It has been well-known that Speaker Nancy Pelosi has insisted that there will be no impeachment of President Bush during her term. Activists, however, have reported that John Conyers may be considering confronting Pelosi and starting such proceedings after a meeting in his office. They have started a campaign to show Conyers that he will have the support of the Democratic base, even if he lacks the support of Democratic leadership.
The meeting and campaign is detailed here.
This follows Mukasey’s bizarre rationalization of why he will not allow a criminal investigation into the Bush torture program. Click here
The Democratic leadership has been helping the White House behind the scenes to block any serious investigation of torture to avoid triggering an impeachment investigation and the disclosure of Democratic knowledge of the torture program. Conyers, however, is the wild card. Any impeachment move would be a direct confrontation with Pelosi. He would be lionized by Democratic activists, who have grown unhappy with Pelosi. Indeed, it may be difficult for Pelosi to survive such a public fight and to secure the votes needed next Congress to be renewed as Speaker. It is worth watching.
The failure to impeach Bush/Cheney will be a green light, and possibly a protective blanket, for the next administration to commit whatever crimes it wants to.
The Republican wing will be ever so grateful to future Democrats for not impeaching the Republican leaders, and when favors are owed then the fox will certainly raid the chicken coop.
This “pay-back” scenario is likely WHY the Dems are not proceeding with impeachment – they are eying the gravy train ahead.
People will wonder, even years from now, why the American public was so quiestient, so easily manipulated, so easily duped. Why can’t America see a moronic brain damaged loser for what it is. Have we sunk so low? If the obvious facts are sitting there, just go with it. Letting bank robbers out of the bank never works. Ignoring crimes???? Since when has that worked? These criminals should never be allowed to get away. You would be suprised how little support they really have, it’s all an illusion, just like from any thug.
I read an interesting article recently that pointed out that recent history shows whenever a party moves to impeachment (against Nixon & Clinton), that party is rewarded in the next election. And when a party passes on making a stand on impeachment (Reagan), they are punished in the following election. Of course that doesn’t mean the pattern will prevail, but it is interesting that if the American people deem the party in power passes on their obligations for politcal considerations, they pay the price.
So the question becomes whether it’s too-little-too-late or better late than never. Personally I think whenever invertabrates show some spine it is a good thing.
“Lesser Evil” your position is most interesting. I’m pretty mush in favor of burning down the house and impeach both Cheney and Bush but timing is everything.
If I was sure that a real investigation would take place after the Democrats win then your position is well taken. However, I already can smell ALL THE NOBLE REASONS why the country must move on and NOT engage in the past!
Even after Nixon got his — he was pardoned!
Even after a new Democratic President takes office will that President open up the Presidential papers and government documents so the public could see what was really going on? My guess is NO! National security and all that will be the excuse. Why? Simple. It’s a closed club. We have a one party system and that system is MONEY. The Democrats are as covered in blood for their participation in the last eight years as are the Republicans.
I fear and KNOW that even if the Democrats win it will be business as usual.
And that saddens me a great deal.
I’ve pondered why Democrats refuse to pursue impeachment, with obvious cause in plain view, while Republicans in the 1990s gleefully impeached Clinton on the flimsiest of premises. And I believe I know the answer.
First, I think the Democratic leadership believes impeachment ultimately backfired on the GOP with support for President Clinton actually growing as the impeachment actions got nastier. I think the Democratic leaders see it as a risky political proposition that has less potential political payoff as we draw closer to the 2008 elections. I think they fear that impeachment might energize and motivate a conservative base that is currently quite demoralized and subdued. I think they wish to avoid poking the “radcon monster” with an impeachment stick.
Secondly, I don’t believe that the Democratic leadership feels a strong grassroots push on impeachment. At least not strong enough to merit movement on the issue. Unlike the radical Republicans in Congress, and their radcon radio cheerleaders, who embraced impeachment as a part of their “tear down the government” agenda, Democrats actually respect the institutions of government and tread carefully to respect the same. We are not Republicans and shouldn’t act like Republicans. Democrats are better than that.
But that brings up the question of how can you respect our government and at the same time tolerate the Constitutional excesses of the Bush Administration? The “prevent future abuses” argument that has been discussed here. I think the Dem leadership feels the best way to prevent future Constitutional excesses, is to make sure the radical Republicans don’t capture control of our government again. They don’t want to “double down” on impeachment at the risk of jeopardizing our party’s current favorable position with the nation’s voters. They believe that we can make Congressional gains and win the White House without messing with impeachment and taking the risk that this action backfires. And I think they are likely right.
My only conditions regarding this choice of path, is that we fully pursue empowerment of Congressional subpoenas to compel Bushites to testify under oath. That’s a balance of power issue that impeachment can remedy quickly, as there is no executive privilege right in impeachment investigations. So if we aren’t going to impeach, we must find another way to enforce Congressional subpoenas, or the Legislative branch has abandoned all hope of meanful oversight of the Executive branch.
My second condition is if we win the White House in November, then in 2009, we completely, fully, and publicly investigate the excesses of the Bush Administration as an example to future American governments. I can wait if political expediency dictates. But it’s something that must ultimately be done, like the Church Hearings on the CIA in the 1970s. We can’t sweep this stuff under the rug forever. But I might agree that the timing could be better with a stronger Congressional majority and a Democratic President.
Dear Prof. Turley,
Thanks for all you’ve done over the last several years. I still remember the great testimony you gave to Conyers at his basement hearing in 2006, when the spying revelations first came out.
http://www.archive.org/download/illegal_spying/nsa_hearing1-turley.mp3
Is there any chance you would ever consider running for Congress? If you live in Maryland the deadline may have passed, otherwise it’s probably still possible for you to run this year. You don’t need a million bucks because you have the truth behind you. And with that comes a million activists willing to work for you.
Every American that knows about these abuses of power must ensure there is a real Candidate running to oppose the current enabler serving in their district. You know, as per your testimony, that this Congress has not upheld their oath of office. It is our duty, to America’s children, to replace them with Real Americans that will uphold the Constitution.
If not you, who?
If not now, when?
Please consider what your candidacy would do for America. And if not, perhaps you could plug the idea and/or website http://www.PeaceCandidates.com during your next appearance with Keith on Countdown 🙂
According to Conyers’ office – there are few issues getting conflated. First, Pelosi’s ‘five infuriating words’ that has led people to believe caused him to drag his feet; and, the time issues as previously stated herein (which are easily manipulated in an impeachment proceeding to further push meaningful public disclosure past dates of usefulness)
On the other hand – Rep. Conyers is not bound by dates if he proceeds in a criminal investigation that does not tie his hands with impeachment and removal of office as an ultimate goal.
When his people explain the distinction – and his approach – it isn’t nearly as frustrating as hearing we can’t have their head’s on sticks before Labor Day.
Bravo, Rafflaw.
There is nothing in the Constitution that says impeachment must culminate in success or that it must be concluded within the session of Congress that starts it.
At issue is whether we are still a system of constitutional mandates or one of political expediencies.
Each congressman must consult his or her conscience and see where their ultimate constitutional loyalties lie.
I don’t care if the impeachment hearings are completed in time. I want the country to see that their are consequences for breaking the law and torturing people. After Bush and Cheney leave office, maybe criminal charges can be brought, as well as war crime charges on the international level. I think we should add Mukasey to that list as well.
Setting aside the obvious probative value that impeachment hearings would have in uncovering some of the worst constitutional abuses this country has ever seen, politically, will this even happen? Probably not.
Even if Conyers started his investigation tomorrow, there is not enough time to begin a thorough investigation. Conyers only have 5 months to get the job done. After July, nothing further is going to happen in the House, unless Conyers holds his committee during the August recess. You can bet that is NOT going to happen when the Democrats are SO close to adding to their majority in the House.
As hopeful as it sounds, it seems like this is not going to have any real effect.
WAIT!!!!
Ordinarily, I am known for my ‘wooooooooohooooooooo’ing’ with nine (9) ‘o’s, in repeated apparent violations of the Federal Rules of Evidence, which allows only six (6) ‘o’s – as you may recall.
So I was just asking…:)
Patty C,
enlightenment requested on your post
DW
JT, may I? Or would you prefer to go ahead?
OR perhaps we should wait…
SadButTrue:
I wrote that line with my tongue firmly planted in my cheek. We’ve seen administrations and elected officials with slightly less integrity than this cadre, but those had names like Stalin, Hitler, Mussolini, Mugabe, Amin, Duvalier, etal. It took about 15 minutes to talk myself into the final tame version that I ultimately posted.
Speaker Pelosi has, and not in an unprecedented manner, managed to steal animus from the jaws of victory by uttering five words in an act of Constitutional myopia and unmitigated gall. “Impeachment is off the table.”
The day she made this unfortunate statement she revealed a void in strategic and tactical thinking, that I personally believe, sucked the wind out of the mid-grounders. Certainly the “hang em’ in the streets” crowd were booing and whining, but they represents a lust for vitriol and morbid retaliation. But the more conservative Democratis leaning center and the more liberal Republicans, many of whom that refuse to be stuffed in a blue or red box, were nothing short of stunned when Nancy Pelosi announced her intention to publicly announce the neutering of a fundamental responsibility of the House.
Indeed, while covered partially with a sweet candy coating – the Democratic party has a major divide growing. The point in time that they should be building strong relationships – they have allowed the Presidential race to impede them.
The Republicans converged on point behind their leadership, even when they were falling like flies. Not because of any particularly good policy, but because tactically, it was relevant. The Democratic leadership, on the other hand, is uninspiring and illogical. If not for a vociferous constituency – many of the Democratic professional cake eaters would be just as happy to get to retirement in their political internment camp.
Conyers was sipping at the Kool-Ade while Steny Hoyer was filling glasses, but apparently, he’s back to having green tea with Dennis Kucinich, and laying off the high-fat diet. Kucinich already faces a difficult re-election in Ohio, because of his riff with Democratic leaders on impeachment and Iraq. His local Dems are working hard – but not a word from Big Town. They intend on teaching him a lesson – and just like they taught Paul Hackett a lesson – if the Democratic leadership has to get a Republican elected to teach one of their fallen a lesson – they will.
“..an administration with less scruples than this one.”
{{{shudder}}}
I agree with rcampbell that setting a precedent that the citizens of the US don’t tolerate the total disregard of the Constitution is “Job One.”
There are some conspiracy theorists (sometimes I’m among them) who say that an additional benefit will be the assurance that there will actually be an election in November (a fair one would be good, too) and the Bush Administration will actually depart in a year.
I’m less concerned with actually bringing Bush and Cheney before the entire Senate for trial than I am thoroughly examining and establishing the depth of their contempt for the Constitution so it cannot happen in the future. We’re less than a year from ending this national nightmare of the Bush administration and there is certainly the temptation to just get through it and move one. However, unless we publicly acknowledge their long list of misuses and abuses of power, the country will be vulnerable to see it repeated by an administration with less scruples than this one.