The Conyers Legacy
By David Swanson
About 47 of us spent 8 or 9 hours yesterday in jail for protesting a man who, at least when he woke up yesterday morning, only thought of himself as on the side of those who protest power.
While hundreds of us lined the hallways outside Chairman John Conyers' office, one of his staffers approached the door to his office but was unable to enter. The place was wall-to-wall media inside, with Cindy Sheehan, Ray McGovern, and Rev. Lennox Yearwood giving a press conference in Conyers' office in his absence. They'd gone in to speak with Conyers, but it would take him quite a while to show up.
The staffer was annoyed and complained to his colleague "It's bad enough they shut the office down with phone calls." Another staffer, this one rather pleased about it (the police, too, were on our side and three of them quietly accepted Impeach Bush and Cheney shirts), told me they were getting a pro-impeachment phone call every 30 seconds. They were also flooded with Emails and with thousands of faxes yesterday. But the message was not getting through to the Congressman.
He and several staffers met with Sheehan, McGovern, and Yearwood. It was a heated discussion. Conyers began by proposing to discuss impeachment sometime in August at a town hall meeting. We've been doing those for years. We held a huge one in Detroit in May that Conyers agreed to speak at. He showed up and left before it started. Yearwood, Sheehan, and McGovern told Conyers his time was up.
What was Conyers' objection to moving forward on impeachment now? Well, he said, if he were to do that Fox News would go after him and accuse him of being partisan. I kid you not. The Democratic Chairman of the U.S. House Judiciary Committee is basing his decisions on whether a Republican cable TV station would approve. As Cindy Sheehan told me outside the jail last night: "If I based my decisions on Fox, I would never do anything."
As long as Conyers is working for Fox, maybe our next sit-in needs to be in their studios.
But Conyers expressed another concern as well. He's concerned about his legacy. I wish there were a kind way to tell him that he is about to flush it down the toilet. Conyers' judiciary committee staffers, who were in the meeting yesterday, including Ted Kalo, Perry Appelbaum, and Jonathan Godfrey, produced a year and a half ago one of the best reports summarizing and documenting the crimes of Bush and Cheney. Conyers is aware that Bush and Cheney are killing people every day that he refrains from fulfilling his oath of office. He knows that nearly a million Iraqis and 4,000 U.S. troops lie dead already. He knows that this president and vice president kidnap, torture, and murder human beings. But when pressed to act with the urgency appropriate to saving lives, Conyers replied that our nation has always killed people and that he wasn't "going to play politics."
At other times, Conyers told our delegation that they needed to wise up and move from working on justice to doing politics. But politics has become a bad word because of the way Conyers uses it. He places elections highest in the order of priorities and refuses to do his job in between elections because that would be "politics."
We elected Democrats in 2006 so that Conyers would have the committee chairmanship and move on impeachment. If he fails to act, he will quickly discover that yesterday was just a warm-up.
This Thursday and Friday, members of ImpeachForPeace.org, World Can't Wait, and After Downing Street will meet to discuss impeachment with Congress Members Maxine Waters and Keith Ellison, and with the offices of Jerrold Nadler, Adam Schiff, Robert Wexler, and Debbie Wasserman Schultz. We'll be delivering petitions for impeachment from all over the country.
Now is the moment for every member of Congress to take a stand for justice. Which side are you on, John?
Your legacy, Chairman Conyers, is about to be remade by the American people, and all the good and noble things you have done will be overshadowed by your grand finale: the enabling of fascism in our country.
- davidswanson's blog
- Login or register to post comments
- Send to friend
Join us & contribute
Proud members of the Democratic Party
Copyright 2006 Democrats.com. All rights reserved. Privacy Policy
Achieving Success not Anger re Conyers & Impeachment
Dear David, Bob, Dave, and friends,
Okay, we did the big shindig thing at Conyers office and let him know we will apply political pressure. He knows; but where did it get us??
What we need is his support and leadership not another split within the Progressive movement and Democratic Party. Now a small group of us needs to go back and meet with Conyers privately. We need to ask him what he really needs to be able to start the impeachment proceedings. My guess is that it would probably be at least half of the Democrats in the house including one or two either within the leadership or that are seen as moderates. The last thing he or we want is to start the process and still not be able to get enough votes to impeach.
Then we need to ask him what we can say publicly to our pro-impeachment supporters and the media about this.
It shocked me that we targeted Conyers at this point in time. It seemed to me to be a totally stupid move. Pelosi yes, who has done nothing to support Impeachment and has acted to block it; but Conyers who has done plenty to advance it and at least mouths support for it, No.
Kucinich now has 13 co-sponsors - out of 450 I think. That is a drop in the bucket. 1/20th of what we need, but obviously a good start. We would do far better talking individually to our Representatives than staging sit-ins and getting arrested.
I attended an Impeachment event in Central Park during the nationwide event a couple months ago. It was held just a block or two from the primary running roadway, where thousands bike, jog, and skate every weekend - but no one knew it was there or happening. Why wasn't it held where it would be highly visible and hundreds more would have participated? Why not a followup on Monday morning at Grand Central Station or Wall Street where we might get good media attention?
If we want to succeed we need to spend a lot more time focusing on strategic planning and effective organizing.
I am wondering if the Impeachment organizers have ever sat down with Kucinich and his co-sponsors and worked out a plan and strategy for how we can cooperate to build a lot more support in the House and Congress. In addition, we should begin to enroll a few prominent Senators (who would try the case) to get them to support this effort as well and to speak out vocally about it.
Also just to clear up a common misconception. Pelosi would not be the next in line to be President if Bush and Cheney are impeached. If Cheney is impeached first (or they are impeached together) then Bush will nominate a new VP, subject to confirmation by the Senate, who will then become the President if Bush is impeached. The procedure is clearly spelled out in the Constitution.
Please let me know what you think of my suggestions. Thank you.
Rob Wheelerrob@wmgd.net
I agree with robineee
While I dispise them and think they should all be jailed I also recognize that this has been a generational effort by the neocons and it is not going to end quickly either. I just don't see how pushing for an impeachment to the point that you split the Democrats and hand power back over to the repubs is going to help us. The numbers do not back up a successful resolution by empeachment. I wouldn't be achievable if every Democrat in both houses were in full support of it...This is a sad but true state of affairs.
I know that many here hate the DLC and I agree that they are republican lite...ok. But at their worst they are not as bad as these people. I remember life under a DLC leader and his name was Bill Clinton....yeah he signed off on NAFTA, etc....he did some things we didn't think were helpful, but, we did not live under the cloud of fear and dispair that we are enduring now...
The election of 2004 was a stop-gap success. That is to say it slowed their progress, but we as Americans (if the elections are real) did not give them the majority they need to accomplish the kinds of change that is necessary. That will come with time I believe.. The next election will tell the story and that is what we have be focused on. To make changes you have to be in power. They are in power now and the only way to change that is through the elections and we will not get it done if we are divided.
I expect to be flamed for appearing to support the DLC which I don't. They are ours to direct and I agree with sending them the message that we are not happy, but I don't think we are being reasonable to expect them to do the impossible.
"Nearly all men can stand adversity, but if you want to test a man's character, give him power."
-Abraham Lincoln
Consider yourself flamed Steve...
don't even try to come in here and tell us that the DLC isn't as bad as the Repugnants. It is far too late in this episode to take that tack.
Impeachment, to restate your misgivings about it, takes place in the House. It has nothing to do with the Senate. The parties referred to 'trial' in the Senate have already been impeached. Up to the Senate then only to remove, indict, incarcerate, fine or whatever.
You may, if you wish, assume the Lotus position and suck your thumb.
Conyer's statement that he would not involve himself in 'Partisan' politics is an insult to all the people who have ever died for this country. Kerry was the same, wouldn't get his sleeves dirty. Oh my no.
Big trouble lies ahead.
A mind once expanded can never return to its original dimensions.
Anne Hathaway: 1556-1623
The greatest derangement of the mind is to believe in something because one wishes it to be so.
What it really boils down to
What it really boils down to Steve, is which is more important: upholding the Constitution, or winning a partisan election? What will be different in 2008 if we re-elect DLC neocons?
As long as the DLC neocons are in "leadership" positions, winning elections will make little difference in the "politics as usual" mentality of professional "me first" politicians on both sides of the aisle. It is the Constitutional duty of Congress to be "obstructionists" when the Executive attempts to garner too much power. That was the intent of the Founders, and is the only way the checks and balances of our way of government will work. In our current situation, "centrism" amounts to enablement.
Unless we impeach the current neocon criminals in the BA, successive presidents (including Democrats) will have the ammunition to abuse their temporary offices.
So which is it: our country, or a blind political goal for bragging rights?
Not looking for a confrontation...
I don't understand why you can't just say you disagree with me and why. I honestly thought it was a reasonable disscussion to be had. Am I totally unaware to the point that I can't see what is going on? Can an impeachment actually happen? Can we possibly get rid of all the DLCer's from our party by the time the election comes around and still be unified enough to win in 08?
"Nearly all men can stand adversity, but if you want to test a man's character, give him power."
-Abraham Lincoln
Steve, each of us belonging to the Democratic Wing of the...
Democratic Party is responsible, within our separate states, to take out any member of the DLC and fellow travelers. This has been our mantra since election 2000.
How many times does this have to be explained? Some of us here on this site have explained this situation over and over again hundreds if not thousands of times.
Lets knock off the wide-eyed innocent crap and get the job done.
The Conyers/Cindi fracas is only a symptom, not the disease. As someone here today noted: we are looking at the 4th Reich.
A mind once expanded can never return to its original dimensions.
Anne Hathaway: 1556-1623
The greatest derangement of the mind is to believe in something because one wishes it to be so.
Rules re Impeachment
When the House impeaches a government official it only means that they are charged with serious misconduct. They must then be convicted by the Senate by a 2/3rds vote before any action can be taken against them.
This is direct from the US Constitution and I quote:
Article 1. Section. 3.
…..The Senate shall have the sole Power to try all Impeachments. When sitting for that Purpose, they shall be on Oath or Affirmation. When the President of the United States is tried, the Chief Justice shall preside: And no Person shall be convicted without the Concurrence of two thirds of the Members present.
Judgment in Cases of Impeachment shall not extend further than to removal from Office, and disqualification to hold and enjoy any Office of honor, Trust or Profit under the United States: but the Party convicted shall nevertheless be liable and subject to Indictment, Trial, Judgment and Punishment, according to Law.
Article II. Section 4.
The President, Vice President and all civil Officers of the United States, shall be removed from Office on Impeachment for, and Conviction of, Treason, Bribery, or other high Crimes and Misdemeanors.
AMENDMENT XXV
Passed by Congress July 6, 1965. Ratified February 10, 1967.
Note: Article II, section 1, of the Constitution was affected by the 25th amendment.
Section 1. In case of the removal of the President from office or of his death or resignation, the Vice President shall become President.
Section 2. Whenever there is a vacancy in the office of the Vice President, the President shall nominate a Vice President who shall take office upon confirmation by a majority vote of both Houses of Congress.
Hope this is helpful.
Rob
The greatest derangement of the mind is to believe in something because one wishes it to be so.
Again, you are attempting to
Again, you are attempting to tie impeachment with removal from office. If a civil officer is impeached by the House, he or she loses the right to be pardoned for the alleged offenses, regardless of the outcome of a Senate trial.
Impeachment is a separate process, and is not a criminal proceeding, but a Constituional process designed for uncovering "treason, bribery, or other high crimes and misdemeanors." The definition of "high crimes and misdemeanors" is whatever the House decides it is.
You are sounding more and more like a neocon troll...
Rob, nice of you to be so precise with your explanations...
so let me apply some fresh air and a few facts you are determined not to expose. Impeachment in the House would entail a considerable amount of investigation of the criminal parties. As the investigation proceeds, these surfacing facts will be working against those of the criminal's own party. Ultimately, people on the street will start to smell the coffee...as will the less obstinate of the Repugnants in the House. They will want to distance themselves from Bush & Co. If enough eventually sign on, Impeachment occurs. The criminal facts are accepted and will be widely known--more widely than people like Rove and Rush can distort. If the vote is Impeach the buggers, then they are impeached. Trial is in the Senate. It is not necessary for the Impeachment to go further. The Democrats elected to Impeach have done so. That will be a matter of history. Do you believe that the Senate would not cave in to reality at that point. The time is now. The Constitution does not say that you can impeach when you have enough votes or when it is convenient for you to do so. The Constitution mandates the process. Forget the senate. Go for investigation and impeachment and see how it turns out. The worst that can happen will be the Dems saying we tried our best(not our worst)to do what was right. That party across the aisle refused to do their jobs. We sent the Dems in the House a majority. We the people expect them to get involved in partisan politics. If they dont want to do that, then let them step down and quit cashing the money we pay them.
A mind once expanded can never return to its original dimensions.
Anne Hathaway: 1556-1623
The greatest derangement of the mind is to believe in something because one wishes it to be so.
Too eager and jumped the gun
We should have waited til Patreaus's report came in and then pushed for withdrawal of troops, after the mess over there is confirmed.
Impeachment would be right along with the incompetence and quagmire for vengeance.
Look how long has it been since we African-Americans had backing that stayed with us.
I'll tell you, 1965 when Martin Marched.
Maybe Conyers doesn't trust the DLC to back him fully? We do have some severe turncoats in the party.
Grinch, get off Conyers back please, and don't tip our hand before it's time.
Never let the right hand know what the left is doing, my mom always said.
I know you are ready to see them drawn and quartered as I am, but a sure step is a positive step. Stack the mounting evidence in congress and Senate. It won't be long look at how "Seedy" Gonzales got busted by the Judiciry yesterday. I promise you it won't be too much longer.
ask Americans the question: In all our history, when has there been a more corrupt and treasonous bunch that deserve impeachment?
Then take it to the polls from Americans, that have the facts and not media spin they have been listening to.
Not yet Grinch. Not yet. lol Boo
What's up girl, long time no chat? been on my candidates site congradulating him and helping plan his strategy for nomination for election.
mommapanther
PS: We've got to infiltrate Republiklan sites to persuade them and that's the tough part. Soon they will be jumping like catfish to get away from Bush It