Home
Archive
Columnists
Video
Blogs
Discuss
About
Search
Donate
Advertise
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
Register to Vote: Rock the Vote, powered by Working Assets Wireless
Advertisement
  • AlterNetYour turn

Support AlterNet
Do you value the information you're getting from AlterNet? Please show your support with a tax-deductible donation.


Feedback
Tell us how we're doing.

Conyers: Three More Reps. and I'll Impeach

Posted by Guest Blogger at 8:41 AM on July 22, 2007.


David Swanson: Conyers will push for impeachment proceedings as soon as three more members of Congress get on board.

This post, written by David Swanson, originally appeared on After Downing Street

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 California 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.

Digg!

David Swanson is a co-founder of After Downing Street, a writer and activist, and the Washington Director of Democrats.com.


USDA Renews Approval of 46 Non-Organic Ingredients in "Organic" Foods
At the same time, the USDA withdrew approval for a type of food coloring and a food additive.
May 8, 2008.
GOP '08 Candidates Take Their Creepshow to the Iowa Stage
James Neffinger, Rachel Sklar and Drew Westen: This party is in trouble.
August 5, 2007.
Newspapers Join Forces Against the War
Max Follmer: Across the country more and more major newspapers are calling for some form of troop withdrawal from Iraq
August 4, 2007.
Gen. Wesley Clark: "We Are Not Questioning the Generals. Mr. President, We Are Questioning You!"
Taylor Marsh: Wesley Clark's exhilarating keynote speech at Yearly Kos brought the audience to its feet cheering.
August 3, 2007.
Is Hillary On Rupert Murdoch's Side?
Ari Berman: Sen. Clinton has been silent on Murdoch's purchase of the Wall Street Journal. Have his contributions to her campaign paid off for him?
August 3, 2007.

Comments Turn comments off sitewide Give us feedback »
Comments closed.
The comments for this story have been closed. Thank you to everyone who participated.
View:
Let's Work The Phones!
Posted by: dlf on Jul 22, 2007 11:02 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Feingold is going to censure the President and Conyers wants to impeach him. Let's do our part and work the phone lines to our representatives.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» My House Rep Posted by: hurricane hugo
LET'S GET BEHIND FEINGOLD AND CONYERS
Posted by: VZEQICVA on Jul 22, 2007 2:07 PM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
We can't forget that everyone will disappear during the month of August. I don't know what they need a rest from. So I guess it's e-mail and phones to everyone. Soon. Nancy Pelosi has to be reminded that she's not required to participate but she can't prevent us and the others from doing the right thing. A succesful impeachment would put her in the Oval Office. I think that's why she's reluctant. It would be awkward. Thanks, ANNA

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

We must act
Posted by: charemor on Jul 22, 2007 3:29 PM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
We must act to get these clowns out of office before election time 2008 or there will not be an election. Unless Bush and Cheney are forceably removed from office, they will not relinquish the reins of power. We see new evidence everyday of their disregard for the Constitution and the laws of this country. They are planning for permanent imperial power and our representatives must act now to rid us of them before it is too late.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

It is time our representatives represented the people
Posted by: Susan Kipping on Jul 22, 2007 10:22 PM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Bush and Cheney can be impeached for many offenses. They must be held accountable for war crimes and treason. They need to be impeached now. I will not vote for any politician that does not get behind impeachment.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

I agree with Charemor . . .
Posted by: NamVeT on Jul 23, 2007 7:56 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
The reason being that if we don't IMPEACH these criminals, we will forever be under their rule. The Rethugs have spent 30 or more years for this moment. If you think they are going to give up this power, you are out of touch with any form of reality! If we cannot oust these low life...lying... immoral...one way sons of bitches now we will never be able to live free again EVER! The time to act is NOW. If we don't, get used to calling georgie "The King". Of course, he would rather be addressed as "Your Majesty". And if you don't call him by that name you will probably never be seen or heard from again.... I'm sure that I will fall into the later category.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Will the Intelligent Please Step Forward
Posted by: taureandevi on Jul 23, 2007 11:35 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I'm actually feeling cheerful right now!
Posted by: goeswithness on Jul 23, 2007 10:22 PM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
And when we do this, I really want every one of those crimes to be officially listed as reasons. I don't want to be polite about it. I want it to stick and I want it all listed in the history books.
Not for vengeance, but because we need to make that firm a statement as a society that we thoroughly recognize the crimes that have been committed in our name and firmly repudiate them.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

We don't need Pelosi?
Posted by: Brian70 on Jul 23, 2007 11:39 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I didn't know that John Conyers can initiate impeachment proceedings. I've been e-mailing Pelosi to initiate impeachment proceedings. She's doing nothing! Can someone give me Conyer's e-mail address? Does he take e-mail from people not from his district? I cannot believe that the Democrats have been so shy in initiating impeachment procedures against Bush and Cheney (both being impeached is a must!) for all that they have done wrong.

I also appreciate what Russ Feingold is doing with his censure resolution, however it has come to my attention that Bush wants to push for Executive Privilege for the Justice Department in his firing of Federal District Attorneys by stating that the Justice Department cannot be required to file contempt charges on the named parties because the Justice Department is an extension of the Executive Department. In this same article (found in the Washington Post dated 7/20/07) they stated that EITHER HOUSE HAS INHERENT POWER TO PURSUE CONTEMPT CHARGES AND HAVE THEIR OWN TRIALS ON CONTEMPT CHARGES!. This has not been done since 1934, however I say so what? We haven't had an administration like this since then. I hope Feingold takes his censure resolution one step further and initiates the Senate to hold contempt hearings if the Justice Department refuses to do this. I think we can all agree something must be done!

I get tired of hearing radio talk show hosts stating that everything Democrats do is just for political grandstanding and that their investigations have come up with nothing and they should move on. But it's really hard to come up with anything when witnesses "can't recall" or don't have to testify due to " executive privilege" or e-mails "got lost" or appellate courts overturn rulings by 2-1 (the 2 being appointed by Republicans).

This Democratic congress was elected to do something! Now it time for them to DO SOMETHING! Even if Pelosi refuses to. First if was malfeasance due to Bush's power grab, and now it' going to malfeasance due to Pelosi's/Congress' inaction. If this Congress doesn't act, who is going to be the big winner/loser of the next election. I won't vote for the same Democrats again!

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]