[Peace-discuss] Fwd: [Ufpj-disc] Rep. Conyers' Latest on Impeachment

Thu Aug 30 15:22:34 CDT 2007

A pretty feeble performance…  What do you do when your "heros" fail?
Answer: Don't depend upon heros. -- mkb

Begin forwarded message:

> From: David Swanson <david at davidswanson.org>
> Date: August 28, 2007 11:38:16 AM CDT
> To: ufpj-disc at lists.mayfirst.org
> Subject: [Ufpj-disc] Rep. Conyers' Latest on Impeachment
> Reply-To: David Swanson <david at davidswanson.org>
>
> **Please see footer for list protocol**
>
> Rep. Conyers' Latest on Impeachment
>
> http://afterdowningstreet.org/node/26203
>
> Transcript from Democracy Now!
> [Commentary added in brackets by David Swanson]
>
> AMY GOODMAN: Congressman Conyers, it was interesting to see you at  
> this major rally in Newark on Saturday. About more than a thousand  
> people were there. It was the largest demonstration against war and  
> violence at home for decades in Newark. Now, you spoke at the  
> rally. Interestingly, people were there who had been arrested in  
> your office, the forty-five in July who had been arrested because  
> they were calling for you to continue to back the call for  
> impeachment of President Bush. What is your response?
>
> REP. JOHN CONYERS: Well, my response is that we have several things  
> to do in -- I begin this part of our conversation by indicating  
> that I have nothing but the highest regard for Cindy Sheehan. But  
> the question of how we orchestrate moving a congressional schedule  
> forward of accomplishments -- we’re pretty proud of what we’ve done  
> in eight months after having no control over the agenda for twelve  
> years. We also are trying to make sure that we don’t bring  
> resolutions or hearings that would put the election in jeopardy. We  
> could close down the Congress -- I have been in more impeachment  
> hearings than anybody in the House or the Senate. And our  
> legislative attempts to reverse so many things would come to a  
> stop. And it is doubtful if we wouldn’t go into an election with  
> not one, but at least two attempts to remove the top executive  
> officers in the country, I don’t think that that can happen.
>
> [Proud of 8 months of accomplishing...WHAT? Seriously, what? Put an  
> election in jeopardy? Are you serious? With 80% of Democrats and  
> 55% of Americans wanting impeachment before you even start? With  
> the post-Nixon and post-Reagan election results known to you? With  
> your own book in the stores arguing that the Constitution is in  
> jeopardy? Legislative attempts to reverse things??? People don't  
> want another 18 months of staged "attempts" while knowing that any  
> good bill will be vetoed, and knowing that you know it, and knowing  
> that you know that we know that you know it. You have 18 months.  
> Nixon took 3. Clinton took 4 with a Senate trial included. Gonzales  
> took only the threat.]
>
> AMY GOODMAN: Congressman Conyers, on the issue of the warrantless  
> wiretapping, on the one hand you’ve had the Democrats going after  
> Gonzales fiercely for the Bush administration’s secret warrantless  
> domestic surveillance program, yet signing off on the recent bill  
> that the Bush administration had pushed for for further warrantless  
> wiretapping.
>
> REP. JOHN CONYERS: Well, the leadership was, of course, against the  
> bill, and the majority of Democrats voted against the bill. But  
> we’ve got this consideration: we’ve got 233 Democrats; forty of  
> them are Blue Dogs, that is, conservative Democrats that frequently  
> vote Republican. And then we have another group that are new to the  
> Congress in their first term elected from red state congressional  
> districts, which they felt that they would not be able to come  
> back, and we couldn’t get them over. So we didn’t have all of our  
> Democrats. It was not a solid position. But the leadership, Pelosi  
> and I and Reyes, the head of the Intelligence Committee, we pleaded  
> with everybody to vote with us in caucus, and we weren’t able to  
> persuade some of the new members, and we weren’t able to persuade  
> some of the Blue Dogs.
>
> [Newsflash: If the leadership of the Congress is against a bill, it  
> doesn't get brought up for a vote.]
>
> AMY GOODMAN: Why would impeachment hearings put the election in  
> jeopardy?
>
> REP. JOHN CONYERS: Well, because unless I’ve got the Constitution  
> in one hand and a calculator in the other, so I’ve got any kind of  
> hearings on removing both the President and the Vice President --  
> or putting it in reverse, remove the Vice President and then the  
> President -- within the months remaining, would require 218 votes  
> in the House of Representatives. That’s my calculator giving me  
> this information. And then, in the Senate we need two-thirds to  
> convict. Notwithstanding all of my progressive friends that would  
> love to see me start impeachment hearings, those votes I do not  
> think exist in the House of Representatives or in the US Senate.
>
> [An attempt to impeach Cheney would save the Democratic Party. A  
> successful impeachment of Cheney and of Bush, plus successfully  
> removing them from office, is the ideal. Any step along the way  
> would build the party, not to mention the nation, that Conyers says  
> he is focused on building. No past impeachment has taken anything  
> like 18 months. And these ones are already 9/10 done. Just read  
> Conyers' book aloud and take a vote. No investigations are needed.]
>
> AMY GOODMAN: Finally, Congressman Conyers, if you weren’t holding  
> your calculator, if you were just deciding whether impeachment was  
> called for here, what would be the reasons you would list?
>
> REP. JOHN CONYERS: What would be the reasons that I would what?
>
> AMY GOODMAN: What would be the reasons you would list for  
> impeachment, if you weren’t holding your calculator, just holding  
> the Constitution?
>
> REP. JOHN CONYERS: Oh, OK. Well, to me, we can accomplish probably  
> as much as we would need to to make the record clear that there has  
> been a great deal of violation of the sworn oath of office, abuses  
> of power, through the hearings and inquiries that we can conduct.  
> But it isn’t that -- and no one has ever heard me suggest that we  
> don’t think that there is conduct that could be proven to be  
> impeachable.
>
> But when Ron Dellums and Shirley Chisholm and Bella Abzug and  
> William Fitts Ryan of New York, when we -- Parren Mitchell -- when  
> we introduced an impeachment resolution, the first one against a  
> sitting president in over seventy-five years, when Richard Nixon  
> was being investigated, it was at the beginning of his term. And  
> although he had been overwhelmingly reelected, there was time for  
> us to have the hearing. This -- the timing of an administration  
> which will go down in history as probably one of the most  
> disappointing, there isn’t the time here for it.
>
> [Nixon left office exactly three months after your committee took  
> up impeachment. Pretending you need 4 years is an insult to us and  
> to the authors of the Constitution. You've wasted 8 months already.  
> Let's get going! Moving to impeach Gonzales helped force him out.  
> Promising not to impeach Cheney or Bush authorizes them to commit  
> crimes. The usual excuses about not enough time and too divisive  
> etc. don't hold up because many Congress Members were willing to do  
> it with Gonzales. In fact 20 are ready to impeach Cheney, including  
> 6 members of the Judiciary Committee. 80% of Dems want impeachment.  
> Even an unsuccessful effort would do more for the Democratic Party  
> than failure to try.]
>
> AMY GOODMAN: Congressman Conyers, we will leave it there, Chair of  
> the House Judiciary Committee. I want to thank you very much for  
> joining us on this day after the announcement that Alberto Gonzales  
> had resigned as attorney general, effective September 17. Thank you.
>
> ***************************************
> This is a list for member groups of United for Peace and Justice to  
> discuss organizing plans and the work of this coalition.
>
> List guidelines:
>
> This list is open to any member of a UFPJ member group. Please sign  
> your postings with your name and the name of the group to which you  
> belong.
>
> Please refrain from off-topic posts. News articles belong on the  
> ufpj-news at yahoogroups.com list.  If you wish to engage others in  
> discussion around a particular news item, campaign, or concept,  
> please write a brief intro above the item you forward that can  
> serve to focus discussion.  This will ensure that the list is a  
> useful tool for communication and debate between UFPJ member groups.
>
> We want to encourage full and vigorous conversation, but also want  
> people to be attentive to overposting.  A good guideline is to  
> limit your posts to one per day, except in unusual circumstances.   
> Personal attacks and racist, sexist, or homophobic language will  
> not be tolerated.
>
> Moderation will be exercised at the discretion of the list  
> administrators, in order to provide a useful platform for  
> discussion that makes space for a diversity of voices.
> _______________________________________________
> Ufpj-disc mailing list
>
> Post: Ufpj-disc at lists.mayfirst.org
> List info: https://lists.mayfirst.org/mailman/listinfo/ufpj-disc
>
> To Unsubscribe
> 	Send email to:  Ufpj-disc-unsubscribe at lists.mayfirst.org
> 	Or visit: https://lists.mayfirst.org/mailman/options/ufpj-disc/ 
> brussel4%40insightbb.com
>
> You are subscribed as: brussel4 at insightbb.com

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.chambana.net/cgi-bin/private/peace-discuss/attachments/20070830/d9976fdf/attachment.htm