to do on minor issues) there aren't the votes in the Senate, either. Given that, I'd rather spend the time undoing the damage Bush has done. You know, actually fixing problems. But feel free to advocate for "fighting the bullies" all you like.

[drm604]

100. The jury has to be convinced during the trial, not before it.

You seem to be arguing that, because the prospective jurors are not yet convinced of the defendant's guilt, we shouldn't bother with a trial.

[JPettus]

107. Convincing the jurors isn't an issue

You assume that they will be swayed by the evidence and vote for conviction simply because they understand it's the right thing to do.

Never mind that they will be turning their backs on their party, which provides them funding and support so they can stay in their cushy jobs enjoying the power that comes with it.

In the end, it doesn't matter whether they are convinced that Bush needs to be removed from office. They will still vote the party line.

Think about it. When Clinton was impeached, he wasn't impeached for cheating on his wife. He was impeached for lying under oath (which he did - even though an argument can be made that it was an illegal perjury trap.)

The Dems in the Senate knew that Clinton lied under oath, but they found the entire process to be a political witch hunt designed to embarrass Clinton and make him irrelevant. They voted against it, despite the fact that it was clear that Clinton really DID lie under oath. The GOP assumed they would and thought the voters would not want a party in office that would put party affiliation above the law.

They lost.

[drm604]

116. They voted against it because it was not a serious enough offense.

Surely you are not equating what Clinton did with what Bush has done?

[JPettus]

178. You missed the point

The point is: when it comes to self-preservation, you can't count on people to vote what they can overwhelmingly see is the right thing to do. In some districts, voting to remove a Rethuglican is career suicide.

What I'm saying is that according to the letter of the law, Clinton broke the law. It could be argued that he was caught in an illegal perjury trap, but still, by the letter of the law, Clinton was under oath to tell the truth and he lied. That is the point that conservatives tried to hammer home and they assumed during the impeachment proceedings that America would side with them.

They were wrong.

They also assumed that any Dems that voted to keep Clinton in office would be kissing their own careers goodbye and would be voted out of office in the next election.

They were wrong.

My point was, don't make assumptions that any Republican Senators would change their vote and remove Bush from office just because the evidence shows he is guilty. And don't make any assumptions that refusing to do so would be the career kiss of death.

Didn't happen before and won't happen now, and there is more than a little chance that they would all band together and vote NOT to remove along party lines, just to support the party and the die-hard Republican base that they have to answer to.

[99th_Monkey]

134. Republicans in both House & Senate may be more concerned about getting re-elected

i.e. distancing themselves as FAR away as possible from the criminals in the WH before November.

You must admit this is also a factor in play here. Impeachment forces these weasels to publicly
endorse war crimes, illegal spying on US citizens, illegal wars, outing CIA officials, etc. etc.
by opposing impeachment; OR to stand up for the constitution.

If you were a Rethuglican Senator or Congressperson, running for re-election, how would you vote?

[Occam Bandage]

160. If I were a Republican Senator/Rep., I would vote against impeachment. Duh.

Voting for impeachment/conviction would cause me to lose my fundraising/support network in the party, would infuriate my Republican support base, and Democrats would still vote for the Democratic candidate. I would stand to gain a few independents, maybe--but then again, I would stand to pick up a few, if I cast the impeachment proceedings as pointless time-wasting Washington-as-usual revenge/gotcha politicking, and if I kept submitting bills on gas prices and food prices during the impeachment proceedings.

Voting against impeachment/conviction would infuriate Democrats. They aren't voting for me anyway. Big loss.

[JPettus]

177. Depends on some different factors

What's my district like (house) and how likely is my state to be very red or go blue in the next election? For example, some states are very red and may prefer I toe the party line. That, plus getting support from the party for my re-election might trump what I personally believe. (Remember, I'm a Rethuglican, so I have no real morals or ethics.)

[Occam Bandage]

109. I'm very glad you brought up the courtroom analogy.

No D.A. worth his paycheck would bring a case to court unless they believed a conviction was a sure bet. We know for a fact that a conviction will not occur, because half the jurors are long-time business associates of the defendant, and a super-majority of 67/100 jurors is necessary to convict.

Any smart D.A. would try to negotiate a plea deal, and if he doesn't give in, just let the guy go.

[puebloknot]

131. Naming the crimes is the first step in fixing the problems.

Kucinich has now made an official record of the high crimes and misdemeanors of Bushco. Those who worship the god of practicality can sneer, as is their constitutional right, but some of us are damned glad to see there's someone who doesn't live with a wet finger in the wind all the time. It's called *integrity*!

[TheWatcher]

172. Yes, this particular congress has done such a bang up job reversing anything they have done so far.

As for you feel free to enable the Bullies and Criminals that have hijacked this country.

You are part of the biggest problem we face in this country. People who love the Freedom and Democracy the Constitution affords them, but can't be bothered to be inconvenienced by actually standing up for it and defending it, and supporting those who are trying to to uphold the Rule Of Law when it comes time to do so.

Land Of The Cowards, Home Of The Slaves.

[JPettus]

105. Ummm, impeachment isn't going to put any of those criminals in jail

It's simply a political process by which they can be removed from office....far far too late to amount to very much - unless you very strongly believe Bush is planning to attack Iran.

Otherwise, once they are out on the street, they get to go on with their lives as if nothing happened.

[Jack Rabbit]

63. That does not answer the question

You said that Bush is yesterday's problem. Well, he can still take us to yet another unnecessary war justified with bogus "facts." All indications are he'll do just that.

What is to be done to prevent that?

[Occam Bandage]

70. What is to be done? Well...

First, the threat of Bush bombing Iran is minor and distant. There has been no indication that he will do such: there has been no PR push against Iran; there has been no buildup of any sort; there have been no force deployments; there has been no major troop buildup in Iraq to counter the inevitable blowback. There has been nothing of any sort of indication of coming invasion save the divinations of the hysterical.

Second, the threat of McCain is dire and real. McCain will have four years to bomb Iran. Bush is quickly running out of time.

Thirdly, the answer is "plenty." Now, nothing can be done to kick him out at the moment. He won re-election, and the Republicans control enough of the Senate to block conviction. However, Congress could block funding or specifically deny authorization for any action against Iran, and a significant bloc of the Democratic caucus has indicated that they'll move to do so.

[Jack Rabbit]

80. I wish I had your confidence

First, the threat of Bush bombing Iran is minor and distant. There has been no indication that he will do such

Not true.

First, he has moved the fleet to the Persian Gulf and the environs. He doesn't need to position more troops to a threatening position vis a vis Iran; he already has combat troops in Iraq and Afghanistan. As you see, both share borders with Iran.



If there has been no PR push against Iran, we would not be discussing this now. While no responsible person believes that Iran poses a threat at this time, Bush's talking heads, such as Senator Lieberman and Senator McCain, are playing up the threat as clear and present.

If past is prologue, there is no reason to suppose to lack of planning for inevitable blowback on the Bush regime's part is any indication that there are no plans for an attack against Iran.

Congress could block funding or specifically deny authorization for any action against Iran.

Bush is asserting that Congress gave him the authority to attack Iran in the war resolution following the September 11 attacks. If Bush could be expected to obey the law, Mr. Kucinich would not have had so much fodder for any article of impeachment, let alone 35. It's one thing to argue that Congress isn't going to do anything (by the way, on that I agree, sadly), but it would be quite another to say that Bush has not committed impeachable offenses.

[TheWatcher]

175. And of course he can't refute this, so he doesn't respond.

It is very difficult for some to catapult facts with spin and propaganda.

Three Carrier Groups in the Gulf is no indication of a build up.

:eyes:

[The Doctor.]

47. Last I checked, Bush was still in office.

He's not done fucking things up yet.

If his crimes so far aren't enough to impeach him, then it will be too late once he decides to bomb Iran.

[Occam Bandage]

49. Last I checked, there wasn't the supermajority in the Senate required to convict.

Impeachment proceedings are a waste of time.

[The Doctor.]

90. First, that misses the point; "Bush is not done fucking up yet.", Second;

With Bush leaving in January, it's hardly a political risk for even Republicans to vote accordingly.

Once hearings begin, the shit sees the light of day. After that point, it'd be political suicide not to vote to remove him.

Pelosi can handle being President for a few months.

[Occam Bandage]

110. "it's hardly a political risk for even Republicans to vote accordingly."

:rofl:

...are you new to this game? The Republicans are *not* going to vote to convict the Republican president. You tell me the names of the 17 Republican/Lieberman Senators you believe are going to vote to convict. Hell, give me ten.

[The Doctor.]

127. I didn't say they would vote, I said it wouldn't be a risk. That also doesn't mean they wouldn't

vote to impeach.

Perhaps you don't realize just what criminal scope we're talking about here. Are you 'new to this game'?

After the facts are aired, it may well be political suicide not to vote to impeach. Hell, they'd be lucky just to be voted out of office by people who might otherwise resort to torches and pitchforks.

[Yukari Yakumo]

130. I'll top that. Just gimme 5. Hell, even 3 is a stretch. {nt}

uguu

[northernlights]

167. how is it wasting time?

tie bush/cheney up with impeachment and they won't be able to create any more disasters in the last months.

criminal trials for treason can come later.

[mudesi]

37. Explain yourself

Why is it a waste of time? Are the charges against Bush not real?

It is the epitome of cowardice by the Democrats that they haven't impeached already, and it's because of people like you who think it's a "waste of time".

[Name removed]

40. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[MonkeyFunk]

79. Why would someone need to be paid to say

impeachment would be a waste of time?

Obama opposes it. Howard Dean opposes it. Feingold opposes it. Are there any serious dems of national stature who support it? No.

Realizing impeachment is a silly pursuit is a solidly mainstream democratic position.

[stevedeshazer]

95. Yes. Best post in this thread so far.

[99th_Monkey]

135. Damn, and that's the one post that gets deleted? ~nt~

[Occam Bandage]

159. Believe it or not, calling someone a paid troll because they hold the same position as

every single Democrat of national importance? Not generally accepted on DU.

[Occam Bandage]

52. Sure.

Why is it a waste of time?

Because there are not the numbers in the Senate required to convict. The Republicans are so good at party unity on stonewalling and filibustering (they've set an all-time record for number of filibusters), we can't even pass a fucking windfall tax on oil companies. And you think they're gonna vote to convict George W. Bush of espionage or obstruction of justice or some shit? That's ridiculous. There isn't even the support necessary to get this resolution to the House floor. It can't only not pass the house, it can't even make it to the floor. And why, might I ask? Because the public does not really consider impeachment an important issue. With the exception of a small but angry--and vocal--minority of netroot liberals (who in a stunning coincidence are also Dennis Kucinich's primary donor base), belated political revenge is not exactly as compelling an interest as gas prices, food prices, the tanking economy, and health care are.

Are the charges against Bush not real?

Many are. Some aren't. Most are probably real but lack sufficient evidence. Either way, there aren't anywhere close to the numbers to convict, so the effective legal answer will be "no." Bush will be officially acquitted of all charges if he is impeached.

It is the epitome of cowardice by the Democrats that they haven't impeached already

Cowardice? I'd say sanity. I'd rather they have passed the minimum wage increase, student loan expansions, transparency reforms, and veterans' benefits packages than have wasted months on a futile political circus.

and it's because of people like you who think it's a "waste of time".

Yes, people who care more about the welfare of America than about playing tough-guy for the cameras.

[Duer 157099]

74. Strawman: "Because the public does not really consider impeachment an important issue"

or at minimum, a false argument - because the FACT is that the public is nearly completely IGNORANT because the media is not covering the issues that they'd have to if hearings were to be held.

Or is that too complicated to understand?

[Occam Bandage]

81. Please do not use words you do not understand.

A strawman is a deliberate distortion of an opponent's position. A debater creates--and then of course defeats--a strawman when he cannot effectively address his opponent's actual position. I did not distort anyone's position.

Your claim is perhaps true (assuming you are saying only that the public interest in impeachment would rise if there were a trial) but is irrelevant. It is extraordinarily risky for Congress to attempt to create public opinion; it can backfire badly, as it did with the Republicans in 1998 during the impeachment of Clinton, and as it did with the Schiavo and SS-privatization fiascos. "We'll go ahead and do this and maybe people will support us" rarely is effective--and this looks to be no different, unless you actually think that you can convince the majority of Americans that impeaching a lame-duck President several months from retirement is more important to their lives than their grocery bills and gas-pump receipts. Republicans couldn't do that with a good economy in the late '90s.

Moreover, the entire discussion is moot, since without 67 pro-conviction Senators, Bush is acquitted of all charges.

[stevedeshazer]

96. When you're digging a

hole in the ground, perhaps it's best to stop digging.

[onenote]

82. the public understands what impeachment is

and they understand what a fuck up this president has been. But they just don't see impeachment as a priority. Period.

[Dark]

117. In other words, ignore the people. You know what's good for them, right?

Ignore the will of the people, and do what you think because you're right. That sounds like democracy.

[think4yourself]

92. Yeah...

Some homeless guy just got murdered but you know, it really is a waste of time pursuing this, since he has no family or belongings and all. Besides, no one cares anyway.

Have you ever heard of principles or law or even that "goddamned piece of paper" The Constitution?

The Constitution DEMANDS that action be taken. McCain will implode on his own. Trust me.

If you don't get this, I don't even know what to say anymore.

[Occam Bandage]

111. "The Constitution DEMANDS that action be taken."

Untrue. It allows for action to be taken but does not require it.

"Some homeless guy just got murdered but you know, it really is a waste of time pursuing this"
If you have the guy who did it, but if you are aware that a conviction is an impossibility for reasons unrelated to his guilt, then you say 'well, life sucks sometimes' and move on to the next case. DAs don't just run around wasting their time for kicks.

[pocoloco]

97. He has no choice!

Nor wood any real American!

[Telly Savalas]

98. If Congress was actually being productive, then it would be a profound waste of time

but since they're not, it's kind of hard to criticize him on that count.

[awoke_in_2003]

143. So he should just sit down,

shut up, and be a good little boy? Sometimes doing the right thing means being the only person calling for action. He is not the one wasting time, it is those who are not listening (and thereby being complicit) who are wasting time.

[Occam Bandage]

158. Nope. Like I said, he can stand up and do this all he likes.

Won't change a thing either way.

[awoke_in_2003]

166. I agree with you

that it won't change a thing- too many cowards in government. But it is never a waste of time to do the right thing.

[1monster]

145. It doesn't matter if there is not enough support for it yet. By continuing to put the issue

of impeachment to the Congress, he is continuing to put the corruption of the Bush Administration to the public.

The public can eventually become so outraged that the Congress will have NO OPTION but to listent to their constituents and begin impeachment hearings in earnest.

Even reviled as he was, the groundswell by the public for Nixon's impeachment hearings was two years in coming.

Too bad the pressure for impeachment hearings was not ramped up to screaming proportions two years ago. We might have been rid of the whole riddled with corruption lot of them by now.

Then, time to clean out the Pentagon, the CIA, the FBI, and the Justice Department of those or conspired or collaborated with them.

on edit: clarified by editing out an unwanted phrase

[pberq]

151. Waste Congress' time????

What could be more important than holding this administration accountable for its crimes??

Would it be better to send the green light to future administrations that they can ignore the Constitution and the laws of the country as much as they want?

You're kidding right?

[lonestarnot]

18. 70 DOUBLE OR NOTHIN'

[OzarkDem]

19. Where does Obama stand on impeachment?

Saw a link to a year-old article yesterday saying Obama was opposed to impeachment. Has he changed his mind?

[Occam Bandage]

21. Move on, Ozark. The primary is over.

[OzarkDem]

24. That's not an answer. What is his stand on impeachment?

Its a valid question.

[Occam Bandage]

30. Senator Obama is not a member of the House of Representatives, is he?

He can't vote either way on impeachment, so it doesn't really matter.

[slipslidingaway]

25. No, I called his office yesterday. Link to May 2008 article with

some additional thoughts.

http://www.afterdowningstreet.org/node/33622


...So, the question, as far as prosecution by the U.S. Justice Department goes, should Obama become president, will be whether Obama will approve of prosecuting Bush, Cheney, et alia. Some weeks back, around the time of the Pennsylvania primary, a Philadelphia News Reporter asked Senator Obama that question. Obama did not bring up the topic himself. The reporter raised it. He then reported as follows:...

...He said he's opposed to both because he doesn't know of any crimes having been committed, and he hasn't seen any exceptional circumstances, but that he's open to prosecution should he discover that crimes have been committed..."


"Here's his answer, in its entirety:

"'What I would want to do is to have my Justice Department and my Attorney General immediately review the information that's already there and to find out are there inquiries that need to be pursued. I can't prejudge that because we don't have access to all the material right now. I think that you are right, if crimes have been committed, they should be investigated. You're also right that I would not want my first term consumed by what was perceived on the part of Republicans as a partisan witch hunt because I think we've got too many problems we've got to solve. So this is an area where I would want to exercise judgment -- I would want to find out directly from my Attorney General -- having pursued, having looked at what's out there right now -- are there possibilities of genuine crimes as opposed to really bad policies. And I think it's important-- one of the things we've got to figure out in our political culture generally is distinguishing between really dumb policies and policies that rise to the level of criminal activity.

You know, I often get questions about impeachment at town hall meetings and I've said that is not something I think would be fruitful to pursue because I think that impeachment is something that should be reserved for exceptional circumstances. Now, if I found out that there were high officials who knowingly, consciously broke existing laws, engaged in coverups of those crimes with knowledge forefront, then I think a basic principle of our Constitution is nobody above the law -- and I think that's roughly how I would look at it.'"

[OzarkDem]

32. Thanks!

Glad to hear he's left the door open to consider it.

[slipslidingaway]

33. YW, if any crimes have been committed??? We do not know of

any yet, but I'll look into it.


Well I guess that's leaving the door open.

:shrug:

[EFerrari]

27. Obama is only one Senator, isn't that right?

[slipslidingaway]

34. Yes, but he is our nominee. In May he said he was not sure if

crimes had been committed, we need to pressure the Dems before the election IMO.

[DutchLiberal]

44. He was not sure crimes were committed? And this man should be president... why?

Mind-blowing... :wow:

[EFerrari]

77. Are you STILL at this bashng Obama thing?

And do you believe no one here has noticed?

[DutchLiberal]

170. No one has noticed... what? Are you one of those freaks who sees a right-wing troll behind...

...every bit of criticism against the new Messiah Obama?

[EFerrari]

176. No, I'm one of those "freaks" who can read.

:hi:

[slipslidingaway]

169. I certainly wish that more Dems would acknowledge that

crimes have been committed.

:(

[EFerrari]

76. He has enough on his hands. We don't have enough other democrats

in Congress to deal with this?!

[slipslidingaway]

168. There is no need to deal with anything, I just wish he felt that

there had been at least one crime committed.

:shrug:

"...are there possibilities of genuine crimes as opposed to really bad policies. And I think it's important-- one of the things we've got to figure out in our political culture generally is distinguishing between really dumb policies and policies that rise to the level of criminal activity..."

Edit to add link

http://www.afterdowningstreet.org/node/33622

[me b zola]

64. Where do you stand on impeachment?

Are you for or against?

[The Doctor.]

20. Contact Conyers here;

http://www.johnconyers.com/contact

and here;

Washington, D.C. Office:

2426 Rayburn House Office Building,
District of Columbia 20515-2214
Phone: [phone]
Fax: [phone]



Detroit Office: (more district offices)

231 West Lafayette Boulevard, 669 Federal Building
Detroit, Michigan 48226
Phone: [phone]
Fax: [phone]
Detroit Office:
231 West Lafayette Boulevard, 669 Federal Building
Detroit, Michigan 48226
Phone: [phone]
Fax: [phone]

Trenton Office:
2615 West Jefferson
Trenton, Michigan 48183
Phone: [phone]
Fax: [phone]

[EFerrari]

26. Last time I called Conyers office (about 3 months ago)

I was told that if they took on impeachment, they wouldn't be able to do anything else.

FYI. There are plenty of good answers to that concern.

[onenote]

83. really. What are those "good answers"?

[Zhade]

28. Good to see some bravery among the cowards willing to let criminals walk.

And I mean both in Congress and HERE.

[Uncle Joe]

29. I don't believe they would break a sweat coming up with 60.

Thanks for the thread, kpete.

[texanwitch]

31. Go Dennis.

I am really proud of Dennis.

[bluesmail]

35. YES, IT'S AN EXCELLENT STRATEGY n/t

[mudesi]

36. Why is this man NOT the presidential nominee?

Sigh.

Keep at it, Mr. Kucinich. Keep at it.

America is on your side.

[Freddie Stubbs]

38. Because he is a grandstanding legislator who hasn't accomplished jack s**t in ten years in Congress

[Individualist]

45. because far too many voters allow the media and the party machine to determine who they'll vote for.

[DutchLiberal]

46. Well, he's not black, or a woman; he doesn't look like a moviestar...

...he doesn't take in millions from lobbyists and special interest groups; he speaks the uncomfortable truth...

[Occam Bandage]

53. Because he's done fuck-all in his decade of Congressional service,

because he spends all his time grandstanding for the applause of marginal constituencies.

[TheWatcher]

59. Yes, perhaps he should be a cowardly apologist like you.

Willing to let murderous criminals walk free, because you just can't be bothered with being inconvenienced by having to deal with it.

Pathetic.

Kucinich has done infinitely more for this country than people like you have.

What a complete asshat.

[Occam Bandage]

60. Correction: Attacking the common consensus in a community

is being neither a coward nor an apologist.

And Bush and Cheney are walking free in January 2009, whether we vote on impeachment or not. (Hell, even if we convict, they'll walk free; impeachment can only result in removal from office) There aren't 67 Senators who will vote to impeach.

[think4yourself]

93. You sure are spending a lot of time

being a Bush apologist. What is your deal?!

[Occam Bandage]

108. Nowhere have I said that Bush has not committed crimes, nor have I said

that he does not deserve impeachment. Impeachment, however, would not serve to better the country, nor would it undo his atrocious policies, nor would it help the Democrats in the upcoming election, nor would it result in a conviction. I don't really feel like putting November at risk, like doing nothing in Congress for the rest of the year, and like giving George Bush an acquittal on all counts.

[petgoat]

115. Because it's consensus it can't be cowardly? Basic illogic!

I have noticed in other forums that Bush apologists like to use
"lack of proof" as an excuse for lack of investigation.

You use "lack of votes to convict" as an excuse for same.

We hold hearings, we gather evidence, we get new coverage, discussion
among the people, and they agree:

wiretapping, torture, and rule by executive fiat are wery wery bad for
democracy--Impeach the Bastards! Including Pelosi!

[TheWatcher]

174. It's not "very bad" for democracy.

Call it what it is. Criminal. Treason.

Other than that, we agree.

Carry on.

[TheWatcher]

173. You can spew whatever shill spin and magical justification you like

Rolling over and giving into tyrants and criminals is what it is.

It is what you are.

A Cowardly Apologist.

The shoe fits you well.

Wear it with arrogant pride.

There are far too many people in this country who are simply no longer able, or willing, to be free people.

You're Exhibit A.

You just can't be bothered with the inconvenience of it all.

[jespwrs]

67. I don't think so

He has been a dedicated representative for the last ten years, one of the most passionate and hard working Congressmen. I think your statement is ridiculous.

[Occam Bandage]

72. He's passionate and hard-working, no doubt about that.

But what legislative power does he hold, save his own vote? Does he lead a voting bloc? No. Does he have a network of allies who can impact legislation? No. Has he written any notable bills which have been signed into law? Not really. Does he regularly sponsor influential legislation? No.

His Democratic vote is appreciated, but his grandstanding aside, he isn't anything better than your run-of-the-mill blue-district Democrat.

[Duer 157099]

75. And what if this is his purpose in life? Have you considered that?

Most people are fortunate to do just *one* critically important thing in their life, what if this is his?

Or do only *accomplished* people have the right to a purpose?

[Occam Bandage]

84. It probably is his purpose, and it's a very good one.

His purpose is to be in Congress, and to act as a pester to whoever is in power, constantly trying to push the party leftwards. That's a good trait in a Congressman, and we need our Dennis Kuciniches in the party if we're to have a healthy party.

The skill set needed for that isn't the skill set that makes an effective President, though, and that was the question I was responding to.

[onenote]

85. If its his purpose in life, fine. But that doesn't make him an effective leader

[Sunnyshine]

118. Thanks to Bob Taft and Ken Blackwell et al.- Obstructing Ohio Dem initiatives. n/t

Both served as Ohio Secretary Of State in consecutive terms. Taft becoming the unethical governor afterwards, while Blackwell became Dr.Elections. Ken tried to run for Governor. Fortunately, The Ohio GOP was busted for ethics violations.

Guess who showed up for lunch?

190 activist came out in 2006, to shout them all down at Hannity's Freedom Tour in Cincinnati. They had to cut the event to 40 minutes, when it was due to last 2 hours. AFL-CIO, UFCW, UAW, and many citizens and activist surrounded them in the square of the small town, and literally shouted them out of town. Blackwell could not get a word in. Willie Cunningham was spanked in front of his own followers, and Hannity tried to make fun of Jerry Springer.

That day, the Ohio Democratic voters scored a big one for the team.
It felt so good to see us there in numbers and not willing to tolerate it anymore. :kick:

[Electric Flag]

132. Quite the little Kucinich basher, aren't you...?

Makes me wonder what the fuck your real motives are.

If you can't lend a hand, just get out of the way.

[NikolaC]

150. Hmmm

Freddie Stubbs? Is that you?

[mirrera]

39. Thank you thank you thank you...

you thank you thank you...you thank you thank you...you thank you thank you...you thank you thank you...you thank you thank you...you thank you thank you...you thank you thank you...you thank you thank you...you thank you thank you...you thank you thank you...you thank you thank you...you thank you thank you...you thank you thank you...you thank you thank you...you thank you thank you...you thank you thank you...you thank you thank you...you thank you thank you...you thank you thank you...you thank you thank you...you thank you thank you...you thank you thank you...

[unkachuck]

99. me too!....give 'em hell, Dennis!!....n/t

[calimary]

42. BRAVO, Dennis!!! Backbone DOES exist within the Democratic Party!

I just wrote about it here:

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/mary-lyon/worse-than-any-impeachabl_b_106533.html

I may print it out and mail it to Nancy Pelosi. Her name figures prominently:


I would never have thought there'd be any greater crimes than those of George W. Bush, nor any villain greater. I'm wrong. And no, it's not Dick Cheney, either, or anything he's perpetrated. Nor any of their colleagues.

It's Nancy Pelosi, and her colleagues, and what they seem quite literally hell-bent on doing.

[Wizard777]

71. It's more than back bone. He's threating to come back with a bigger hammer to drive the nails with.

:rofl:

[calimary]

86. Yeah! No kidding! Not 35 articles but SIXTY!!!

That's how we should have handled bush's repeated war funding requests as of January 2007 when the Dems took over on Capitol Hill. Send bush the bill WE wanted. He vetoes it, of course. Next one we send him is either the same one or lower, or with more side stuff WE want in there than he does. He'd veto it again for sure. Next round, we do the same as step two, only lower or with more goodies. He vetoes that as expected. So we go back to square one with him and send him the very first version we started with. Take it or leave it, george, this is how it's gonna be from here on. You're not in the driver's seat on this anymore. Deal or No Deal. And that's how it should have gone, every other month, from then til now. You get WHAT WE GIVE YOU, junior, and you'll learn to LIKE IT. Period.

[Wizard777]

88. I'm quite sure he can find another 606 now.

[Freddie Stubbs]

43. Yes, apparently the problem is that Conyers simply hasn't been presented with enough Articles

[SalmonChantedEvening]

48. He has 935 lies to choose from

Armed to the teeth.

Go Dennis! :patriot: :woohoo:

[Echo In Light]

51. DK just kicks great fuckin' heaps o' ass, for all the right reasons, period. K&R

[Sunnyshine]

164. Yes he do!

:toast:

[magellan]

54. Yes, keep poking Pelosi in the eye with it!

Show for the record who supports and defends the Constitution and who just pays their oath of office lip service. There are few true patriots in Congress and DK is one of the best of them.

GO KOOCH!

[G_j]

57. OK, now I DO worship at his feet :-)

seriously though, history will shine kindly on this, & he is a real modern patriot.

[orleans]

62. 60? that's hysterical! (randi couldn't understand how dennis could

restrain himself to only 35)

good for him.

thank you dennis.

[spanone]

65. k&r

[Duer 157099]

66. Per Randi "43 for 43" is the way to go

symmetry and all that

[LWolf]

68. K & R n/t

[bdamomma]

73. go get them Dennis and teach them about protecting the Constitution

cause that is not a priority to them.

[pacalo]

78. Keep on speaking for us, Dennis! What a PUBLIC servant!

[grannylib]

87. Good. Even if impeachment doesn't happen, the more he does this

the more attention rePigliCon filth will get, and people will be even more turned off by the incumbent party in the WH.

[LaStrega]

89. Kick some shrubCo ass Dennis! k/r h/t

on edit added !

[underseasurveyor]

91. (((OH MY GOD)))

I LOVE THAT MAN more n more:loveya:

insert happy dance smilie --->:woohoo:<---

[raging_moderate]

94. remove executive privelage

Once again, I think we need to realize that during impeachment hearings, there is NO such thing as executive privelage. We may very well find a lot more than we realize now if we start impeachment proceedings such as war profiteering to the extent that it will make most Americans furious.

[ForeignSpectator]

137. "privilege" n/t

[Runcible Spoon]

101. teh same people who bitch and moan about impeachment being impossible...

are in the same ridiculously narrow mindset of those who didn't want voting discrepancies investigated. I think it's tremendously depressing that people don't want things like: Plame, voting, impeachment, etc pushed in congress. Will you all sit back and let them get away with ANYTHING because your precious reps can't be counted on to do their fucking JOBS?! I can't believe people let themselves get shit on every day and sit back grinning for more.

The attitude that unpopular but righteous and ethical actions shouldn't be pursued is antithetical to true progressive democracy to say the least. If this same attitude had prevailed always, civil rights, women's rights, etc never would have happened.

[ejbr]

103. Now THAT's what I'm talkin' about!! There is hope for the republic! n/t

[mvd]

112. I'm with Kucinich again

There's certainly more evidence than ever now, and with Bush being at 20-something percent approval, I don't see how it hurts us. It's necessary that this gets in the record.

[PuppyBismark]

113. Furthermore, Bush will pardon every Repub when he leaves office

Just watch! Nothing anyone will be able to do about it too.

:banghead: :banghead: :banghead:

[debunkthelies]

114. Go Dennis!!

RIGHT ON!!!:toast: :kick: :loveya: :headbang: :yourock: :woohoo: :applause: Bush Crime Family perp walk, oh yeah:grouphug:

[dweller]

119. this man is a champ!

:thumbsup: to Rep. Kucinich!

if knocked down, comes up w/ both hands to do battle :D
dp

[dkf]

120. I'd rather he cut it down to the most obvious and strongest articles.

[Sunnyshine]

121. If everyone showed up to read these 60 articles in Washington DC, that would be powerful.

Day after day if we have to. I am done with these tyrants. :bounce: Go DK! :bounce:

[DUlover2909]

123. Or what if he had done them one at a time?

[raystorm7]

122. Kucinich says GRRRRR!

[Imagevision]

124. This is a bonafide reason to flood DC. with protestors demanding impeachment!

[Norrin Radd]

125. kr

True patriot.

[earth mom]

126. K & R & Bookmarked. nt

[Old Hickory Fan]

128. Food for thought

“"Never doubt that a small group of thoughtful, committed people can change the world; indeed, it is the only thing that ever has."

- Margaret Mead, anthropologist

[Yukari Yakumo]

129. Isn't this the definition of insanity?

To keep doing the same thing over and over again, expecting a different result?

[glitch]

154. You mean continue to NOT impeach them year after year and expect them to somehow

miraculously STOP torturing, looting, profiteering, abrogating treaties?

[Pierzin]

133. God bless Rep Kucinich... one of the rare statesmen of our time

Does anyone know WHY they(the leadership) want to bury it?
What are they waiting for? Or do they want to be part and parcel of the regime?

[happygoluckytoyou]

136. GIVE ME A CALL..... i don't mind reading to idiot republicans

[Broadslidin]

138. But, But, it would be so "embarrassing" for our Imperial Empire, exposing Dirty Laundry.

Patriotic Palosi, Condescending Conyers,
and the oh so Righteous Republicans are simply
protecting this corporate government
shroud of deception and murder.

What else, could be expected from malignant narcissists.

[Pooka Fey]

139. I love Kucinich. He alone gives me hope in these dark days. nt

[FlaGranny]

140. To anyone against the impeachment

remember, by NOT impeaching, congress has given tacit approval to the next president, and all succeeding presidents, to carry on just as Bush has. They are setting a precedent - a very, very bad precedent.

[mcollier]

141. That's what we get when we

elect weak leaders...

Pulosi was nieve to think that the republicans gave a shit about working together.

[Fiendish Thingy]

144. Impeachment is about restoring the Constitution and dismantling the "Unitary Executive"

and less about removing Bush from office, at least at this late date. That's why impeachment proceedings should continue past 1/20/09 if needed, to erase the dangerous precedent the Bush/Cheney have set...(yes, you can impeach someone after they have left office).

Protecting the Constitution is never a waste of time or money, even if, at least in the beginning, you "don't have the votes"...

DK is my hero!

[nashville_brook]

147. so true.

[pleah]

142. K&R Oh, hell yeah!

You go Kucinich! :applause: :applause: :applause: :applause: :applause: :applause: :applause:

[DesertRat]

146. Thank you Rep. Kucinich!

:kick:

[NikolaC]

148. Bless Him

and his tenacity. I too am tired of Conyers constantly blowing smoke up our asses.

[Sam Ervin jret]

152. We only need one good reason to get Bush out by Impeachment

So he can't give pardons to all the criminals that have worked for him for eight years.

Even if it's the last day of his term, it's worth the work.

[paparush]

153. DK - Singlehandedly trying to preserve the Constitution.

Do we have the votes in the Senate? Probably not. Not right now anyway. But, after Bush is forced to testify, without Executive Privilege, then..maybe we will.

THAT'S why this is important.
THAT'S why this is not grandstanding.
THAT'S why the M$M is ignoring this.


This one thing..this one possibility..Impeachment Hearings..could be the one thing to remove shield of denial, lies, and distortions that have protected Bush from day one.

[gorfle]

155. This guy has balls.

This guy rocks. Can you imagine the courage it takes to be him?

[lisainmilo]

156. I don't think it is a waste of time or money

I applaud DK for continuing this fight. I agree that impeachment may never happen, but I like to see this effort continue. I was at work when C-Span was on, a Republican was listening to the articles of impeachment being read, it was a great opportunity to open up the discussion. It is important to hear the truth. We don't get it in MSM. Many average folks heard the list of crimes for the first time and it is important for folks all over this country to realize the have been duped!

What I think IS a waste of time and money is the false imprisonment of Don Seigelmen, the Iraq war, all the monies spent selling this war, all the monies being paid to Halliburton/KBR, Blackwater,Titan,& CACI, frankly I am tired of paying these guys. What I also think is a waste of time and money is no child left behind, another Bush profit making scheme that is stealing my tax dollars. I am sure there are many more business ventures I do not know about in which these guys are profitting from at taxpayers expense.

If Bush thinks he has gotten away with these crimes and is not held accountable for his lawlessness, what is to stop him from repeating and continuing to live outside of the law? And when the law proves he is wrong, he simply changes the law.

[ThomWV]

161. Kick for the courage of Dennis Kucinich

[whistle]

162. I'm sure Dennis could find 600 articles to impeach

[ClayZ]

163. Bravo, Dennis Kucinich!

K and R

[jakem]

171. that little elf has some BALLS!

go KU!