Conyers Interviewed By Amy Goodman About NJ Rally & Impeachment

[Hissyspit]

http://www.afterdowningstreet.org/?q=node/26203

Rep. Conyers' Latest Excuses

Submitted by davidswanson on Tue, 2007-08-28 16:17. Congress | Impeachment
Transcript from Democracy Now!

Commentary in parentheses 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?

MORE AT LINK W/ COMMENTARY BY DAVID SWANSON

[slipslidingaway]

1. Thank you K&R...

"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."


http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=132&topic_id=3477466&mesg_id=3477634


"Stopping the Repukes" How has the long term strategy worked?

Democrats, the Truth Still Matters!

http://www.consortiumnews.com/2006/111106.html

"Clinton’s generosity to George H.W. Bush and the Republicans, of course, didn’t turn out as he had hoped. Instead of bipartisanship and reciprocity, he was confronted with eight years of unrelenting GOP hostility, attacks on both his programs and his personal reputation...

Clinton’s failure to expose that real history also led indirectly to the restoration of Bush Family control of the White House in 2001. Despite George W. Bush’s inexperience as a national leader, he drew support from many Americans who remembered his father’s presidency fondly...

In retrospect, Clinton’s tolerance of Reagan-Bush cover-ups was a lose-lose-lose – the public was denied information it needed to understand dangerous complexities in the Middle East, George W. Bush built his presidential ambitions on the nation’s fuzzy memories of his dad, and Republicans got to enact a conservative agenda."

And George W. was in the position to appoint 2 Supreme Court judges!

[Tigress DEM]

2. Some say it isn't the pRes that counts but the 1000's of appointees that come with it.

*ush has put all these people in places where they can carry on his work even if he's gone. If the DEMs are taking out the Gonzales' etc... working to clean up the structures involved, it may be about access to the evidence.

We "know" intuitively that a majority of these people in this administration are up to something but they are sitting on the proof because they placed themselves in the watchdog positions and won't allow US to get the evidence that honest people would hand over if they were innocent.

If *ush were impeached and simply "misplaced/destroyed" the evidence and we couldn't get a conviction then he would be able to say he was vindicated by not actually being caught.

I think it's about access to evidence. Pressure is enough to topple the lower ones and maybe make some changes but a nation that is ruled by laws and innocent until proven guilty is severely handicapped when it's highest legal authority is a schill for the highest governing authority neither of whom have any respect for the law or constitution they swore to uphold.