There is something I'm not understanding about Mr. Conyers.

[EFerrari]

I heard him on Amy Goodman's show last week saying, essentially, that we need to gain a bigger majority and the WH rather than go for impeachment right now.

Yet, he spent some time, as we all know, documenting how corrupt our Federal elections are because no one else would. In fact, when he was being interviewed by Amy Goodman, there was a big bright WINDOW over his left shoulder. I don't think I've seen him in LIGHT before. lol.

So, how does he marry these two situations? I don't get it.

[EFerrari]

1. I don't want to bite his head off, I just don't understand his thinking.

One of you fifty guys has a clue, I know you do. :)

/oops

[oldtimecanuk]

2. Well, although I think that he believes that Impeachment is warranted...

He realizes that even if we started it today it probably would not have much of an effect on the Chimp due to time constraints. There is certainly enough evidence to impeach the entire Administration, it would take so long to get to this point, and we don't have the votes in the Senate as was witnessed this previous week.

I don't know what it would take to get Bush in hand cuffs due to mental incompetence, but that might be a route to go. Would be much quicker than the impeachment route... Don't know if this has ever happened, but hey there is always a first... There is no doubt in my mind that both GWB and Dickey are fruit and nut cases...

ww

[EFerrari]

3. Mr. Conyers' point was that the people weigh in during elections.

Yet, he documented that our federal elections are screwn.

So, how does his statement make sense? :shrug:

[oldtimecanuk]

6. Hmmmmmmm I wonder if he is reflecting on the stolen elections that...

most of us believe have taken place, due to touch screens with no paper trail? I know that you guys are not trying to Dis. Congressman Conyers, and wonder what is going thru his mind? I love this man, he started the Downing Street Memo's when no one else would touch the story.... I guess it requires some serious surfing to find the answer.

ww

[EFerrari]

7. My question is very little. How do we weigh in if our elections are corrupt?

He knows both of those things.

And, I'm just trying to figure out what he was thinking/is thinking about impeachment when he knows damn well that our Federal elections are cr@p?

I'd never dis Mr. Conyers. He's a stalwart. I just don't know what to make of this.

[tiptoe]

19. (I think he -- and Pelosi - are thinking "Fitzgerald" could be the expeditious route for time being)

The Libby trial is over...Pelosi and Conyers await a next shoe to drop by Fitzgerald...(i.e. if any)...Just have to wait and see if Fitz has something in store for the VP...the removal from office of whom might be advisable before tempting the potential for an unpredictable Presidential resignation that an impeachment-of-Bush process could spawn. Amazingly thru last Nov midterm elections (which mr. karl asserted would see the "gop" keep control of both chambers), Pelosi and Byrd have displaced Hastert and Boehner(?) in line of succession behind Cheney. We'll see if Fitz has anything in store for the VP and/or...the Prez.

Also, 46% Americans are still under the propaganda-spell/sell of a connection between 9/11 and Iraq/Hussein. Hearings and Investigations to expose the truth can be most useful while Fitz does his thing, too. (Wait'll the public learns the facts about 9/11!)

Waxman, Leahy, Conyers et al...Out the Truth...and pay heed to Fitzgerald's "lead."

Trying to head-off a second "fraud war" with Iran is a priority that an initiation of impeachment may disturb, given the penchant for this mal-administration to "create its own realities" -- it's "premises" -- required to most-easily accomplish its goals. Starting wars for useful backdrop is its modus operandi for "setting policies" for otherwise "difficult" goals (like torture, domestic spying, suspension of habeas corpus, , assassinating democracy and the constitution).

The timing for impeachment may be predicated on what Bush/Cheney...and Fitzgerald inititiate.

Fitzgerald DOES have authority and unlimited resources to extend his investigations to ANY areas where federal crimes may have been committed. I suspect his investigations have gone far beyond the Plame matter.

Who can say what Fitzgerald may have and what may pop up from the Special Counsel's office to bite Cheney and/or Bush in the behind?

Pelosi and Conyers are laying back...with subpoena powers and investigations to unfold...while we await what Fitzgerald may or may not do "after Libby".

Ya know...if it's conspiracy to commit treason...it may be more expeditious to attack the issue through the office of an authority equal to that of the Attorney General than through a potentially slow, drawn out process of impeachment, given the immediate graveness of the ME situation at hand. Who knows: Fitzgerald may have immediate, powerful ammunition (of investigative information) to share with the public and/or Congress (as per Libby indictment conferences) and which Congressional leaders could use to explode the issue to the forefront, cutting through a lot of preliminary, slow-unfolding procedure.

And then there's this "The jig is up!" reality hinting admin-oblivion for any more Bush/Cheney "initiatives" (and "time to decide" on course of action by Conyers and Pelosi, i.e. whenever THEY are ready to do so):

Historical Bush Approval 2004-2007 only

[EFerrari]

23. Pelosi and Conyers are two of the smartest people in government.

But after six years of these criminals -- more if we count the years they held our Congress hostage -- it's pretty damn hard to trust what goes on behind closed doors. :(

[oldtimecanuk]

10. Yep, you got me on that one.. I really don't have an answer...

I said on other posts prior to this thread that we really are in a dilemma here in that, what the hell are the priorities of the past congress the 109th Congress? They screwed up so badly that it will take long beyond 2008 to repair.... And they still have a voice in the Senate due to the lacking of votes.. ie: 51 - 49 and as we all know one of those 51 falls on an Independent ... ugh Lieberman... F......

ww

[stillcool]

4. I saw that too...

and try as I might to rationalize right along with him, I couldn't take the leap.

[EFerrari]

5. Thanks, stillcool47. Maybe someone can knit this up. I can't

and I ADORE John Conyers.

:shrug:

[TomInTib]

8. What one must always keep in mind is that they are all bought and sold.

Every one of them.

The large donors make a lot of the calls. Or Bobby Jack Perry's people contact Conyers' people and inform them that they will spend whatever it takes to unseat him.

And that, simply, is the way things work at the National level.

[EFerrari]

9. But there has to be a wedge, a way in, or the Dems wouldn't have

unseated the Thugs last time out.

Even if that wedge is the appearance of democracy.

Why would Mr. Conyers table impeachment in favor of election when he knows the state of our Federal elections?

Is he just trying to work with the Speaker? Is he waiting for better timing? Does he believe our elections will be rectified? What?

[TomInTib]

15. I do not believe that John Q is ready for impeachment.

The iron is not yet hot enough.

[jwirr]

11. He is educating the American voter with his hearings and weakening

the pugs position at the same time. As to impeachment he knows that House can impeach but the Senate will not be able to indict so nothing will be done. He and many of the other committee heads are investigating for this reason. Knowledge is power. The more we know about how they have been screwing the people the more leverage we have. And the more solutions we can propose. We may not be able to have them removed from office but we can deal with them.

I would love to see the whole damn administration impeached and dragged away in handcuffs but we do not have the power in the Senate. Our goal is to hold *ss and co. to as tight a line as we can. That means that those of us here on DU and other advocacy sites need to keep the pressure on the pugs up because we get at least some of them to see it our way and hopefully get some of our proposals passed.

[EFerrari]

12. I'm sorry. That makes no sense to me.

How do you let the voters weigh in in corrupt Federal elections?

[flyarm]

20. i disagree with this "

"He is educating the American voter with his hearings and weakening the pugs position at the same time"

i do not believe that many people pay attention to the hearings..oh all of us do..if not at work..but i know of no one but me who sits and watches the hearings..

and how much does the media ( HA!) tell the American people about these hearings..we all know that answer..very little or not at all..

and if it is an important hearing like Waxman has had..it is not even on cspan..so one must stream online..so how many Americans are listening?? honestly?? You have to be really committed to this stuff to pay attention and to sit by one's computer to listen!


I heard Conyers on NPR..and i was screaming as well ....screaming..it is your responsibility to impeach..if you have proof ..that this admin broke our laws..

no one is above the law..and no one should be immune from our laws..

if these jerks in the white house haven't broken our laws..well them i am whistling dixie!

fly

[EFerrari]

22. At least you whistle beautifully, fly. We know that.

lol

[jwirr]

29. The 2006 elections are proof that the voters are being educated.

Not necessarily by MSM but by movies, shows like Countdown and the Daily show, various newspaper articles, etc. People are looking for the truth again not just taking MSM for granted.

[EFerrari]

30. Not necessarily. They may only be proof that it's harder to rig

many elections than it is to rig one Federal election. :shrug:

I mean, I would hope you are right but I fear that's just not the case.

[rodeodance]

13. Pelosi's chat with him sure did wonders (no more talk of the big I)!!

[wtmusic]

14. Conyers was a bulldog on impeachment last year

but someone threw him a big juicy steak. It's depressing.

[WillYourVoteBCounted]

16. I didn't understand the senate refusing to pass resolution r/e IRAQ

maybe he is waiting till Waxman investigates and gathers
enough evidence?

Maybe he figures he can't swing Impeachment given we can't even
get the senate to vote for a non binding resolution r/e Iraq?

I don't know, but someone better stop Shrubya from
starting another war, and we need to stop the wars we are in.

I hear that the women Iraqi refuges are turning to prostitution
for survival.

Thanks to the right wing holier than thou nut jobs in the US.

[pat_k]

17. It is irreconcilable. A product of the impeachophobia. . .

. . .that pervades their insular world.

They are just people. People trapped in the created reality of the beltway. Their irrational belief system is rarely if ever challenged inside that world.

No one is immune. Not even those who have been our champions so often in the past.

We can inject reality. Instead of just calling for action, we can engage staffers in dialog. Ask questions. Contradict their irrational beliefs. Let them know how insane their notions sound to the folks "out here" -- and why.

It's looking like deja vu all over again, but there is still time to intervene and pave a new road.

"The definition of insanity is doing the same thing
over and over and expecting different results."
-- Unknown

NY Times
November 27, 1986 2006
http://select.nytimes.com/gst/abstract.html?res=F50716F83C5C0C748EDDA80994DE484D81">Risks for the Democrats
By R. W. Apple JR.

"Flushed with victory in the Nov. 4 7 elections, which gave them control of the House and Senate, the Democrats see obvious benefits and not-so-obvious pitfalls in the unfolding ongoing crisis of secret arms shipments to Iran and possibly illegal diversion of funds to the rebels in Nicaragua CIA-run prisons overseas where abductees are subjected to "incommunicado detention and torture." ⁽¹⁾ One main pitfall, in the view of many senior members of the party, is seeming too prosecutorial, too much like the notorious leader of the Spanish Inquisition.

. . .leading Democrats warned that the worst thing for the country and the party would be an all-out attack on the President, whom they consider personally very popular despite the damage done to his prestige and credibility this month.

. . .a member of the House leadership who asked not to be identified. "The one thing likely to produce sympathy for Reagan Bush is Democrats in full-throated hue and cry, baying for the blood of the Administration.". . .

Paul Kirk, the party chairman, said the crisis gave the party "an earlier chance than we expected to seize control of the national agenda, by speeding the onset of the post-Reagan Bush era." He and others believe that while the President and his key aides are preoccupied with investigations into the affair, the Democrats ought to begin laying out, calmly and methodically, their programs for 1988 2008 and beyond.

''It ought to be possible for us to be positive and assertive without being absolutely confrontational here,'' Mr. Kirk added.

But there was less agreement, as many of the key Democrats headed home for Thanksgiving, about what the party should do than about what it should not do.

. . .But in the view of most party professionals, their chances of winning the Presidency two years from now, for only the second time in the last six elections, have been greatly enhanced by the prospect of a lame duck in the White House - if only they do not overreact.

Will they slavishly repeat the past? Will it be "deja vu all over again"? Or will enough of us be able to inject enough reality to shake them out of their devastating denial.

The horrors we confront today were unimaginable in 1987. If they once again fail us. . .

Let's hope that sanity prevails.

Time will tell.

____________________________

(1) To name just one of the many fronts in Bush and Cheney's war on the Constitution.

[EFerrari]

21. And THAT'S why these Iran Contra bastards are STILL here

torturing and killing and stealing and decimating the Constitution.

I think I have to call the Chairman of the Judiciary Committee or maybe, write to him.

Oh and, great rewrite of the NYTs.

[pat_k]

26. Robert Parry's "Hey, Democrats, Truth Matters!" says it all.

http://www.consortiumnews.com/2006/051006.html

[EFerrari]

27. I have to read this. And today, I'm going to give this question

to every impeachment group I can find.

It helps in that direction and it helps with election reform. A twofer.

[nicknameless]

18. Maybe...

Conyers has sized up the situation and concluded that impeachment isn't possible... just yet.

The 110th started out with a bang.
Repub Senators like Warner and Hagel were making heartfelt speeches and introducing sane resolutions.
But then something happened. Cheney *visited* the Senate.
When the votes were taken, Warner and Hagel voted AGAINST their own resolutions!

As the numbers stand now, the Dems have 50 votes, but Johnson is still out.
And the rethugs technically have 49 votes + 1 turncoat (Lieberman) = 50 votes
The tie-breaker? Cheney.

Whatever threats Cheney has been making do seem to have been effective.
But the Libby trial appeared to point to both Cheney and * as being behind the Plame outing.

What charges will come from that?
If the Cheney threat is eliminated, how will the Senate vote?

Dimson is behaving more and more deranged every day.

At some point, will the saner repubs put the country ahead of their party?

I'm guessing that as the dirt comes out, and more in the media turn against the cabal, those repubs will feel that it's both safe and political advantageous to go with impeachment.

[EFerrari]

25. But it is odd that he would say we can take care of it via our election

when he knows better than most people that our federal elections are corrupt.


We are screwn. lol

[OnTheOtherHand]

28. well, a lot of us don't agree with the prophecy of doom

I remember the folks who were swearing up and down that the Democrats could never win the 2006 elections -- and a lot of them managed not to skip a beat even when the Democrats won the 2006 elections. In fact, the people who were projecting seats from poll results were generally just about spot on. I'm not saying the system is clean, but if the Republicans hold all the strings, they don't seem to know what to do with them.

[nicknameless]

33. I agree that his statement is inconsistent with the way things stand now.

Could it be he’s wagering that the voting machines (at least the most obviously-offensive ones) will get dumped?

The Secretaries of State in both CA and Ohio could be very helpful there.

[EFerrari]

24. Here's the contact page for Judiciary should anyone want to use it

and raise this question:

http://judiciary.house.gov/Contact.aspx

[L. Coyote]

31. Dem bashing will not produce the outcome discussed. Patience might. n/t

[EFerrari]

32. It's not bashing to ask a respected member to explain an incongruity.

Thanks for you input. :)

[livvy]

34. Here's what I think.

I think he's looking at it from the amount of time the lying weasel has in office, the enormous amount of evidence there is in regards to impeachable offenses, the huge amount of things that need fixing, and the oversight that needs to be done so that the lying weasel doesn't do any more stupid and damaging things while he's still in office.

To make the case for impeachment would take considerable time. For those of us that keep on top of the issues, it seems like a moot point, a truly "duh" issue, and one that is only the beginning of the justice that is deserved by this lying weasel and his pack of malicious vermin. But, 3/4's of the evidence hasn't even made page 20C of the local news.

The amount of time it would take to make the case, the fighting that would go on in Congress, and the division it would cause among the people, may not make it the right course to take at this time. He may feel that it might be wiser and a more efficient use of time and energy in pursuing investigations, exposing the crimes, and trying to prevent any further damage. The people need to be informed of what has happened to them, and a clear majority need to be on board the USS Impeachment, before the ship sets sail.

Getting more seats in the Senate, holding on to the House, and cleaning out the White House is doable, especially if the public is informed. Impeachment hearings at this time, might work against that goal, and in the long run be more harmful to the greater need.

Believe me, there is nothing I'd like to see more than this group, tossed out on their ears, publicly disgraced, and held criminally and financially responsible for what they have done. That would be justice well served. But, that is livvy's, yours and most rational thinking people's world. Unfortunately, we are currently residing in Orwell's world, where "Money Trumps Peace" is proudly spoken by the lying weasel, and the media doesn't even blink.

I certainly can't speak for Conyers, and I don't know what his thinking is, but I know he's smart, despises these squatters in our White House for what they have done to this country he has served for so long, and doesn't trust them for a nanosecond. I guess I kind of feel like I have to trust somebody in Congress, and he is one of the few that I'm willing to put my trust in. I could be wrong, but for now, I'm willing to give him some time and space to pursue whatever course he has in mind.

[EFerrari]

35. You're so right about page 20C. And that's why/ how Paul Thompson

put his 9/11 Timeline together because he found the information was out there, but stories were run once on "page 20C".

I'd walk on hot coal for Mr. Conyers. He's usually on the right side of things, and often the only one who is at least publicly.

And he could have said, "we have a lot of work to do to repair the ravages of the last six years" or something true if general like that. Maybe he was repeating Nancy's talking point reflexibly. :shrug:

[AtLiberty]

36. Actually there IS something being done about impeachment...

...in Congress right now. It's being kept under the radar until all the ducks are in a row. All the legalities are being thoroughly researched. The Dems don't want to make it public until they're very certain the impeachment would go through...

Until then...

Sorry I have no documentation. I heard a provocative interview on AAR several weeks ago on it. I think it was Lawrence O'Donnell who was talking about it.

[EFerrari]

37. Interesting. Well, I'm sure it's not really "off the table" at all.

But the Dems are having to deal with six years of these fire starters, so they have a lot on their hands right now.

There's something going on because this misstep (if you want to call it that) is unlike Mr. Conyers' usual carefulness.