PDA

View Full Version : Conyers: 3 More Congress Members and I'll Impeach




PatriotOne
07-22-2007, 03:20 PM
Would RP supporting the impeachment be a good move for RP or a bad move? What do you all think?


Conyers: 3 More Congress Members and I'll Impeach

From After Downing Street
By David Swanson

House Judiciary Committee Chairman John Conyers has said that if three more Congress Members get behind impeachment he will start the impeachment proceedings.

I was a guest today on Bree Walker's radio show. She's the progressive radio host from San Diego who purchased Cindy Sheehan's land from her in Crawford, Texas.

Bree attended an event on Friday in San Diego at which Congressman Conyers spoke about impeachment. Her report was extremely interesting. I had already heard reports that Conyers had said: "What are we waiting for? Let's take these two guys out!" But, of course, what we're waiting for is John Conyers. Is he ready to act? It was hard to tell from that comment. In January, Conyers spoke at a huge rally on the National Mall and declared "We can fire them!" but later explained that what he meant was that we could wait for two years and Bush and Cheney's terms would end. Was this week's remark just more empty rhetoric?

It appears to be more than that. Bree Walker told me, on the air, that Conyers said that all he needs is three more Congress Members backing impeachment, and he'll move on it, even without Pelosi. I asked whether that meant specifically moving from 14 cosponsors of H Res 333 to 17, or adding 3 to the larger number of Congress Members who have spoken favorably of impeachment but not all signed onto bills. Bree said she didn't know and that Conyers had declined to take any questions.

Either way, this target of three more members seems perfectly doable. It's safe to assume, I think, that we're talking about impeaching Cheney first. But, even if Conyers is talking about Bush, the target is perfectly achievable.

First, there are Congress Members like Jesse Jackson Jr. who have spoken out for impeachment but not signed onto H Res 333. They should be urged to act now! Second, there are dozens of members who signed onto H Res 635 a year and a half ago, Conyers' bill for an investigation into grounds for impeachment, who have not signed onto H Res 333 yet. Third, one of the excuses citizens often hear from lots of Congress Members for not signing onto articles of impeachment is that not enough of their colleagues have signed on and therefore "we don't have the votes." Well that just changed. Now three more votes is all that's needed to get this machine rolling. Fourth, many of the 14 Congress Members backing H Res 333 have used similar excuses to justify refraining from lobbying their colleagues to join them. That can now end. Our 14 leaders can do more than just put down their names.

Now, if Conyers begins impeachment proceedings in the House Judiciary Committee, we should all be clear on what that will mean. If it is serious, it will not mean sending any subpoenas or contempt citations to the emperors' court. Bush and Cheney have already repeatedly refused to comply with subpoenas.

President Richard Nixon did the same, of course, and his refusal to comply with subpoenas constituted the offense cited in one of the three Articles of Impeachment approved by the House Judiciary Committee on July 27, 1974 as warranting "impeachment and trial, and removal from office." But Bush and Cheney have gone further, ordering former staffers not to comply with subpoenas, and announcing that the Justice Department will not enforce any contempt of Congress proceedings.

What the impeachment of Cheney or Bush will be is very, very fast. It will not disrupt or distract from the important business of passing nonbinding resolutions and holding all-night gripe sessions over bills destined to be vetoed. Impeachment in the case of Dick Cheney need not take the three months it did for Nixon or the two months it did for President Bill Clinton. In fact, it could take a day. Here's why:

Bush and Cheney's lies about Iraqi ties to al Qaeda are on videotape and in writing, and Bush and Cheney continue to make them to this day. There was no al Qaeda in Iraq until the invasion.

Their claims about Iraqi weapons have been shown in every detail to have been, not mistakes, but lies.

Their threats to Iran are on videotape.

Bush being warned about Katrina and claiming he was not are on videotape.

Bush lying about illegal spying and later confessing to it are on videotape. A federal court has ruled that spying to be a felony.

The Supreme Court has ruled Bush and Cheney's system of detentions unconstitutional.

Torture, openly advocated for by Bush and Cheney and their staffs, is documented by victims, witnesses, and public photographs. Torture was always illegal and has been repeatedly recriminalized under Bush and Cheney. Bush has reversed laws with signing statements.

Those statements are posted on the White House website, and a GAO report found that with 30 percent of Bush's signing statements in which he announces his right to break laws, he has in fact proceeded to break those laws.

For these and many other offenses, no investigation is needed because no better evidence is even conceivable. This impeachment will be swift. And it will require only a simple majority. We already know that the Democrats can vote as a block if they want to, and that a few brave Republicans might join them.

Whether the Senate will then convict Cheney will depend on how much pressure citizens apply and how much information the House manages to force onto television sets. The latter could be surprisingly large and substantive, since the conflict of an impeachment is certain to generate incredible ratings.

But even an acquittal would identify the Senators to be removed from office by voters in 2008. And Cheney (or Bush) would still have been 100% impeached. Al Gore didn't run for president pretending he'd never met Bill Clinton and pick Senator Joe Lieberman as a running mate because the Senate convicted Clinton (it acquitted).

The timing of Conyers' remark may be related to the steps the White House has recently taken to assert "unitary executive" dictatorial power. Bush has commuted the sentence of a subordinate who obstructed an investigation into matters involving Bush and Cheney. And, as mentioned above, neither subpoenas nor contempt citations will go anywhere. Impeachment is no longer merely the appropriate step that it has been for the past six years. It is now the only tool left to the Congress for use in asserting its very existence as a functioning body of government.

But the timing is also quite helpful to the grassroots movement for impeachment, and rather symbolic. Five years ago this Monday, the meeting was held at #10 Downing Street that produced the Downing Street Minutes. Over two years ago, then Ranking Member Conyers held a hearing in the basement of the Capitol, the only space the Republican leadership would allow him. At that hearing, several Democratic Congress Members for the first time began talking about impeachment. The witnesses at the hearing were Ambassador Joseph Wilson, attorney John Bonifaz, former CIA analyst Ray McGovern, and a then unknown gold star mother named Cindy Sheehan. They discussed the evidence of the Downing Street documents, which added significantly to the growing body of evidence that Bush and Cheney misled the Congress about the case for war.

This Monday, Sheehan and McGovern and a great many leaders of the movements for peace and impeachment will lead a march at 10 a.m. at Arlington National Cemetery. We will march to Congressman Conyers' office and ask to talk with him about impeachment. We will refuse to leave without either a commitment to begin at once the impeachment of Cheney or Bush or both, or our arms in handcuffs. The same day, groups in several states around the country will be sitting in and risking arrest for impeachment in the district offices of their congress members.

Not everyone will be able to take part. But everyone can take two minutes on Monday and do two things: phone Chairman Conyers at 202-225-5126 and ask him to start the impeachment of Dick Cheney; and phone your own Congress Member at 202-224-3121 and ask them to immediately call Conyers' office to express their support for impeachment. Your Congress Member might just be one of the three needed, not just to keep us out of jail but to keep this nation from devolving into dictatorship.

Wyurm
07-22-2007, 03:31 PM
I'll have to find out where Obama and Durbin stand on this as well as Congressman Weller.

lynnf
07-22-2007, 03:33 PM
Would RP supporting the impeachment be a good move for RP or a bad move? What do you all think?




The only criteria, in my opinion, should be whether RP has seen enough to warrant a position on it. To heck with whether it would be a good move or bad move, a truthful and thoughtful consideration should be made, just as with any of his other positions.
Judging from some of his comments on the unconstitiutional nature of the current actions by the Bush administration, I'd say there might be enough for a decision already.

lynn

foofighter20x
07-22-2007, 03:33 PM
As unpopular as Bush is, it'd still be a bad move.

If RP did this, he'd only alienate the GOP base further.

And this is assuming that the impeachment articles have some substance, too.

Best for RP to abstain the vote or to make himself scarce then. ;)

DeadheadForPaul
07-22-2007, 03:33 PM
I think it'd be a bad move right now given that almost no republicans want impeachment...even the ones fed up with Bush. We really need their support. A vote for impeachment would certainly make them view Paul as a traitor

jj111
07-22-2007, 03:36 PM
I think a more effective political move is:

1) Repeal of Patriot ACT and Military Commissions Act of 2006
2) Legislature condemning or neutralizing Presidential Directive 51.

foofighter20x
07-22-2007, 03:40 PM
To amend what I said earlier, I think it's all just political posturing and a big waste of time.

Even if the House impeaches both Bush and Cheney, they'll never have the votes in the Senate to convict EITHER of them. It'll go straight up and down party lines just like it did with Clinton.

DAZ
07-22-2007, 03:42 PM
Sticky issue. Ron Paul is nothing if not a man who stands by his principles. I don't see how he could vote against impeachment and not lose credibility. He'll get hounded by the press either way.

foofighter20x
07-22-2007, 03:43 PM
Sticky issue. Ron Paul is nothing if not a man who stands by his principles. I don't see how he could vote against impeachment and not lose credibility. He'll get hounded by the press either way.

Taking that into account: if he's damned either way, then RP should just embrace it and vote to impeach. Better to remove a dead limb than to let it kill the rest of the body...

Dustancostine
07-22-2007, 03:54 PM
If both Cheney and Bush are impeached who would become President? Rice?

Dustancostine
07-22-2007, 03:59 PM
If both Cheney and Bush are impeached who would become President? Rice?

Blah its Pelosi, Hopefully Ron Paul will fight his guts out against impeachment.

Dartan
07-22-2007, 04:05 PM
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_presidential_line_of_succession

Looks like Pelosi

Which would actually be good. It would get the 'first woman' out of the way and keep those votes from going to Hillary.

DisabledVet
07-22-2007, 04:08 PM
Yeah Pelosi doesn't like Hillary.

Dustancostine
07-22-2007, 04:11 PM
Yeah but you know the damage the Dems can do before we get to 09. All of these debates we are having will go out the window. We will have amnesty and univ health care before a new president can do anything about it.

DAZ
07-22-2007, 04:13 PM
Yeah but you know the damage the Dems can do before we get to 09. All of these debates we are having will go out the window. We will have amnesty and univ health care before a new president can do anything about it.

Crap you're right.

ShaneC
07-22-2007, 04:18 PM
Yeah but you know the damage the Dems can do before we get to 09. All of these debates we are having will go out the window. We will have amnesty and univ health care before a new president can do anything about it.

you have that much faith in any elected offical?

Quantumystic
07-22-2007, 04:22 PM
If both Cheney and Bush are impeached who would become President? Rice?

Constitutionally, it should be Pelosi. But knowing these clowns, I'm sure they've re-written everything.

paulitics
07-22-2007, 04:38 PM
RP should absolutely stand up to his principles. Cheney and bush have repeatedly broken the law, and made a mockery out of the constitution. This is serious, and his duty to uphold the constitution , in my opinion, can't be any stronger than it is at this time.

I fear for this country if these lunatics get away with their warentless wiretappings, secret cia prisons, torture on innocents, and lying about Iraq without any consequence. Ron Paul is the strongest libertarian and defender of the constitution in congress, bar none. I think it would contradict this reputation if he doesn't take a stand for truth. Remember, he voted to impeach Clinton, for lesser crimes.

As far as politics goes, isn't the reason we are all here, is because he is above this? I know it is for me. And from a strategic standpoint, I actually think it could make him stronger, and break away from the neocons who need to lose their strangehold on this country. He can win over many more democrats as well, who are going to be the majority mindset in America. And, if impeachent does occur, those candidates who distance themselves from the neocons will be politically victorious in the futuer.

DisabledVet
07-22-2007, 04:40 PM
This could be big news....never before has there been so much support for Impeachment proceedings..more than Clinton......(Nixon wasn't impeached fyi)....as the internet has allowed such info to spread. We could see the first successful impeachment of a president EVER....what a message to send to the Neo-cons ...

.
.
. HISTORY OF IMPEACHMENT PROCEEDINGS IN AMERICA:

Congress regards impeachment as a power to be used only in extreme cases; the House has initiated impeachment proceedings only 62 times since 1789 (most recently President Clinton), and only the following 17 federal officers have been impeached:

* Two presidents:
o Andrew Johnson was impeached in 1868 after violating the then-newly created Tenure of Office Act. President Johnson was acquitted of all charges by a single vote in the Senate.
o Bill Clinton was impeached on December 19, 1998 by the House of Representatives on grounds of perjury to a grand jury (by a 228–206 vote) and obstruction of justice (by a 221–212 vote). Two other articles of impeachment failed—a second count of perjury in the Jones case (by a 205–229 vote), and one accusing President Clinton of abuse of power (by a 148–285 vote). He was acquitted by the Senate.
* One cabinet officer, William W. Belknap (Secretary of War). He resigned before his trial, and was later acquitted. Allegedly most of those who voted to acquit him believed that his resignation had removed their jurisdiction.
* One Senator, William Blount (though the Senate had already expelled him).
* Associate Justice Samuel Chase in 1804. He was acquitted.
* Twelve other federal judges, including Alcee Hastings, who was impeached and convicted for taking over $150,000 in bribe money in exchange for sentencing leniency. The Senate did not bar Hastings from holding future office, and Hastings won election to the House of Representatives from South Florida. Hastings' name was mentioned as a possible Chairman of the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence, but was passed over by House Speaker-designate Nancy Pelosi, presumably because of his previous impeachment and removal. Source U.S. Senate

Many mistakenly assume Richard Nixon was impeached. While the House Judiciary Committee did approve articles of impeachment against him (by wide margins) and did report those articles to the full House, Nixon resigned prior to House consideration of the impeachment resolutions. Both his impeachment by the House of Representatives and his conviction by the Senate were near certainties; Nixon reportedly decided to resign after being told this by Senator Barry Goldwater.

ThePieSwindler
07-22-2007, 04:44 PM
I think a more effective political move is:

1) Repeal of Patriot ACT and Military Commissions Act of 2006
2) Legislature condemning or neutralizing Presidential Directive 51.

That is the key issue here. Obama et al. VOTED TO EXTEND the patriot act, so they are accomplice in this. If we are going to impeach Bush, we may as well impeach all of congress (cept Ron Paul;) ), including the democrats. Congress defaulted on its authority to declare war, congress passed the acts that have eroded our liberties. Impeaching bush would do nothing and waste time, because Pelosi et al. are just as bad as Bush, just in different ways. Though, i think it would be what the founders would have wanted and what the intent of impeachment was, to be rid of a president who ignored or went against the constitution and did not live up to his oath. However, getting rid of the president would not change the fact that they have these laws on the books that can be abused (even though they are unconstitutional).

paulitics
07-22-2007, 04:46 PM
Yeah but you know the damage the Dems can do before we get to 09. All of these debates we are having will go out the window. We will have amnesty and univ health care before a new president can do anything about it.

The amnesty bill will show its ugly face peicemeil in legislation wether there are democrats or republicans in control, and will occur regardless. They will not attempt another wide reaching bill for another 2 years because of the reaction to the last one. Universal health care will be too complex to implement between now and elections. Pelosi will be pretty weak because she doesn't have much time to achieve an agenda. I'm more concerned about Hillary or Obama who will have time to implement socialist policies.

This is just my take on this. These traitors to the constitution need to be taken out now, or it may become too late.

Dustancostine
07-22-2007, 04:52 PM
I am sorry but I will take a fascist over a communist any day.

LibertyEagle
07-22-2007, 05:06 PM
Nancy Pelosi

foofighter20x
07-22-2007, 05:14 PM
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_presidential_line_of_succession

Looks like Pelosi

Which would actually be good. It would get the 'first woman' out of the way and keep those votes from going to Hillary.

Not to mention it would also wipe out the whole slate of Dems running for Pres...

They'd all have to run for VeeP or hope Pelosi gives'em a cabinet position or whatever as she'd be eligible for 2 terms of her own AND have incumbency working for her.

foofighter20x
07-22-2007, 05:16 PM
This could be big news....never before has there been so much support for Impeachment proceedings..more than Clinton......(Nixon wasn't impeached fyi)....as the internet has allowed such info to spread. We could see the first successful impeachment of a president EVER....what a message to send to the Neo-cons ...

.
.
. HISTORY OF IMPEACHMENT PROCEEDINGS IN AMERICA:

Congress regards impeachment as a power to be used only in extreme cases; the House has initiated impeachment proceedings only 62 times since 1789 (most recently President Clinton), and only the following 17 federal officers have been impeached:

* Two presidents:
o Andrew Johnson was impeached in 1868 after violating the then-newly created Tenure of Office Act. President Johnson was acquitted of all charges by a single vote in the Senate.
o Bill Clinton was impeached on December 19, 1998 by the House of Representatives on grounds of perjury to a grand jury (by a 228–206 vote) and obstruction of justice (by a 221–212 vote). Two other articles of impeachment failed—a second count of perjury in the Jones case (by a 205–229 vote), and one accusing President Clinton of abuse of power (by a 148–285 vote). He was acquitted by the Senate.
* One cabinet officer, William W. Belknap (Secretary of War). He resigned before his trial, and was later acquitted. Allegedly most of those who voted to acquit him believed that his resignation had removed their jurisdiction.
* One Senator, William Blount (though the Senate had already expelled him).
* Associate Justice Samuel Chase in 1804. He was acquitted.
* Twelve other federal judges, including Alcee Hastings, who was impeached and convicted for taking over $150,000 in bribe money in exchange for sentencing leniency. The Senate did not bar Hastings from holding future office, and Hastings won election to the House of Representatives from South Florida. Hastings' name was mentioned as a possible Chairman of the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence, but was passed over by House Speaker-designate Nancy Pelosi, presumably because of his previous impeachment and removal. Source U.S. Senate

Many mistakenly assume Richard Nixon was impeached. While the House Judiciary Committee did approve articles of impeachment against him (by wide margins) and did report those articles to the full House, Nixon resigned prior to House consideration of the impeachment resolutions. Both his impeachment by the House of Representatives and his conviction by the Senate were near certainties; Nixon reportedly decided to resign after being told this by Senator Barry Goldwater.

I love when people give the history... Fascinating stuff

goldenequity
07-23-2007, 01:21 PM
Impeach?

Yes, absolutely! and here's another screaming reason
posted today if you haven't already seen it:

Law of the Sea Treaty (LOST)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=beb1YPSUX-c (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=beb1YPSUX-c)

surf
07-23-2007, 02:01 PM
If both Cheney and Bush are impeached who would become President? Rice?

- Alexander Haig would be in charge:)

angelatc
07-23-2007, 02:01 PM
Blah its Pelosi, Hopefully Ron Paul will fight his guts out against impeachment.

Being impeached doesn't necessarily mean you are removed from office. "Impeaching" is pretty much the equivalent of being indicted, not convicted.

Unless the trials were held simultaneously, chances are slim that Pelosi wold be President when the dust settled.

DAZ
07-23-2007, 03:57 PM
Not to mention it would also wipe out the whole slate of Dems running for Pres...

They'd all have to run for VeeP or hope Pelosi gives'em a cabinet position or whatever as she'd be eligible for 2 terms of her own AND have incumbency working for her.

There is no guarantee that a sitting president will receive their party's nomination to run again. I seriously doubt that Pelosi would get the nomination should she become prez due to Bush and Cheney convictions.

Aratus
11-17-2008, 04:32 PM
the clock is ticking down... in march of 1868, andrew johnson asked for 40 days for a defense, he was given ten... the trial goes on for 37 days... chances are that george w. bush will not have to face the distinction that nixon avoided that bill clinton was also subjected to! and to think that joe biden thinks LBJ's veep years are something he can emulate when obama sets his hand on the bible... i am mindful of the thread where biden thinks of our veeps! ron paul and dennis kucinich are now isolated voices in the wilderness. it would take a further ignoble instance of potus decision making for anyone to demand that g.w bush be impeached...a.s.a.p

heavenlyboy34
11-17-2008, 04:42 PM
If both Cheney and Bush are impeached who would become President? Rice?

- Alexander Haig would be in charge:)

Yes, Rice would be it. Good guess! :D

PatriotOne
11-17-2008, 04:58 PM
Dog and Pony rhetoric to save Dem face. If they were serious they had the charges yrs ago to impeach em. They didn't and they won't. Why? One World Gov is the goal and they have the majority of Congress blackmailed or death threated or on board with the plan and the end justifies the means.

bojo68
11-17-2008, 05:15 PM
As unpopular as Bush is, it'd still be a bad move.

If RP did this, he'd only alienate the GOP base further.

And this is assuming that the impeachment articles have some substance, too.

Best for RP to abstain the vote or to make himself scarce then. ;)

That's NOT RP style....:)

lodge939
11-18-2008, 02:07 AM
LOL, the Dems won't do anything. Look how long theyve been trying to get Rove. He must have some compromising pictures of them :D