Don't Worry, Democrats Won't Impeach Bush, Democrat Says

[TanyaAK]

In an op-ed column in Thursday's Detroit Free Press, Robert Weiner, a former press secretary to Rep. John Conyers (D-Mich.), accused Republicans of "trying to create hysteria about the likelihood of impeaching President Bush."

According to Weiner, "Impeachment is not on Conyers' current agenda. It is only a red herring on the Republican agenda."

(In a Democratic House, Conyers would be chairman of the Judiciary Committee, and thus a key player in deciding to impeach, or bring charges against, the president.)

Weiner (who also worked for the Clinton White House) says Conyers "has told me directly: 'I'm not going to conduct an impeachment. That would take all of our time. I would not want to bring an impeachment investigation because that would drain time and energy from the work that needs to be done, and it would take away the country's attention from issues that need to be addressed.'"
http://www.cnsnews.com/news/viewstory.asp?Page=/Politics/archive/200609/POL20060921a.html

[FogerRox]

1. Yeah, sure, thats it.

Not.

[onenote]

2. butter or salt anyone?

:popcorn:

[SammyWinstonJack]

4. Extra butter please!

:popcorn:

[IChing]

8. Why not but I might get indigestion watching this

I enjoy popcorn with my bozell lies

[Greeby]

3. For once, John

I hope you're lying :(

[fooj]

7. He knows the rules of this game. Believe me.

IMO, He's ALL in. Conyers is the Repukes biggest nightmare.

[pnwmom]

51. Impeachment isn't on his "CURRENT" agenda. That's not a lie.

[tridim]

5. He didn't say he wouldn't investigate the criminal regime

And we all know investigation will expose several obvious impeachable offenses at the very least.

Conyers is just playing it smart. No worries here.

[bluestateguy]

6. Sometimes lies have to be told

T'sall.

[SammyWinstonJack]

9. Some people say.

:evilgrin:

[IChing]

17. like CNS news service interesting news source and editorials

:evilgrin:

Oh, and the editorial cartoons are just so witty.

http://www.cnsnews.com/cartoon/nowak.asp

[SammyWinstonJack]

20. !

:evilgrin:

[pnwmom]

52. AND the speaker is his FORMER press secretary.

He's not authorized now to speak for him. Mistakes hapen. People change their minds.

[Mojambo]

10. If the investigations go where they should

Impeachment won't be necessary.

[Spazito]

11. It seems the key words here are:

"Conyers' current agenda". I have NO DOUBT this is true. Conyers' CURRENT agenda is winning back congress. After that, his agenda, no doubt, will change accordingly.

[elfin]

12. Conyers will try... but

there is SO MUCH work to be done to rescind Bush's most disastrous policies, that it may be delayed for these reasons.

History will be the final judge -- I only hope it comes in overwhelmingly negative shortly after his departure - which I think it will, thereby limiting him to his "base', which cannot alone carry him into even the El-Hi textbooks once America has awakened. Will be marginalized to the narrow evangelical view - while populous, does not carry the necessary "gravitas" to make it into serious consideration.

[WilliamPitt]

13. Smart

If Dems start publicly slathering over impeachment, that hands the GOP a national platform to run on.

[Name removed]

23. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[SammyWinstonJack]

28. Republican don't respect any Democrat and they certainly don't

uphold the Constitution, at least not this current crop of republicans, wiretaps, torture, hello? Oh and republicans don't respect Democrats for holding their ground, they ridicule us over that. They call us weak, and soft among other things. They say we don't stand for anything while proving they only stand for everything that is wrong for Americans.

[Name removed]

35. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[WilliamPitt]

31. Really

This exact story line popped up early this summer, and every Republican with a voice - including Mr. Rove - popped up and yelled "See?!"

Look:

Playing the Impeachment Card
By William Rivers Pitt
t r u t h o u t | Perspective

Thursday 25 May 2006

All in all, the framers would probably agree that it's better to impeach too often than too seldom. If presidents can't be virtuous, they should at least be nervous.

- Joseph Sobran

Representative John Conyers Jr. of Michigan is a small and soft-spoken man. One gets the definite sense upon meeting him that here is a man who could probably have made a fortune in Hollywood, had he chosen a different direction in life, playing the role of the wise and kindly grandfather. He wound up in public service, and today - if you listen to Karl Rove and the GOP - he is easily the most terrifying man in America.

Back on May 10th, Howard Fineman wrote for MSNBC: "Then there is the attention being paid - and it's just starting - to obscure Democratic characters such as Rep. John Conyers of Michigan. As of now, only political junkies know that Conyers, an African-American and old-school liberal from Detroit, would become chairman of the Judiciary Committee if the Democrats regain control of the House. Few know that Conyers has expressed interest in holding hearings on the impeachment of the president."

A direct-mail piece from Senator Elizabeth Dole (R-NC) popped up several days ago. In the mailer, Dole warned that unless the faithful donate money for the midterm elections, rampaging Democrats were going to, "increase your taxes, call for endless investigations, Congressional censure and maybe even impeachment of President Bush."

A Fox News online editorial acknowledges the very real possibility of a Democratic takeover of the House, and proposes several steps the Democrats should take in such an event, in order to do right by the country. "Step one," reads the Fox editorial, "would be for the Democratic leadership to definitively put to rest any loose talk of impeaching President Bush. They should say in one and two syllable words that impeachment will not happen once they are in the majority and thus take away a potential rallying cry for the beleaguered Republicans."

More: http://www.truthout.org/docs_2006/052506J.shtml

So, you're wrong.

[AtomicKitten]

32. I whole-heartedly agree

that screaming impeachment would assist the GOP in rallying their base.

I say let impeachment be a surprise. I like surprises. :)

[Name removed]

33. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[WilliamPitt]

34. "why did the Republicans shut up about it?"

Because Conyers and the others denied impeachment was the goal, thus depriving the GOP of something to crow about.

[Name removed]

36. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[WilliamPitt]

38. No

because if they kept yelling "Impeachment is coming" while Dems denied it...

...sooner or later, people would have started asking, "Why do they keep mentioning impeachment? Are they worried?"

Think about it.

[Name removed]

39. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Nickster]

60. Keep our powder dry? n/t

[seabeyond]

14. has to do too many investigations first n/t

[AtomicKitten]

15. ahem - that's not what he said

inflammatory headline

Not feeding into the GOP talking point about impeachment doesn't mean - even by a long-shot - that the Dems intend to let the pile of felonies slide. Nancy Pelosi made is abundantly clear that they will do the oversight the Republic Congress has failed to do, and if investigations lead to impeachment, so be it.

[Name removed]

21. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[AtomicKitten]

25. that's not what she said on Meet the Press

She did not say no. She said they would do oversight and if investigations lead to impeachment, so be it.

Please understand Rs are using this - IMPEACHMENT - to rally their base. Dems are being smart here, not impotent.

[Cameron27]

26. I wonder if you considered what it would do

to the democratic party right now if anyone did suggest impeachment. We need democrats elected first.

[Name removed]

40. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Cameron27]

45. The wing-nuts would love talk of impeachment

A nice bombshell of a controversy right before the congressional elections. No thanks.

We need to get democrats e.l.e.c.t.e.d. FIRST!

[Name removed]

16. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Der Blaue Engel]

18. Oh, of course we won't

:D

[lpbk2713]

19. Well, OK ..... Maybe tar & feathers then?

Where is the Spanish inquisition when you need it?

[seabeyond]

22. what repugs dont get. using this as campaign confirms there is reason

to impeach bush. that there is even something to go after bush for. they keep saying all bush is doing is legal and right,.... yet concern for impeachment? to me this is funny, odd and indicative of the bad bush

[Flabbergasted]

24. He'd only do it if popular support was for it which its not. I think he's

more or less right. There is only two years left in Bushies term. We'd have a better shot in 08 without impeachment. The specter of Clinton looms large.

[sendero]

27. I think we (Dems) should STFU about impeachment..

... but if we win, we should seriously consider it.

[flaminbats]

29. how much does Conyers wish to lose?

hello...isn't our President suppose to obey the law he enforces? :banghead:

[Phredicles]

30. I think the Democrats SHOULD be saying, Hell yes we plan to impeach

the whole worthless bunch. Have you seen their popularity ratings? Plus, I am convinced the Democrats' biggest imediment in gaining traction with the public is the perception (reality-based, I'm afraid) that they don't/can't/won't stand up for anything, least of all themselves or their constituents.

[Name removed]

37. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[onenote]

41. why Conyers is right (and Democrats shouldn't be talking impeachment)

Notwithstanding the sentiment here, the public in general isn't clamoring for impeachment. Starting to talk about what would be depicted as a partisan impeachment effort now would blow up badly in the Democrats faces. Here are just two quotes you would see plastered all over the newspapers and airwaves in ads run by the repubs against any Democrat advocating impeachment:

"Let us resolve to learn the lessons of this long, sad year. Let us learn now, having come this far, the wisdom of the founders that impeachment is and must be a high barricade, not to be mounted lightly. Let us learn that because it requires the overwhelming support of the Senate to succeed, it cannot and should not proceed on a merely partisan basis. Let us learn that the desire to impeach and remove must be shared broadly, or it is illegitimate."

Statement of Senator Paul Wellstone, February 12, 1999

AND...

"I see the 4-year term as a unifying force of our Nation. Yet, this is the second time in my adult lifetime that we have had serious impeachment proceedings, and I am only 45 years old. This only occurred once in the entire 200 years prior to this time. Is this a fluke? Is it that we just happened to have had two `bad men' as Presidents? I doubt it. How will we feel if sometime in the next 10 years a third impeachment proceeding occurs in this country so we will have had three within 40 years? I see a danger in this in an increasingly diverse country. I see a danger in this in an increasingly divided country. And I see a danger in this when the final argument of the House manager is that this is a chapter in an ongoing `culture war' in this Nation. That troubles me. I hope that is not where we are and hope that is not where we are heading. It is best not to err at all in this case. But if we must err, let us err on the side of avoiding these divisions, and let us err on the side of respecting the will of the people.

"Let me conclude by quoting James W. Grimes, one of the seven Republican Senators who voted not to acquit Andrew Johnson. I discovered this speech, and found out that the Chief Justice had already discovered and quoted him, and said he was one of the three of the ablest of the seven. Grimes said this in his opinion about why he wouldn't convict President Johnson:

"I cannot agree to destroy the harmonious working of the Constitution for the sake of getting rid of an unacceptable President. Whatever may be my opinion of the incumbent, I cannot consent to trifle with the high office he holds. I can do nothing which, by implication, may be construed as an approval of impeachment as a part of future political machinery."

Statement of Senator Russ Feingold, February 12, 1999

[Name removed]

42. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[ThomWV]

43. Conyers Has Seen His Last Dime From Me

I sent the man money because, and only because, I believed he would push for impeachment of Cheney and Bush were he to retain his seat. I won't be sending him any more money.

[onenote]

53. I'm sure Conyers won't miss your dime.

He's going to win his district with more than 80% of the vote. He has over $250,000 on hand and his opponent has less than $200.

The real question, who will you be donating money to? Any Democrats? Or do you not really support the Democratic party?

[NotGivingUp]

44. go to hell conyers....we've got a little dictator in the white house

who has taken away the essence of our democracy and he wouldn't impeach???

[Hubert Flottz]

56. Who ever heard of impeaching a dictator?

That would never work. NEVER!

[spanone]

46. wink wink nudge nudge say no more.

[cmd]

47. Bush will quit first

He has never finished anything he started. If we take congress, he'll resign to spend more time with his family.

[Perky]

57. And leave this mess for Cheney... God I hope you are wrong.

[cmd]

59. Cheney will be in jail by then

Don't worry.

[leeroysphitz]

48. Assuming we win both houses in november wouldn't it be more

fun to spend the next two years just beating the ever living SNOT out of Shrub and the few unindicted cronies he'll have left? (Unless of course we could somehow get Darth Cheney at the same time and put Pelosi in the oval office a couple of years early.)

[Name removed]

49. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Imagevision]

50. Bush shouldn't be impeached, he needs to be exposed for all he's guilty of

until he resigns fearing prosecution!

[focusfan]

54. Why are the neo-cons worried IF HE did nothing wrong?

[tom_paine]

55. Yeah, what a waste of time trying to enforce the law

Drains too much energy away from what's important.

It's such a shame that morals and laws are for Filthy Little Nobodies like us, because I sure would love to try living the lawless, consequenceless life of a Bush Imperial Scion.

[Perky]

58. There in lies the rub

The onus is on us to prove that he violted the law and an argument could be made by lawyers that (for instnace)the COurts have ruled on Wiretapping and illegal detentions and Plamegate (in process) and that as such impeachment would be Double Jeopardy. You have to be able to show something like perjury or subborning perjury of obstruction of justice or conspiracy to obstruct to get articles of impeachment out of committee.

We have to do investigatgions, but I think at the end of the day its gpoing to be censure for overreaching on executive powere without appropriate Congressional advice and consent. and that will be the end of it.