John Conyers: Will he push for Bush impeachment hearings? He says no

[sabra]

http://www.freep.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20061110/NEWS06/611100333/1008

JOHN CONYERS: Will he push for Bush impeachment hearings? He says no

If U.S. Rep. John Conyers is bluffing, it's a good one.

The Detroit Democrat, who as ranking minority member of the House Judiciary Committee wrote a bill to consider impeachment hearings against President George W. Bush, now says he won't push for that if he gets the committee chairmanship.

The soon-to-be House speaker and fellow Democrat, Rep. Nancy Pelosi of California, has said repeatedly that no impeachment hearings will be held.

"I am in total agreement with her on this issue," Conyers said in a statement Thursday. "Impeachment is off the table." He was not available for further comment.

...

In his statement, Conyers said election reform would be a priority for him. He'd likely focus on 2004 presidential election irregularities in Ohio and on Bush's domestic spying program.

[PerceptionManagement]

1. Better to publicly humiliate and ridicule ChimpCo's incompetence in perpetuity

Than to put him out of his misery? We can only hope.

[Tellurian]

7. No, he's the voice of reason..

He understands the Constitution is BROKEN...which alot of HOT SHOTS around here have never taken the time to understand. If anyone will plow us under, it will be the pick fork and torch posters who don't know the meaning of winning because they never have a plan OR a backup plan.

[leveymg]

2. Once the facts are widely known, the call for impeachment will come

But, it should be a massive groundswell from below. If it appeared to come as a vendetta from the Democratic leadership, that would turn the investigation into a partisan pissing match, which would easily be spun by the other side.

Investigate first. Report to the American people. Let the people decide what the next step should be.

We ARE capable of doing the right thing.

[skiddlybop]

3. YES YES YES..."no" is the correct answer!

Much, much better to use Bush as a punching bag for two whole years and make him campaign for McCain looking like the un-American loser he is...

He's our bitch now and we are going to USE him! DO NOT LET HIM ESCAPE by simply impeaching.

[rodeodance]

6. ok, where or How do we start this groundswell?

[leveymg]

9. Come January, watch C-Span.

It'll be played out there in all its glory.

Some of it will inevitably make it into the corporate media. What doesn't will be reported in the alternative media. Right here.

[Zhade]

16. Except what I'm hearing is "no impeachment, even if we uncover crimes".

Which, if they investigate, they most certainly will.

Are we starting to look at not even getting INVESTIGATIONS now?

[leveymg]

20. Which Democrat, exactly, is saying THAT?

Nobody, except maybe the Republicans, are saying no investigations.

The incoming Chairs of the relevant committees -- from Waxman to Connors to Levin to Leahy -- have all said they intend to vigorously pursue investigations of apparent wrongdoing.

[Zhade]

32. Okay. That's reassuring.

So what will we do when the investigations show their crimes, as I think we all know they will?

How do we hold them accountable, if we don't impeach them? I'm totally open to suggestions, but "let them slide" is NOT an acceptable one (not saying you're saying that, just pointing out my deal-breaker).

[jwirr]

12. I agree, we need to make this government transparent so that

the facts are setting out in the open. We need to start with issues that everyone is wondering about such as the secret energy meeting. If and when the proof is clear to almost all then the call will come from the grassroots so strong that it will be impossible to ignore it.

[jayctravis]

39. Right...I'm thinking we may not have to spend

time and effort and money to impeach if we can just drag the bottom of the pond.

[elocs]

48. Impeachment should come from a groundswell of support from below.

Build a strong case for impeachment and it will cry out for itself. If Conyers would go off and start impeachment hearings after Pelosi had said it was off the table it would certainly make her look like a weak and ineffective leader in the House from the get-go. I think Americans would accept a well built case for impeachment that comes about through oversight hearing and investigations. I don't think they would support what appears to be a vendetta which looks to be more about revenge and payback more than justice. When you often see the impeachment of Clinton mentioned along with the throat wrenching screams for impeachment of Bush, it does seem to be more about revenge.

[Vidar]

49. I hope you're right, but am becoming much more cynical about

the Democrats at this point. Conyers, I believe, is being pressured. Pelosi has always been a weather vane.

[rodeodance]

4. msnbc just said that Conyers agrees NO impeachment (along with clips

of Dean and Pelosi saying it)

[Tellurian]

8. So, let the berating begin..

The posters here that insist on Impeachment proceedings start NOW...
will work to destroy Conyers, Dean and Pelosi..calling them cowards,
enablers, betrayers...anything and everything, destroying all the work
we have thus far worked hard to accomplish.

[brentspeak]

35. Pretty soon, even Dennis Kucinich will be labeled a "DLCer" or "DINO"

by the "Impeach NOW!" folk.

[Tellurian]

42. To be honest..

I hope these zealots get a grip.

Otherwise their impatient call for Justice
will ruin it for all of US!

And I like Kucinich, as well.

If they would just let the people in the know do their jobs,
we'll be fine. The "zealots" need to become useful to the
cause in a way that is beneficial.

If you have any suggestions; I'm all ears-

[kenny blankenship]

5. Surprise! Some of these congressmen want to be reelected in 08

and retain a Democratic majority for longer than just 2 years.
The damage done by Bushler is much more extensive than can be fixed in just 2 years.

[Tandalayo_Scheisskopf]

10. There is another thing to consider:

By immediately going for impeachment proceedings, we make Dear Leader a symbol, a martyr to the farthest fringes of the right. They love martyrs. They rally around them and gain energy.

If it comes, impeachment, let it come organically. Holistically. Let's not force it in a need for revenge.

[Blaq Dem]

29. Impeachment will come naturally

Bush will eventually do something so outrageous, so undefendable, even his dog won't stand by him. He's an idiot. Something will pop up. Let's wait and see.

[Zhade]

33. He hasn't already?

I'd have thought his massive violations of domestic and international law would have already been indefensible.

[Freeusfromthechurch]

46. It's not revenge, its called justice.

[grahamhgreen]

11. YOU NEED 2/3'S OF THE HOUSE AND SENATE TO IMPEACH

They know there is no way to impeach in the next two years - it would be a waste of time. Preparing for indictment on criminal charges, however, may be the best order of business.

Bush has admitted to 30 felony violations of the FISA law. Should admitted felons be prosecuted, or are both parties weak on crime? There is also the felony count of lying to congress, provable by the Downing Street Minutes, as well as human rights abuses.

This is simply what we know to be true, wait until we start digging into whats been happening with subpeona powers.

[AndyTiedye]

22. We Didn't Have 2/3 Democrats When We Went After NIXON

Once the EVIDENCE was out there, his own party turned against him.
The same will happen to Bush/Cheney once we have real INVESTIGATIONS!

[Bonescrat]

44. You need a simple majority of the House to impeach...

You need 2/3 of the Senate to CONVICT...

Clinton was impeached with 59% of the house voting yea, 41% voting nay.

He was then acquitted in the Senate.

If B*sh were to be impeached by the house it would be after a preponderance of evidence had been gathered. At this point the senate would be required to try Mr B*sh. The outcome of the trial would depend on the evidence presented. The evidence would become a matter of congressional record. If the case were strong enough it could prove politically difficult to vote against it. More than 2/3 might not have much of a choice...

[Kablooie]

13. I, for one, trust that he's doing what will be best for the country.

[maseman]

14. Everyone ont his thread so far

has really argued solid points not to impeach. I agree with all of them. We will not/do not have the votes to impeach him. There are much better and bigger domestic and foriegn policy fish to fry. Two years to impeach is more like one year because no one wants to impeach during a Presidential run. If we go after the Shrub it will seem like a coup more then a groundswell.

Let's use Bush like the moon's gravity. When Appollo 13 was powerless they used the moon's gravity to slingshot the craft back to earth. Let's use Bush to slingshot us into the White House in 2008.

[Demeter]

23. NOT Impeaching The Biggest, Baddest Bunch of Crooks Ever

is admitting that laws don't matter. What kind of lesson is that for this country, and the world? What kind of lesson for this generation and the rest to come? Take all the time necessary to investigate thoroughly and properly, and if Congress still isn't man enough to impeach, then turn the gang over to the Hague tout de suite, in shackles.

[Zhade]

34. Yep.

People say "investigate" - but when the investigations show these criminals as what they are, how will we hold them accountable if we don't AT LEAST impeach, if not put them on trial and imprison, them?

[whosinpower]

17. There is going to be allot of ongoing talk

On the pro's and cons of the impeachment process.

But first--I must say that sadly what America did by invading and occupying Iraq is an ugly ugly stain on a great nation. You cannot sweep it under the carpet and ignore the huge lump sitting there. It will not go away. And Bush--if found culpable--must be held accountable. And it must be within the judicial process--politically is not good enough.

The health of America and the world demand it. If you do not hold him to account--then Iraq's kangaroo court prosecuting Saddam Hussien has more legitimacy than all the courts in America....and how is that for a slap in the face.

I am not saying to go out and seek evidence to impeach Bush. What I am saying is investigate and let the chips fall where they may. If the evidence is damning enough--then you must do your solemn duty. This is far more important than partisanship.

Over 2800 US soldiers dead.
Over 500 000 Iraqi's dead.
A nation broken.
Billions upon Billions of money squandered.
Telling Bush he must play nice for the next 2 years is not good enough. It is not within the spirit of how America was founded. I ask you--why should Bush receive a healthy past presidential pension for the abyssmal job he did? Why should American taxpayers pay for his security for the rest of his life? Why should you allow him to escape to Paraguay--if that is his destination?

I am suggesting that to prosecute Bush--if the evidence merits...puts America in a whole new light on the world stage. For it takes far more courage, bravery and moral authority to admit the mistake and DO SOMETHING ABOUT IT. It would instantly take the wind out of the propeganda sails of Al Quaeda. No one is above the law. Not even Bush.

[goclark]

21. I trust his opinion nt

[Zorra]

15. "Even without impeachment, Conyers is expected to investigate

the Bush administration aggressively...."

Impeachment is probably just a waste of time. Bu*h and Cheney both know they have committed serious felonies. Honest, thorough investigation will provide evidence for indictment. Dems now have the option of making Bu*h and Cheney their puppets, or forcing them to resign in shame and humiliation, and possibly face long prison terms.

Dems must take time to consider what is best for the country in this matter before taking action.

[whosinpower]

18. That is what I am thinking also

Bush will resign before his term is up. Cheney too. Early 2007 is my prediction.

[jayctravis]

41. He's already investigated and pursued agressively

from a restricted position. Now that he'll likely have help, there will be no stopping him!

[jokerman93]

19. My impression

My impression is that the Dems know they're entering a political mine field now. The neocons are still engaged and capable of causing tremendous damage. I watched Pelosi on CSpan the other night. One thing that struck me about her presentation was how politic and careful she was in her wording, as well as her repeated insistence on a "bi-partisan" approach.

Listen, if you want to avoid conflict, or at least defer it until you're dug in and ready to engage, you don't simply pull out your weapons and start firing as soon as you approach the enemy.

My take on all this is that it's timing and strategy: re-establishing extremely high standards of discourse on Capitol Hill; taking charge of all the processes and channels of "command and control" (legitimate and informal) that have been set up by the Republicans. And once that foothold is fairly established, then letting the piggies do what they do best - take the low road and step into the trap - on the record. Going after impeachment at the outset would stir up the nest too much, as it were, and hamper a real effort to clear out the pervasive corruption that's taken hold of our government. Better to approach a pack of dangerous animals with care and respect if you don't want to do more harm than good to yourself and others.

My faith in the American people (not the system) has been somewhat restored by this week's overwhelming response at the polls. I'm willing to give the Dems a change to run with this. My trust in political authority is, at best, always provisional. But it seems to me Conyers and hopefully the other senior members are all on board with a long term political strategy of some kind. If that's not what's going on, then we'll probably know it soon enough.

So I'm not for impeachment. There are far better weapons in the arsenal for now.

J

[robbibaba]

24. This is my affirmation (and why impeachment is not needed)

A whistleblower comes forth in a nationally televised press conference. He admits helping steal the 2004 election for Bush. He has solid undeniable evidence.

Bush flees to his bolt hole in Paraguay. Cheney disappears and is later found dead in a bunker (along with millions in cash and lots of handy records and documents).

Kerry is sworn in as president before Christmas for the remainder of his term.

All of the bills Bush signed into law since his second term began are nullified and sent back to congress for review.

All of the appointments Bush made since his second term are dismissed, pending re-approval by congress (and this includes all judicial appointments).

Thanks to Cheney's hidden documents, many billions of dollars are recovered from Halliburton and other corrupt corporations, whose assets are frozen and whose corporate charters are revoked (corporate reform becomes a powerful new movement).

With the Dems now solidly in power, sweeping reforms are made, starting with electronic voting--which is scrapped entirely. We adopt Canada's system of paper and pencil with hand counting by volunteers. Second comes 100% financing of all elections, and new and serious penalties for bribing candidates/officials.

This is what I'm affirming. I've got a good lucky feeling about it too.

[jokerman93]

27. Nice and sweet

I like it. Sounds almost like the end of a David Lynch film. Cue Julee Cruise...
:smoke:
J

[Tippy]

25. When they talked inpeachment they coudn't

Now they won't...We need to continue cleaning house....The whole dam lot of them owe the citizens of this once great country big time...it's time to call in those markers.....

[Vidar]

50. Yes.

[robbibaba]

26. This is my affirmation (and why impeachment is not needed)

A whistleblower comes forth in a nationally televised press conference. He admits helping steal the 2004 election for Bush. He has solid undeniable evidence.

Bush flees to his bolt hole in Paraguay. Cheney disappears and is later found dead in a bunker (along with millions in cash and lots of handy records and documents).

Kerry is sworn in as president before Christmas for the remainder of his term.

All of the bills Bush signed into law since his second term began are nullified and sent back to congress for review.

All of the appointments Bush made since his second term are dismissed, pending re-approval by congress (and this includes all judicial appointments).

Thanks to Cheney's hidden documents, many billions of dollars are recovered from Halliburton and other corrupt corporations, whose assets are frozen and whose corporate charters are revoked (corporate reform becomes a powerful new movement).

With the Dems now solidly in power, sweeping reforms are made, starting with electronic voting--which is scrapped entirely. We adopt Canada's system of paper and pencil with hand counting by volunteers. Second comes 100% financing of all elections, and new and serious penalties for bribing candidates/officials.

This is what I'm affirming. I've got a good lucky feeling about it too.

[Kablooie]

28. And Hey, there's still the war criminal trials after he leaves office. Heh!

[Joe Chi Minh]

30. Why would he say that he will push for impeachment, when there

seems every possibility that their high crimes, never mind their misdemanours, will be descend in such an avalanche, once investigated, that there will be a groundswell of public and possibly judicial opinion demanding it? He's a very subtle man, and it's right that a call for impeachments should not be perceieved as a personal thang, but that the law simply takes its proper course.

[Overseas]

31. There are many crimes and misdemeanors to fully document first

and then perhaps several arrests could be made. And election reform is very important -- 2004 was full of ballot spoilage, undercounting and electronic fraud as well -- let us not be lulled into complacency by this successful outcome. This may be a gimmie to allow the Publicans to sweep 2008 with the dynamic duo of Rudy and Jeb or Jeb and Rudy.

[against all enemies]

36. Just documenting their corruption should put the Dems in the majority

for a long time. Speaking of impeachment now might do too much harm to the country and the cause. Investigate but don't impeach, unless the country calls for it.

[MasonJar]

37. Just investigate the whole lying, thieving bunch and send them

to the Hague or to one of their torture prisons.

[melissinha]

38. good case against impeachment

Its just going to make is look partisan, we have a lot of important policies to make ot restore and heal this country. Besides it would be ineffectual, he only has two years left and it woudl at leas take that long... I sure hope we can try and convict them, thats for sure, but we need to be patient and judicious in making a case against the whole cabal and ban the GOP out of power.

[Truthbeknown]

40. Why take anything off the table

unless a deal has been made by somebody at the top of the party, God forbid. Why even bring this up now? They should be saying 'no comment', when asked.

[Warren Stupidity]

43. First we need to investigate.

Going straight to impeachment hearings would be stupid and Conyers is not stupid. Not is Waxman. Nor is Pelosi. After 4 years of Congressional looking the other way, we now have subpoena power to look at what exactly this administration has been up to since January 20, 2001. Lets look.

Impeachment no. Investigations hell yes.

[Tiggeroshii]

45. As right he should.

Focusing on the 2004 irregularities and their root, as well as the warrantless wiretapping -and their root, should probably be one of his top priorities, right?

[Generator]

47. Whatever he's planning or how he works it I trust him

He's the only one of our reps that has kept me from utterly losing faith in this thing called America. I know he will be on the job looking out for me and you. And that is no small thing.