Conyers: "Impeachment NOT off the table"

[99th_Monkey]

January 29, 2008 at 09:12:06

Conyers Tells Rob Kall: Impeachment Not Off the Table; A You Tube Video

by Rob Kall (Posted by Rob Kall) Page 1 of 3 page(s)

At the invitation only Progressive media summit, held by Senate Democratic Steering and Outreach Committee, Rob Kall interviewed John Conyers on impeachment. Uber Blogger Matt Stoller video recorded most of the conversation and posted it to youtube, commenting,

You get to see a fascinating and very human interaction between a highly intelligent activist and a sitting Congressman with immense power who is vaguely irritated at having to answer questions, but also intensely interested in answering them.

Here's the transcript of the conversation. Matt Stoller transcribed the part he videotaped, but I recorded the conversation from its start, so I"ve put them together and corrected a few minor transcription errors. Please make sure to read my comments on the third page-- my attempt to offer some additional context and a positive slant on Conyers words. (The brown print is the part that was not on the video.)

Rob Kall: You know, you just gave the talking points that all the members of congress use on why not to impeach-- that you want to stay focused on work, but I talked to ELizabeth Holtzman about it, and she did it (she was involved in the impeachment hearings of Richard Nixon.)

And she told me that it didn't hold up the congress at all. They had a room. They held hearings. The way I see it, the way the congress has been framing impeachment is the target of getting it to the senate and the whole point of impeachment is that it's a tool that lets you get around executive privilege. Right? YOu don't have the problem then (of Bush's refusal to allow people to testify after being subpoenaed.)

John Conyers: Dear friend. We've got two impeachments, the first time in American history. We gotta have two impeachments... Two impeachments rather than one. They've either got to be simultaneous or seriatic.

Rob Kall: Seriatic would be the way to do it. First Cheney, then Bush. History teaches us, let's start with Gonzales. We went to Gonzales, and he's gone. They went to Agnew, he left. Then they went to Nixon, and they started doing hearings on him. It never went to a vote in the Senate. And I don't think it ever would. All we need to do is get the hearings opened up where they can't say 'sorry, executive privilege, then you've got the tools, which is what Impeachment is, it's a tool.

John Conyers : You know who's been in more impeachment hearings than anybody in the House or Senate?

Rob Kall: You?

John Conyers : Right.

Rob Kall: And you wrote a book on impeaching Bush, too.

John Conyers : A couple, yes. Well then there must be some compelling reason that I'm not doing it right now.

Rob Kall: Pelosi, Pelosi keeps coming to mind. (chuckling)

John Conyers : How could she stop, well, she could stop me because actually it goes through a special committee on the House, but, Pelosi can't stop me from anything, really.

More here, including full text and video footage of the interview:
http://www.opednews.com/articles/1/genera_rob_kall_080129_conyers_tells_rob_ka.htm

[VP505]

1. For me this is what

came through loud and clear: We (the elite) know what's best, you peons are clueless, we will let you know if and when we think we should do something.

[lonestarnot]

3. He really never did name it did he?

Just double speak.

[99th_Monkey]

7. yes. pretty disappointing...with same lame "reasons" i.e. fear of Rethug reaction nt

[elizfeelinggreat]

2. oh how disappointing

the conversation continued later with this:]

Conyers: Let me just say this to you because there may be some other people that want to talk to me. Let me tell you this. If we started an impeachment hearing that didn't succeed, guess what would happen. They would say that he's being demonized, that Conyers always, they campaigned against the Democrats taking over last year, wait a minute, they campaigned against the Democrats saying two things, Rangel will raise taxes if the Democrats ran and Conyers would impeach Bush.

Now to come in on January 29th after having been impressed by your logic, Rob, and saying we're going after both these guys at once and if it doesn't, and I really smile at this one, and if it doesn't work at least you did it and taught them a lesson.

Well they would take that and that would bleed right into the election of 2008 sure as we're standing here.

[99th_Monkey]

9. I know.. i'm not holding my breath.. it's like John's teasing us or some weird shit.. nt

[knight_of_the_star]

16. Which is exactly the reason why we can't make such a move

Unless we can be certain we can nail their asses. If we impeach and fail to remove then it makes all of us look like asses and gives a degree of reasonable doubt assuming we can bring them to trial.

[99th_Monkey]

25. They "didn't have the votes" to impeach Nixon either

if everyone simply stayed in their comfy armchair and done the cold calculations ahead of time, it would have gone nowwhere.

The glaring lights of the Hearing room filled with solid evidence of Bush/Cheney's crimes would trump the GOP, hands down -- as it
brought down Nixon/Agnew, so would it bring down Bush/Cheney.

[onenote]

32. the vote to authorize the judiciary committee to START the nixon impeachment inquiry was 404-10

What do you think the vote would be to start that inquiry vs chimpy or cheney if it was held tomorrow?

[JDPriestly]

4. Conyers is scared.

Conyers said there was a compelling reason for not impeaching, but he did not really say what it is. He hinted that the Republicans would accuse the Democrats of using impeachment for political purposes. So what? If the evidence that supports impeachment is strong, the Republicans' claim that the impeachment is just politics will fail.

What's the real problem here?

Isn't there one honest representative or senator who will explain why they aren't impeaching the president, why they are trying to pretend that business is going on as usual?

Here is my guess: The Bush administration has records of all of the telephone calls, e-mails and other information on our Democratic representatives and senators. We have to ask ourselves if maybe our representatives in the Democratic Party are more afraid of the Bush administration than they are of us.

[lonestarnot]

5. a compelling reason for not impeaching

sure the fuck is fishy

[BadgerKid]

8. Another source of fear

could be threats to the well-being of representatives' families.

[99th_Monkey]

10. Bingo! That's the only reason that makes any sense

and they can't even muster the courage to just SAY that's the reason either .. pathetic.

[elizfeelinggreat]

22. and

it implies that their transgressions are equal to or worse than the administrations - which is very hard to believe. Your guess that they haven't the courage rings truer. :(

[99th_Monkey]

29. It's probably the same kind of crap J.Edger had on MLK, or Whitewater type business deals

with unscrupulous corrupt businesses, or having been entrapped into taking bribes maybe.

And in their worst nightmares they see all their own personal shit grinding out on the RW Noise Machine to the public.

[JDPriestly]

33. Sex, gambling, problems with children or family.

Anything can be used against politicians because politicians survive by presenting themselves as being without the weaknesses and problems that haunt the lives of the rest of us.

[aint_no_life_nowhere]

6. Well, dinner's almost over and the table is about to be assigned to new customers

We're at the coffee and brandy stage of the meal.

[99th_Monkey]

11. But it's so nice of Conyers to brush a few crumbs off the empty table for us DU dogs nt

[gateley]

12. Can legal proceedings be held without impeachment? Could Bushco be

charged with crimes even as they were still in office?

I just have the sinking sensation we're not going to see impeachment, and I want to see these guys nailed.

[99th_Monkey]

13. State Secrets cannot be used in Impeachment Hearings, but can & would for other court action. nt

[cascadiance]

23. State Secrets privilege has been used for civil suits..

Criminal cases there are other laws covering the handling of secret evidence, that I think most judges use instead to guide whether or not they dismiss evidence/cases instead. It is civil litigation where there isn't sufficient laws that allows Bushco to get away with throwing out State Secrets privilege to throw out cases. That's why they couldn't use it for Scooter Libby too, though they tried to do various gray mail type of defenses earlier.

[99th_Monkey]

27. I'm not sure I'm following your line of reasoning very well

I'm not a legal wonk by any means or up on all the nuances, I was only repeating what I'd read in the interview, where Rob Kall states

"The way I see it, the way the congress has been framing impeachment is the target of getting it to the senate and the whole point of impeachment is that it's a tool that lets you get around executive privilege. Right? YOu don't have the problem then (of Bush's refusal to allow people to testify after being subpoenaed.)"

and again,
"It never went to a vote in the Senate (with Nixon). And I don't think it ever would. All we need to do is get the hearings opened up where they can't say 'sorry, executive privilege, then you've got the tools, which is what Impeachment is, it's a tool."

And I also thought I'd read that somewhere else too, as a glaring reason why impeachment is a peachy idea legally ... as a way to end the "state secrets" charade.

[cascadiance]

30. Yes, impeachment AND criminal trials can work around state secrets privilege...

State Secrets privilege has only been used (and gratuitously so by this administration!) to help dismiss civil suits, like Sibel Edmonds suits, and Maher Arar's suit (who was detained and sent to Syria to be tortured).

I can't remember the specific act, but in criminal cases, like Libby's, there are other procedures that are supposed to be used instead of State Secrets, and so far, no judge has tried to use State Secrets in those instances. Of course I think doing an impeachment trial allows many other laws (such as that other law for criminal cases) not to necessarily be applicable. I think executive privilege claims are handled differently too. Certainly I think Sibel Edmonds gag order by Ashcroft, etc. is no longer applicable if and when she's testifying to congress.

So I think you are talking about three different "domains" of judicial scrutiny. One in civil cases, another in criminal cases, and the third in congressional impeachment/hearings/trials.

[nadinbrzezinski]

14. Conyers will go down in history as the man who held back

PERIOD!

[99th_Monkey]

18. Esp. since he's now taking personal "responsibility" for not impeaching

rather than blaming Nancy or hiding behind her "off the table" skirts anymore.

[JFN1]

15. I'll believe him when he bangs the gavel at the first Impeachment session

Until then...

[99th_Monkey]

19. I hear ya! I feel like I'm being teased & deliberately titillated by these kind of crumbs

Why doesn't he just STFU about it and just DO it?

[wildbilln864]

17. in other words...

Nothing is going to be done about the Bush/PNAC cabal's crimes. Why the hell didn't someone tell him about Sibel Edmonds? I'm disgusted with Conyers, Pelosi and Reid! Like Cafferty said we should clean house and get rid of the whole bunch. Maybe we could elect representatives who don't have anything to be blackmailed for and then we'll see accountability. :banghead:

[99th_Monkey]

20. I couldn't agree more. Since when is aiding and abetting criminals Congress's job? nt

[warren pease]

21. More sound and fury -- more bait and switch -- signifying nothing except ...

... Conyers' willingness to be remembered as the man who refused to even TRY to put a stop to the most pathologically dangerous administration in American history. And why? 'Cause Fux Nudes would say bad things about him, and that would be way worse than the harsh judgment of history.

I'd think that earning the wrath of Fux would be a badge of honor rather than an inhibitor, but I suppose I reckon without the monumental egos of the honorable members of congress. They've crafted their public images so carefully that one snide remark from a raving wingnut loon might mean another year on the psychiatrist's couch trying to repair the damage.

I guess they're all just twisted, disreputable megalomaniacs with no guiding principles except doing whatever it takes to advance their careers and build those egos even higher.

I don't think the swamp needs to be drained; just the opposite. I think we need to let the flood waters in and carry the entire beltway political establishment on a one-way ride out to sea and eventually down to the Bermuda Triangle, where they would find true oblivion and, unfortunately, never be heard from again.

How's that for a strongly worded statement, useless fuckos?


wp

[99th_Monkey]

24. I always thought aiding and abetting crimes was itself a crime.

Apparently the Dem leadership has gone beyond mere enabling, and begun mimicking their beloved Fuhrer-in-Chief by pretending and acting as if they are "above the law"...


.. that quaint notion that "no one's above the law" simply must be done away with .. it is so out-dated, thanks to Bush/Cheney & the GOP.
:sarcasm::sarcasm::sarcasm::sarcasm::sarcasm::sarcasm::sarcasm::sarcasm::sarcasm::sarcasm::sarcasm:

[warren pease]

31. Yeah, me too. And...

... along those lines, here's a quick look at some of the crimes she's aided and abetted as a result of her weird fetish about "bipartisan cooperation" with these off-the-charts sociopaths:

You can now be snatched off the street, propelled into the American gulag, denied your rights to hear the charges against you or to consult with an attorney, your property seized for disagreeing with BushCo on Iraq or Lebanon or Syria, denied Constitutional protections against cruel and unusual punishment, (i.e., torture), kept in solitary until your mind turns to Cream of Wheat and then, when you're no longer able to provide them with fabricated information or entertainment, simply executed and buried at sea. And there won't be even a single piece of evidence to prove that you ever lived on this earth.

Or maybe they'll let you go after three or four years -- battered and broken, gums bleeding from scurvy, your back a mesh of scars and welts, your walk unsteady from all the nights lying on concrete floors, painful memories of sexual humiliation destroying what's left of your dignity. But hey, we're all just doing our jobs here and you're free to go -- as long as you sign this waiver that prohibits you from ever discussing what's happened to you, or selling your story to a publishing house or movie studio or suing the feds for false arrest and imprisonment. And have a great day.

And here's a list of the worst of the worst -- laws, executive orders, presidential directives, security agency initiatives and so forth that make all the above possible and legal.

BushCo and various compliant congresses, with both R and D majorities, have signed off on an ever-expanding list of repressive legislation, executive orders and presidential directives; massive federal invasions of privacy regarding medical and http://www.nytimes.com/2006/06/23/washington/23intel.html?ex=1308715200&en=168d69d26685c26c&ei=5088&partner=rssnyt&emc=rss">financial records; monitoring US citizens' electronic communications; re-targeting spy satellites for domestic surveillance; the TSA cavity search specialists (for attractive young women only; the rest are presumed to pose no threat to the state); no-fly and terrorist watch lists; Halliburton/KBR's detention camps; RFIDs in all new passports and in the new national ID cards scheduled to be issued this year; new TSA "behavior detection officers" to spot those who don't "look quite right;" all this wonderful new stuff from the DHS; private armies featuring mercenaries from companies like Blackwater and SAIC springing up like mushrooms after a light rain... All that and the Patriot Act, the http://www.aclu.org/safefree/detention/commissions.html">Military Commissions Act, http://www.aclu.org/safefree/extraordinaryrendition/22203res20051206.html">extraordinary rendition (whatever the hell that means) and torture, too. (Note: the torture link is graphic and disgusting.)

In fairness to Pelosi -- not that she's earned any -- a lot of this unconstitutional garbage was passed by the previous three congresses with solid republican majorities. But with an activist progressive dem majority in the house, and leadership that actually wanted to do "the peoples' business," the dictatorial orders would have been reversed and the fascist laws repealed long before now. And if Bushie obstructs or refuses to sign off on these measures, let him take the money for Iraq out of his allowance. Let him stick telecom immunity where it so obviously belongs. Let him contract out his voyeurish obsession with private email.

Better yet, let's force Bush and Cheney to actually worry about something besides the portfolios by aggressively pursuing impeachment. Let's drag the prick and his puppet master through the mud for a couple of months, destroy what's left of their reputations, force mass media to cover the story because no matter how co-opted they are, they can't not cover impeachment. Or at least I don't think so. Let's pull their criminality out of the shadows -- beyond the internet and international press. Let's expose average Americans to the body of incontestable evidence -- public and available for years to anyone with a scrap of curiosity and a broadband connection -- implicating them in felonies that range from violating their oaths of office to mass murder.

Since they only believe what CNN and Fux tell them, let's change the messenger from the internet to mainstream TV. Watch the jaws drop all over the country. Watch the votes for impeachment and conviction materialize as the public directs its fury and outrage at its elected representatives and notifies them that, should they fail to vote to remove Bush and Cheney, they can kiss their front row seats at the corporate trough goodbye.

How can Pelosi and the rest of the GOP-lite element of the party stand to watch these vampires continue to prosper from their arrogance, corruption, blood lust, oil lust, money lust and complete contempt for anyone not in the hedge fund or political contributor classes?

Doesn't it make any of them crazy to have achieved such high and powerful political positions, only to spend what should be the golden years of their careers on bended knee before the worst administration in US history?


Gawd! All I can do is rant these days. But I suppose it's better than being institutionalized for socially unacceptable behavior like jumping up and down and bashing my head into the wall while screaming incoherently about the end of the world being at hand.


wp

[KoKo]

26. Yeah...fine...but in the end Conyer's Admits...it's NOT REALLY ON THE TABLE!

[99th_Monkey]

28. Conyers is playing the evil trickster: now you see it now you don't

WTF? I feel so toyed with by his constant shell game with this issue... it really pisses me off.

I used to respect him very highly, but no more. ;-(