MSNBC: John Conyers has taken impeachment off the table...

[originalpckelly]

Well I think that does it doesn't it folks? When he's willing to let it go, there is no more hope for it.

[WI_DEM]

1. pretty much so.

[Iwasthere]

20. Just be patient on impeachment

Pelosi and Conyers are being smart. Won't be long and it will be right back on the table. However, they need to be tough, very tough right now.

[FormerDem06]

50. I hope that's not the case....

Then the LIAR card comes out in 2008. Say what you mean or don't say it at all. Don't give them fodder for the Presidency in a few years.

[DemPower]

63. Being tough would be standing strong for accountability

Bush and Cheney have done more than enough for them to be talking about impeachment, like the rest of us.

This election was about Americans standing up demanding accountability and an end to the war in Iraq.

The first thing they should be doing is announce they are bringing the Homeward Bound initiative to the floor of the house, calling for the return of our troops starting Dec 2006.

Next they should start talking about Impeachment for illegal wiretapping, that alone is enough to impeach him. Remember Nixon? Remember Clinton?

[wholetruth00]

72. Maybe he was going to be denied the Chair if he went for impeachment?

[brentspeak]

105. That's not going to happen.

It won't get back on the table. And that's a good thing.

[CrazyForKucinich]

133. How bout censure?

Can we pass some official proclamation?

[GeorgeGist]

138. Welcome to the Fantasy Land...

of willful ignorance. Enjoy your stay.

[Pachamama]

126. I think folks need to calm down - We are all acting like the peasants w/ the Pitchforks here!

Anyone, and I mean anyone who believes in democratic values and who has followed John Conyers' career and what he stands for, knows that he won't roll over for anything. It's called strategy folks!

Let's all take a deep breath and sigh of relief and enjoy this time of euphoria and elation that we are feeling about winning both the House and Senate! Realize that they haven't called the 110th Congress in and when they do and the new 110th Congress can get down to business, they have a lot of work to do and a whole lot of wrong to fix. If we are all standing there outside the gates screaming with our pitchforks in the air demanding impeachment, that is just not going to be going about it correctly.

I believe that the democratic leadership is going to uphold their oath to protect and defend the Constitution and when they can get down to business, will make sure they get it done. This is a marathon folks, not a sprint and I'm not suggesting that impeachment go away, but lets give our Dem Leaders a chance to get moved in and see what they are going to be doing.

I trust John Conyers and Nancy Pelosi....I know that they will do what is best and right for our Nation...they will uphold their oath.

[bbgrunt]

134. i like conyers, but don't really trust the DLC dems

and I see absolutely NO REASON to take this off the table. Just like you never take anything off the table when negotiating with a foreign threat, there whould be all options available to deal with the republicans.

I really can't believe there is any REASON to even mention this, much less keep saying it over and over--Pelosi, Dean, and even Conyers. WTF??????????? Sure doesn't sound like any strategy that is geared for success.

[Pachamama]

137. Neither Pelosi, Dean or Conyers have used the word "permanently" off the table, have they?

I believe that they know that they have to get the 110th Congress in, get down to the immediate business of what they promised to do in the first 100 hours and then get to "draining the swamp". They will start investigations and do things proceduraly. It may seem like it will take to long, but I believe that evidence will surface, much of which we know of already, much of which may not have been known or confirmed because the Dems didn't have access to it previously or people weren't required to have been under oath. And then - the Dems if they are to uphold their oath to protect and defend the Constitution, will be left with no other choice to bring impeachment back onto the table. I personally believe that before '08 elections, that there will be criminal charges and Bush & Cheney even leaving office in disgrace - even to jail.

[Generic Brad]

147. I trust them too

But just in case -- I'm keeping my pitchfork within reach.
:evilfrown:

[Pachamama]

148. Always keep the pitchfork within reach!

But choose wisely when you want to go running into the streets with it and use it.... :hi:

[xultar]

2. I wonder if Pelosi had something to do with that. I understand the decision

I don't like it.

Bush needs to be held accountable. How will that happen?

[originalpckelly]

6. We may have to settle for getting him to stop acting like a total ass...

I don't know though, it seems like Bush has probably done something wrong. No one gets this much power and uses it wisely, just look at Iraq.

[LynneSin]

21. Don't put the cart before the horse

We need an investigation. To call it an impeachment now will alienate half the country and make congress extremely impossible. Conyers doesn't back down from a thing and knows that if he holds the type of investigations into the corruption that we so desperately need and the truth is exposed - the impeachment will come naturally

[xultar]

27. Agreed. I keep forgetting you have to investigate before conducting

an impeachment.

[LynneSin]

34. No you didn't. You're just like me and really want to have Bush held accountable

I just think it'll be easier under the terms of "Investigation" instead of "Impeachment"

[Nightjock]

78. EXACTLY!!!

You took the words right out of my mouth...er...keyboard.

[bbgrunt]

135. so why not just say they will investigate WITHOUT saying

that impeachment is "Off the table"? If it really isn't, they are setting themselves up to be liars. No, I suspect it really is not going to be pursued.

[BonnieJW]

31. They may have taken impeachment off the table,

but they didn't take all the investigations off the table. Where did all the money go in Iraq? What about the no-bid contracts to Halliburton? What about the contaminated water and tainted food given to the military? How about that funny election in '04? There's going to be oversite and investigations.

[SouthernBelle82]

37. Bingo

Pay attention to the wording and everything. Impeachment doesn't come before hearings.

[robinlynne]

74. exactly. i'm more worried about Conyers' safety and welfare, than I am

about Conyers taking anything off the table I trust Conyers with every fiber of my being. He will take Bush down. Don't doubt that.

[caledesi]

132. Randi Rhodes explained her theory yesterday on what came down.

I agree with her although it's theory. She thinks that Nancy P called * after the win and basically said "We can make this easy or we can go the hard way for Rummy." She meant that she would call "things even" if * fires Rummy or we can go through a myriad of investigations against him. Guess * took the former.

Hey, even though impeachment is off the table, doesn't mean that it cannot come on again. I think Pelose is a smart cookie. She wants the minimum wage increased asap. I think this is important bec it is an instant for the American people, that the Dems are doing something for THEM.

Impeachnment/investigations are down the line for now, but we can always hold it over the rethug's head.

[Guaranteed]

3. GOOD.

G*d damn.

[dogday]

4. Notice the parsing of the words "Off The Table"

I just don't hear a no in that answer. I don't hear we will not be seeking impeachment... Only that it is off the table... I learn to listen to what is not said....

[Nickster]

61. I agree, if you're doing your job, you go where the investigations take you.

The Senate Investigation of Nixon, the Ervin Commission didn't seek impeachment either, but it sure shed a lot of light on the impeachable offenses and left it up to the House Judiciary to decide if impeachment was the appropriate response.

[roamer65]

76. Yes...exactly!

Conyers investigations may just bring it right back on the table, when we have all the documented evidence necessary for impeachment and conviction in the Senate.

[trashcanistanista]

144. What I heard that was not said

was when Pelosi mentioned investigations, she said or referred to the secret "energy meetings" which nearly knocked me off the couch because I assumed that this had long since gone into the memory hole. I "heard" it as maybe the plan is to persue Cheney first. She really didn't say invesigation of "war crimes" or I didn't "hear" that term. Did anyone else get that feeling or do I need a hearing aid? I also did not hear a no in her answer.

[elehhhhna]

5. Let's just say it's off the table, but

on the sideboard.

Investigations first.

Punishments second.

[stillcool]

58. reminds me of Bush's war plans..

for Iraq...that 'weren't on his desk'.

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

7. lip service.

:shrug:

[xultar]

17. I'm lending that way. Before you can impeach you have to have investigations

so let's investigate first. I have no problem. It may not be on the table but it is still in the house.

[Diane R]

8. It's for the best.

There will be a very large number of hearings and oversight committees. The truth of all the republican corruption will come out, and the voters will remember it in '08. It's too late for the impeachment to really be effective. Why let a new republican president take over right at the end of the term, so he could be an 'incumbent'?

Plus, I think the public will be grateful not to be drug through all that again. And it makes the republican's torture of Bill Clinton seem even more petty.

[porphyrian]

9. Yeah, no point in even talking about it any more.

Well, except that it's a Constitutional imperative, but fuck the Constitution, right?

[Individualist]

14. Damn right it's a constitutional imperative

As Malloy said last night, if Dems don't impeach, they're as guilty of violating the Constitution as the criminals in the White House.

[porphyrian]

65. Well, Mr. Malloy knows what the fuck he's talking about. - n/t

[Bjorn Against]

123. Look closely at what Conyers is saying...

He is by no means taking investigations off the table, and you can not impeach until you investigate.

It would be EXTREMELY STUPID for Conyers to call for impeachment before his hearings have even begun. He needs time to build his case, just wait though you will eventually hear him call for accountability.

[bbgrunt]

136. then we are playing the same lying games as the reps.

[Bjorn Against]

145. No, Conyers did not lie

Impeachment really is off the table for right now, but that does not mean it can not get put back on the table later.

[KittyWampus]

10. The GOP will WISH Bush was impeached when Conyers is through with them

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

18. This is actually very possible.

I think this will be like Nixon. Bush will resign before impeachment.

[MoonRiver]

89. That has been my feeling for a long time, under the scenario of Dems

taking back Congress, of course. If the investigations are thorough enough, and even more importantly, made public, behind the scenes machinations may force * AND Cheney out. We'll probably never know what went down, just that they are suddenly GONE. Hallelujah!

[Marnieworld]

11. Sure he did.

This is all PR people. They will conduct investigations and it will lead them where it naturally leads them. This is all for media handling. Conyers has not come this far to just lie down. No way. No how. It's all smiles and sunshine now but once they have the power for real, the work will begin. Don't fall for this people.

[MannyGoldstein]

12. Now Wait - Didn't Bush Say, Just Before We Invaded Iraq...

... that there were no war plans on his desk?

Perhaps impeachment is off the table - but on the desk.

Let us hope so!

[LynneSin]

13. Nothing wrong with that as long as we continue the investigation

The republicans allowed the concept of impeaching Clinton to engulf their party. I would rather we have a thorough investigation which we know that Conyers would give us. Trust me, if the corruption is exposed and impeachment-worthy - it'll happen

[never cry wolf]

71. Exactly, they were out for impeachment of Clinton on Inauguration Day

In the end it was almost a self manufactured reason they came up with. Again, their preconceived notions took precedence over facts and sanity, the process was backwards similar to the Iraq debacle.

Impeachment is an intiction, you can't indict without evidence, you can't convict without proof. Right now there is no hard evidence on record worthy of an indiction and jumping too soon would just make smirk look like a victim of a political vendetta, similar to deep throat's warning to W & B about reaching too far too soon. Keep in mind 95% of the populace is only remotely aware of what we at DU feel we know or at least suspect. Let the investigations begin in earnest and a case be built in the proper fashion.

[BuyingThyme]

15. How would MSNBC know that?

[Jawja]

16. Good. For now.

The early priorities for the new Dem Congress should be:

1. Transparent voting apparatus with auditable paper trail;

2. Raise the minimum wage;

3. Repeal or amend the Military Commissions Act;

4. Restore the 4th Amendment in requiring a warrant for wiretaps;

5. Repeal or amend Patriot Acts I and II;

6. Begin investigation into the disappearance of billion$ of taxpayer dollars for Iraq and where $850M earmarked for weapons went;

7. Lead bi-partisan effort on getting the hell out of Iraq.

I know there is much more to be repaired as a result of the criminal GOP Congress. But yes, I agree that for the moment, impeachment should be off the table.

[Spider Jerusalem]

33. Don't forget...

repealing the most egregious of Bush's tax cuts (necessary step to bring the massive deficits in check). This Congress needs to restore fiscal responsibility to Washington, too.

[Jawja]

36. Yes.

And that dumbass "no child left behind" crap.

[brentspeak]

106. Impeachment will remain off the table indefinitely

I applaud Conyers' good sense on this.

[klook]

117. Yes -

There is a lot of work to be done, and that should be the focus. Impeachment may end up being the organic end result of the Congress performing its oversight functions for the first time in almost a decade. Let matters run their course.

[Kansas Wyatt]

19. Perhaps the Dems are just tucking it away for leverage.

Either DipShit listens to and works with the Dems, or they smoke his ass.

[AndyA]

22. And just why in the hell would he do such a thing?

Does he have a crystal ball or something that allows him to see what has gone on in the White House? Does he have some knowledge of events that would preclude impeachment before an investigation is even started?

I hope the truth is in what has NOT been said. If the Dems, once in charge, do nothing to ensure our Constitution hasn't been violated, and that no laws have been broken, they must be in bed with the GOP.

I hope we're supposed to read more into it than what is being said, but if they go into this reluctant to do their checks and balances, they are not doing their jobs, just like the GOP has not done their job.

[Matariki]

23. I don't think this means there won't be investigations.

[butterfly77]

79. Once the investigations start...

and they will...the people will begin to ask for impeachment.

[oasis]

24. As long as Bush loses sleep worrying about future whistleblowers

coming forward, I can live with that.

[txindy]

25. We've got an awful lot to do and not much time to do it.

The statute of limitations for possible prosecution won't run out in that time. The Hague is also very patient.

[FormerDem06]

52. A lot will have to change regarding The Hague

The US currently does not participate in that court as they didn't ratify the Rome Treaty:


From Wikipedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/International_Criminal_Court), and yes this is accurate:

The General Assembly called the "United Nations Diplomatic Conference of Plenipotentiaries on the Establishment of an International Criminal Court" in Italy, where the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court was adopted on July 17, 1998. Almost all states participating in the conference voted in favor of the statute; the United States joined Israel, People's Republic of China, Iraq, Qatar, Libya, and Yemen in voting against it. Israel reversed its decision and signed the statute just before the conference closed, but later reversed again and nullified its signature. Initially, under Bill Clinton, the U.S. signed the treaty but never submitted it for ratification. When George W. Bush took office in 2001, he nullified the signature amid bipartisan consensus on the matter.

The Rome Statute became a binding treaty at the moment 60 states had ratified it, an event ceremonialized at the United Nations Headquarters on April 11, 2002. Ten countries (Bosnia-Herzegovina, Bulgaria, Cambodia, Democratic Republic of Congo, Ireland, Jordan, Mongolia, Niger, Romania, and Slovakia) submitted their ratifications at this time, bringing the total to 66, so that no one nation would hold the honor of depositing the 60th ratification. The ICC legally came into existence on July 1, 2002, and can only prosecute crimes committed after that date.

The ICC became operational when the signatory nations met in the Assembly of State Parties to appoint a prosecutor and 18 judges. The ICC opened on March 11, 2003.


also:

====================================
Countries ratifying the treaty that created the ICC grant it authority to try their citizens for war crimes, crimes against humanity, and genocide. It provides for ICC jurisdiction over-state party or on the territory of a non-state party where that non-state party has entered into an agreement with the court providing for it to have such jurisdiction in a particular case (consent).

Many states wanted to add "aggression," "terrorism" and drug trafficking to the list of crimes covered by the Rome Statute; however other states opposed this, on the grounds that these crimes were difficult to define, and that dealing with less serious crimes such as terrorism and drug trafficking would distract from the seriousness of the crimes the ICC was established to deal with. As a compromise, the treaty merely brands "aggression" as a crime without providing a definition, pending adoption of an amendment to the Statute. It may also be amended to include other crimes. However, no amendments can be made to the Rome Statute until seven years after the Statute became legally binding.
====================================

also

====================================
How cases reach the ICC
Cases may be referred to the ICC by one of four methods:

1. A member country of the Assembly of States Parties (ratified the Court's Statute) sends the case;
2. A country that has chosen to accept the ICC's jurisdiction sends the case;
3. The Security Council sends the case (subject to veto from the permanent five members); or
4. The three-judge panel authorizes a case initiated by the ICC Prosecutor.


Even though the Court has jurisdiction over the crime of international aggression, it will not exercise such jurisdiction until the crime has been further defined. The statute that established the ICC mandates that the state parties attempt to define aggression in 2009.
====================================

[txindy]

64. LOL! So, if someone refuses to acknowledge a court's jurisdiction, they're free?

Tried that out on a more local level? Let us know how that works out. :eyes:

Interesting how the wingnuts have worked so hard to enact legislation protecting them from future charges of war crimes, the international courts having no jurisdiction and all.

[FormerDem06]

139. Considering there is no "world jurisdiction" then yep that's how it works out

The day we start talking "one world government" is the day I go into hiding in Appalachia and learn to live off the land.

You are a United States Citizen, not a United Nations Citizen. I think the UN does a lot of good, but a body that behaves at it does regarding Darfur, Congo, Somalia, etc. etc. is not a body that I want deciding war crimes in 99% of the cases.

[txindy]

146. The Hague can wait, anyway. Germany wants to prosecute Rummy, Gonzales, Tenet, and others.

http://www.time.com/time/nation/article/0,8599,1557842,00.html

Have fun in the Appalachians! :hi:

[elehhhhna]

66. Milosevic and Charles Taylor didn't acknowledge the World Court, either.

The former died in his cell at the Hague.

The latter is in his cell NOW, awaiting trial.

[FormerDem06]

140. Milosevic was an ad hoc tribunal and Taylor will be tried under the new court

Interstingly, the new court hasn't heard a case yet.

As long as someone in the US gov't is willing to allow to veto via the Security Council, something like that, then it won't happen. Pelosi won't allow it, Dean won't allow it. Honestly, there aren't that many folks left.

There is also a law in place that gives our military the right to go in and remove any US Citizen "held illegally" by any body other than the US. A lot of folks refer to it as the "Hague Invasion" law.

I'm not say it shouldn't happen, just that it won't happen most likely.

[rsmith6621]

26. A Question For Some Of You....

Did on the average of 60% of Americans go to the polls and vote for the Democratic party because they wanted 2 years of impeachment procedures or did they want issues that the PUGs have ignored addressed?????

MY GOD.....I want bushco gone but Jesus C......lets focus on building the trust of the electorate first lets take care of the people first then take care of crooks....plenty of time....bushco is backed into a corner lets let him sweat...

[lazyriver]

41. Let's get as much mileage out of it as we can

Stating we are going to impeach right now means that nothing else gets done. The potential for impeachment is leverage that can get some important things done fast. Investigations can still be started, but I think we first need to undo some of the horrific policy that has been pushed through over the last six years. When we get all that we can, then we start the full court press on impeachment.

[malaise]

28. It's day two people

Patience please. Investigations first.

[BootinUp]

29. I guess he wants the emails to stop?

Have you all been harrassing him? :)

[uppityperson]

30. Investigations are important, moreso that impeachment. Here's why.

Investigations need to happen and these will take the Republican party down like impeachment won't. Mr.bush is a lame duck who needs to be prosecuted for his crimes. BUT I want the whole kit and kaboodle down and am willing to NOT try impeaching Mrbush if they can make "republican" synonymous with corruption, cheating, lies, slime.

[Lone_Star_Dem]

32. I honestly feel this is all for show

We cannot come out screaming impeachment w/o first investigating. It would look as bad as someone screaming for a death penalty before there was a conviction. First we investigate then we let the evidence speak for itself.

[Greybnk48]

35. I trust John Conyers' judgement.

This see what happens.

[Peace Patriot]

73. That's a very interesting comment, Greybnk48, and comes closest to my

opinion. If John Conyers could impeach now, he would. I have absolutely no doubt about that. The man is a "brick," as they used to say. True blue patriot, rock solid on OUR side, i.e., the side of the American people. But he sees the reality of this situation probably better than most people.

We can see SOME of that reality, for instance: EVEN WITH a 30-seat or so majority in the House, this Congress still does not reflect the SEVENTY PERCENT of the American people who oppose the war on Iraq and other Bush polices, nor certainly the 92% of the American people (in a recent Zogby poll) who want TRANSPARENT vote counting. This Congress is still under the thumb of the rightwing corporations who now "count" all our votes using TRADE SECRET, PROPRIETARY programming--the Tom Delay/Bob Ney/Christopher Dodd engineered fascist coup called the "Help America Vote Act." Not to mention the filthy campaign contribution and lobbying system. We are not free yet. And we do not have a real democracy, as yet. The overwhelming Dem win--and, very importantly, the huge increase in Absentee Ballot voting around the nation (--indicating vast voter distrust of the election system, and particularly the electronic voting machines)--gives us hope. But we're not there yet.

That's some of what WE are able to see. But some other very important events seem to have occurred behind the scenes--perhaps including some kind of deal? Rumsfeld/Iraq-Iran war scrapped, in exchange for no jail for Bush and Cheney? I'm thinking: military/intelligence communities' revolt against the Iraq War, against invasion of Iran, and against Rumsfeld; some kind of split between the Corporate Rulers and the Bushites (a clue being the corporate news monopolies unleashing an old pedophile sex scandal against the Bushites four weeks before the election (I mean, that was truly weird!)); and also the Fitzgerald investigation. I have always felt that Rumsfeld was the mastermind of the Plame/Brewster-Jennings outings, despite Cheney's and Rove's visibility--and that the Plame/BJ outings are a mere tip-of-the-iceberg of an even worse conspiracy, perhaps involving a plan to PLANT WMDs in Iraq, to be "discovered" after the invasion, and also possibly involving the death of the Brits' chief WMD expert, David Kelly, four days after the first Plame outing. There may also be connections to the AIPAC spying scandal. If you combine these things (and others?) with the enormous power that the Bushites have gathered into their hands, you have a grave government crisis. How do you dislodge these enormously powerful criminals? And how do you maintain government stability as you do so?

This is not a small problem. And it is not just a matter of rightful indignation at the many, enormous crimes committed. How, practically, do you remove people claiming "unitary executive" powers? Well, you start chipping away at their criminal power structure. And that is, I think, exactly what we are seeing. And it's quite telling, in my opinion, that Rumsfeld was the first to go.

Let me give you a for instance. Say, Conyers subpoenas Cheney. Cheney has already said, I believe, that he will simply ignore it. He will not appear before a Congressional committee.

THEN what do you do? Hm? Where is the power to enforce such a subpoena? Would Congress, as presently constituted, enforce it, by beginning impeachment proceedings for such defiance? Maybe. Maybe not. You've still got a contingent of "Bushite Democrats"--like those who voted for torture and suspension of habeas corpus a few weeks ago--who hold "swing vote" power in the House. And in the Senate, it's 50/50, with Lieberman holding a powerful swing vote--and Lieberman, I think, is the representative of the war profiteers who could be exposed by such subpoenas. So, do you issue a subpoena that the Congress itself will not enforce? Maybe you go ahead and issue it, and how far does that get you, in terms of investigation or impeachment? You would have to build a very strong case of obstruction and defiance to move even this Dem majority Congress (because it is, in real terms, a fairly weak majority, on the war and other issues--still not truly representative of the American people).

I think that Conyers is one of the few people we can trust to give us a sense of what's possible (and, by implication, what's going on behind the scenes). The good Dems--the ones who truly represent the interests of the American people, and who would be elected anyway, Diebold or no Diebold--also have the war profiteering corporate news monopolies to contend with, and those news monopolies--controlled by 5 rightwing billionaire CEOs--are a SECOND corrupt and mighty power against any exposure of the criminality behind this war.

So, let's not jump to conclusions about Conyers, or the better Dems. They have to work with REALITY. And I'm sure it's not easy for them. I'm not saying don't speak your mind to them. I'm just saying, be aware of the many good reasons they may have for not being able to instantly do what is right and what is just. And I think we should also be aware that John Conyers and some others are as worried about Constitutional government as we are. Trying to restore it, under these circumstances, is an extremely dangerous and tricky undertaking.

We citizens also need to do OUR part--which, in my opinion, is restoring transparent elections, the key power mechanism of our sovereignty as a people. I think it's most doable at the LOCAL level, by mobilizing this huge base of discontented voters--the Absentee Ballot voters--to pressure LOCAL officials. Our simple, common sense demands: 1) HAND COUNT the Absentee Ballots, and 2) POST the results BEFORE any electronics are involved. We thus will begin to create a paper ballot system BY DEFAULT. No need to remove the machines (head-on collision with massive corruption, re: billions of dollars in e-voting contracts). Just get the AB votes counted PROPERLY. And it will snowball. More people will vote by AB (--it's already up to 50% and 60% of the vote in many places). Optiscan voters will demand that THEIR votes also be counted prior to electronic tallying. Voters in states without AB voting rights (about 20 states) will clamour for that right. Etc. (I wouldn't wait around for Congress to get rid of the TRADE SECRET, PROPRIETARY programming. We may get a "paper trail," but that's just a sop if you still have secret vote counting by rightwing corporations.)

[WritersBlock]

38. With all due respect, let's reset that table! I want them impeached!

And I'll be saying the same to my Representative & Senators ... yet again.

[LowPhreak]

39. Constitutional imperitive is correct

Conyers and the Dems should not bypass their duty on this matter, regardless of political expediency. If Bu$hCo is not brought to justice through the legal, constitutional means provided, it will set a dangerous precedent for all future Executives, (and future Congresses as well).

The #1 duty any representative is sworn to is first to uphold the US Constitution. Their duties to their careers, their constituents, and their Party is secondary to that.

[pacalo]

40. Conyers has said for years that congress follows the will of the people.

I heard someone ask him once, "Why aren't you doing anything?" Paraphrasing his answer, he said that it's up to the people to contact their congresspeople, that congress won't act until the people speak.

Here's John Conyers' contact page.

My note:

I heard the news today that impeachment is "off the table." Knowing about the hard work that you & Rep. Waxman have put into investigating this corrupt president, my take is that there will be hearings into the president's conduct & the tide will build into a crescendo from the will of the people to have this man removed from office. I hope I'm right. We are angry & we are determined to hold this criminal & his criminal cohorts accountable.

[kestrel91316]

42. It doesn't mean they are going to let the Chimperor have his

way. This is a poker game, folks. They aren't showing their cards.

[Gwerlain]

92. Absolutely, and you never count your money...

at the table.

[robertpaulsen]

43. When he says investigations are off the table, then I'll have a conniption.

But he hasn't, so I won't.

[stop the bleeding]

45. well said

I feel that several people wish to win the race without bothering to warm up much less run it - bad analogy :D

investigations will be the beginning of the end for Bush, Cheney and the GOP

[mnhtnbb]

44. It may be off the table, but that doesn't mean it isn't on the pantry shelf

In other words, Pelosi could be holding this in abeyance, and if Bush gets on his high horse, she may start impeachment proceedings.

[enfield collector]

46. so the bastards are getting away with murders!

[Individualist]

47. High crimes and misdemeanors must be punished

It's the law.

[longship]

48. I agree. We can't talk impeachment right now.

It would be the extreme of hubris to do so. It would be like the Red Queen, "First the punishment, then the trial."

[demnan]

49. This is poker

and they don't want to show their hand too soon.

[in_cog_ni_to]

51. : ) Mr. Conyers is a very SMART MAN.

:hi:

He knows what to say and when to say it....that's all I'll say.:7

[Rageneau]

53. We HAVE to impeach, because Dubya is hiding WMDs!

An Iraqi-Republican defector named Challb/s has sworn that Bush is developing WMD in his underpants, so we have no choice but to impeach. Better to be safe than sorry.

Besides. if we don't impeach him here, we'll have to impeach him over there.

[MessiahRp]

54. We don't and won't have the 67 Senate Votes Anyway...

So it's a moot point.

I want the investigations. Two years of uncovering all the scandals the GOP were protecting and the members of Congress that were involved with them and in 2008 they will have virtually no shot at electing a President let alone not losing the remainder of their seats.

Rp

[Individualist]

56. The House impeaches

The Senate convicts. We have the majority to impeach.

[blogslut]

55. There is a process

Someone has to ask for investigations. Then comes the investigations. Then comes impeachment.

Let's not forget that the GOP majority left us with a big fucking mess, a burning campfire if you will. Would you leave the campfire burning? Let's get through the first 100 hours.

[roamer65]

69. Thank you!

Well put.

[MelissaB]

57. Doesn't this need to be on the greatest? I don't always have time to go

into different forums.

[Old and In the Way]

59. A year's worth of investigations with the detailed truth getting out

to the American public is the 1st order of business. We don't find someone guilty before we have a trial, right? Bad form. Makes us look like Freepers - out for revenge rather than the truth. Expose the truth and the American public will be demanding accountability. That's the way it should be.

[marlakay]

60. Wait till he's done then punish for war crimes

so he can't be pardoned!!!!!!!!!!!!!

[keepCAblue]

62. Dean said same thing on TDS last night

Howard Dean, guest on The Daily Show, was emphatic that there would be no impeachment. For what it's worth.

[Generator]

67. Well as I've said a few times

is you force the creep to resign. After you have investigated, shamed, humiliated him beyond repair. Forcing Bush to leave office would be BETTER than impeachment. That word is the one word everyone dreads because it makes them defensive beyond repair. If anyone ever deserved to be impeached, it's this man but I love the image I have of him flying off to Crawford shamed and exposed for the liar and fraud that he is.

Beyond that, let's restore habeas corpus, let's end the war in Iraq, let's stop our liberties from being raped.

All of these are arguably more important than impeaching Bush.

Besides, what about Cheney? Let's investigate his numerous crimes, find the smoking gun and get him OUT. Shame is the best we can hope for in this country. They have too much power, money and connections to ever be prosecuted they way we dream. But let's really blight the Republican NAME for the next hundred years-so this nightmare never comes around again in our grand children's lifetime.

[Norquist Nemesis]

68. But only until the public demands it be put back on the table

Which is the point of having oversight hearings. :) :hi:

[earth mom]

87. Exactly & here's how the people can do just that!

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=364x2662784

[grizmaster]

70. Did he say he wasn't issuing any subpoenas?

I doubt it. When the time comes after the evidence is gathered this is one man I know will do the right thing.

[greeneyedboy]

75. first step: investigations, and a return to FACTS and reality-based policy.

then, hey, if crimes are discovered, it would be necessary to pursue a proper course of action.

[theboss]

77. Does anyone honestly think Dems won in order to impeach?

I know that a frothing 20 percent of the base wants that, but they aren't the ones who sent three Dems from Indiana to Washington.

[novalib]

99. We WOULD NOT HAVE WON!!

Speaking as one of the "frothing 20 percent", I think I should point out to you that we likely would not have won the House and the Senate without those of us you condescendingly refer to as "the frothing 20 percent of the base!!!!!

YES -- SOME OF US HONESTLY THINKK THAT WE WON IN ORDER TO BRING JUSTICE TO THE WORST PRESIDENT EVER -- ONE WHO HAS COMMITTEED CRIMES AGAINST HUMANITY THAT ARE UNPRECEDENTED IN HUMAN HISTORY!!!

[theboss]

100. First of all, 20 million Chinese people want to talk to you....

...about the meaning of the word "unprecedented."

Secondly, there is no way this election can be viewed as anything but an opportunity to prove that Dems can better run the country. It's a clear mandate to take the controls, end the corruption, fix the budget, and improve our standing in the world.

There is simply no way that people voted to end one kind of ugliness in order to begin the ugliness of impeachment. Pelosi knows that. Conyers knows that.

Investigate by all means. And if something so horrifying emerges that the American people demand impeachment (which could very well happen), go for it.

But to work backwards from impeachment is the ugliest kind of "gotcha" politics.

[lies and propaganda]

80. Im fine with that. We have bigger fish to FRY

It would take thge duration of his presidency to if we even tried.
I'd rather spend the energy on reversing all the bullshit they've done.

[d_b]

81. Ok, Fine.

No impeachment. But cant we at LEAST investigate these bastards over Iraq and other issues?

[Turn CO Blue]

82. He can still investigate the Downing Street Minutes...

Conyers has a strategy, I'm sure.

[greenohio]

83. THIS IS SOOOO FRUSTRATING!!!!

I hope we haven't been sold a bill of goods...again.

[brentspeak]

109. What do you mean "sold a bill of goods"?

The Democrats reiterated many times during the campaigns that no attempt to impeach would be made should they win control of the House and Senate. Nobody misled anybody.

[Zhade]

130. That's a lie.

They said they wouldn't go right for impeachment. They never said that wouldn't happen if investigations led to it.

Stop lying.

[greenohio]

143. Lie lie lie.

Impeachment should NOT be off the table. How can you say that when you haven't even begun the investigation? If this keeps up friend, you are going to have a LOT of water to carry. Our job is to hold their feet to the fire, not carry their water.

[madokie]

84. My take on that is that they don't want to taint the process when it become necessary

by looking like they are only wanting to impeach the blivet. Let the process run its course, then if not, complain.

[novalib]

85. It Had Better GET BACK ON THE Table!!!

I'm willing to wait for a month or so into the new Congress.

But IMPEACHMENT SURE AS HELL better be on the table by APRIL -- 2007!!!

And I want to see both BUSH and CHENEY IMPEACHED!!

And I expect indictments of Rice and Rummy!!!

[Odin2005]

91. REALITY CHECK: we don't have the numbers to impeach.

You need a 2/3 majority in both houses to impeach.


the two things we need to concentrate on right now is:

1. work on passing Pelosi's "100 hours" stuff.

2. start investigations


If the results of the investigations are bad enough it would force the Pukes in Congress to support impeachment to save thier asses, that is the ONLY way BushCo can get taken out.

[novalib]

96. MAJORITY TO IMPEACH!!

I think a simple majority is all the is required to impeach.

You need a 2/3 majority to convict and remove from office.

Last time I checked, we will have a majority in the House in the next Congress!!!!!

INVESTIGATE -- THEN IMPEACH THE BASTARDS!!!!

[Odin2005]

103. Nope, You need 2/3 of the House to start Impeachment, IIRC.

[Individualist]

108. Wrong.

www.answers.com/topic/impeachment?method=5&linktext=

You might want to work a bit on those abilities to recall. :hi:

[Odin2005]

115. Doh! My bad.

:dunce:

[Individualist]

102. You're the one who needs a reality check

The House impeaches, the Senate convicts. We do have the majority in the House.

[NoSheep]

86. Let's deal with those in harm's way first.

[alcibiades_mystery]

88. Good...it's a stupid fucking idea

Just sayin'...

[novalib]

97. I DISAGREE!!!!!!

Stupid? Fucking? Idea?!!!!!

WTF??!!!

Bush and his cabal of thugs are FUCKING GUILTY of some of the worst crimes against Humanity EVER!!!!!!

He MUST NOT GET AWAY with what he has done!!

HE MUST BE IMPEACHED!!!!!!

[brentspeak]

107. I agree with Alcibides Mystery

Impeachment is a stupid idea, as John Conyers, Howard Dean, and Dennis Kucinich all agree.

[Swamp Rat]

110. DAMN STRAIGHT!

Just ignore posters with NO CAJONES from now on. They are part of the problem.

[brentspeak]

112. So, uh...John Conyers, Dennis Kucinich, and Howard Dean ALL have "no cajones"?

[Name removed]

113. Deleted message

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

[alcibiades_mystery]

124. Keep yelling

Shaking one's fist at the sky is a fun diversion.

[novalib]

125. Are You Serious?

I don't think you REALLY want me to keep yelling.

And what do you mean by "shaking one's fist at the sky"??!!

I sure hope you don't mean that calling for Justice against the worst president EVER and the biggest abuser of human rights EVER is just "shaking one's fist at the sky"!

[alcibiades_mystery]

129. Art of the Possible, my purist friend

Not a Science of the Implausible.

As for your yelling, by all means, continue. Few care how loud you are. In cyberspace, thank goodness, nobody has to listen to you scream.

[brentspeak]

131. "In cyberspace...nobody has to listen to you scream."

:spray:
Thanks, AM, I needed a good laugh after all this board squabbling.

[Stinky The Clown]

90. May I simply suggest .........

..... that we're waaaaay ahead of the country at large on impeachment. My heart wants it yesterday and that makes me an impeachment hawk.

My head is far more strategic and says we need to have the hearings, show the evidence, and then allow the country to catch up. When they do, they'll DEMAND it.

[Odin2005]

Exactly.

Once we embarass the Pukes enough with investigations they will dispose of BushCo to save thier collective asses.

[u2spirit]

127. excellent point

If we are able to investiagte and prove to the populace what we at DU have known for years, the rethugs will jump on board and jettison him to save their chances for '08

[cassiepriam]

93. I want the truth to come out. All of it. Then every appropriate consequence

enforced.

[Elidor]

94. I would love to hear some context on this

Does he mean that talk of impeachment is premature until investigation warrants it? Is he being cagey? These statements in a vacuum provide no clues to what is really being said.

[zulchzulu]

95. Once I take something off a table, I never put something back on again

Even though I have some Aces in my poker hand, surely I would never use them against my opposition.

:sarcasm:

[Peace Patriot]

98. K & R this thread. This discussion needs to be on the Greatest Page.

It's an extremely important discussion.

I would be the first to say "Clean out the White House with a Mighty Broom!--NOW!" You can't know how much I would love to see this. But, if you're familiar with "Henry IV, Part I," then you will know what I mean by the "Hotspur" syndrome (--young firebrand soldier suicidally heading off into battle, on pure emotion, without sufficient forces, thinking the populace will arise and support his rebellion against Henry IV). Hotspur is well-named. It is hard to dislike Hotspur, he is so passionate and full of righteous indignation. But what is needed is wisdom and strategic thinking. And, for lack of these, Hotspur and his followers are slaughtered. Personally, I detest the guy who won, Henry V, for all his English patriotism. The play is a glorification of his bloodlust, and his disdain for the mothers and wives and daughters of the "cannon fodder" who are sacrificed for his monarchical power. Never has a play so glorified war. Anyway, in Hotspur, we have a telling example of courage without wisdom, and righteousness without strategy. And I think it very much applies to our current situation.

[philly_bob]

101. For now /nt

[brentspeak]

104. Thank goodness. The Democrats won't have time to steer the nation back on course

if they're too busy bogging everything down with impeachment hearings.

[Gwerlain]

111. Ummm, I've done some searching...

and can't seem to find a linkie for this news. Do you have one?

[Avalux]

114. No, doesn't mean it won't eventually happen.

Conyers is saying right now, it's not on the table. But there will be investigations, and depending on what information comes out in the investigations, it may end up back on the table. He did not rule it out completely.

[Swamp Rat]

116. "It's not on the table"

People who have been following Conyers for the past couple of years know that the papers are no longer "on the table."

They are in a legal brief on its way to Congress!!!

:kick:

WE WANT JUSTICE IN NEW ORLEANS!!!

[Xenotime]

118. WTF!?! That means they are going to support * ?! I don't understand.

[MethuenProgressive]

119. Tell Pelosi at: [e-mail] "Impeach!"

[e-mail]

or use the form on her page:
http://www.house.gov/pelosi/contact/contact.html

[brentspeak]

120. I'll send her an email...thanking her for not pursuing impeachment

Then I'll do the same for John Conyers, Dennis Kucinich, and Howard Dean.

[tavalon]

121. No, that doesn't do it

John Conyers has taken impeachment off the table. That's all it means. As long as I can be convinced that he took it off the table because investigations need to happen first or because he doesn't currently have a rock solid case (unlikely), then I am fine with it. John Conyers is unimpeachable (pun meant) and I respect his point of view on this even above my own. Now, if I find out that Pelosi forced him into this, I will fight her tooth and nail and as I will have a huge number of activists behind me, I will win.

So, the hope is not gone. Not by a long shot.

[meldroc]

122. I'll play ball as long as we get lots and lots of investigations.

Calling for impeachment now is premature - we need investigations first. I'm pretty certain that Conyers will be conducting lots of investigations into Bush.

What may happen is that when Conyers starts getting people under oath, starts getting paperwork under subpoena, and starts asking lots of questions, that will dig up enough dirt to get the independent counsel going, who will bring people before a grand jury, getting more testimony under oath, which will dig up enough dirt on lower-level people (like Scooter, for example) to get them indicted. Then those indicted people will be motivated to sing like canaries in exchange for light plea-bargained sentences, and their testimony will incriminate the bigwigs like Cheney, Rumsfeld, Gonzales, Rove, even Bush himself. The momentum will build in the investigations as more evidence is uncovered, and more testimony goes on the record, until one day, something will surface that is so despicable, so vile, so utterly criminal, that Congress will have no choice but to impeach.

And at that point, the evidence will be so compelling that many of the Republicans will consider voting in favor of impeachment and conviction. By the time it gets that far, Bush and his cabinet will pull a Nixon and resign.

Be patient. It could happen yet, but we can't demand immediate impeachment before we have a freight train of hard evidence and testimony to back it up.

[mvd]

128. He hasn't ruled out investigations, has he?

Those are more important to me at this point. I can see why they aren't screaming "impeachment!" right away.

[Ian David]

141. It's off the table, but still in the kitchen. n/t

[DawgHouse]

142. Yes, I believe I can smell it simmering on the stove.

:)