Skip to main content

View Diary: Wexler Pressing Cheney Impeachment Effort-NOW W/VIDEO! (228 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  Key word: "successful." (4+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    joeshwingding, NonnyO, feline, BYw

    It's incredibly humilating to be represented by folks who would give projection of success priority over attempting to mete out justice and enforce the Constitution.

    I have one word for people like that:

    Cowards.

    •  if you can't get the votes to start impeachment (0+ / 0-)

      proceedings, you can't succeed at impeachment.

      Conyers desperately wants to impeach Bush and Cheney. He cannot do it without 217 others joining him in the House. No matter how hard he keeps trying, the numbers are not there.

      Perhaps he's trying to get Wexler to give it a shot, to see if he can get others to join in. He just doesn't have 218 in the House.

      I remember a time when the American President was the leader of the free world. ****** Repeat after me: "Neoconservatism has failed America."

      by land of the free on Thu Dec 27, 2007 at 10:58:38 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  If Conyers can do ANYTHING... (5+ / 0-)

        ...to get the process in motion, and to sfully support it to the best of his ability, that's exactly what he should do.  Let the voters get their votes on the record and let the cards fall where they may.

        If it then dies at some point, then let it die.

        At least we can be proud we had a statesman up there who tried to do the right thing.

      •  But, land of the free.... (9+ / 0-)

        That's backwards thinking, and it's an invalid argument, logically.

        No prosecutor worth his/her salt would poll a jury BEFORE a trial to get a guilty or not guilty before a trial.  That would make the reason for evidence a moot point.

        Let the hearings commence.  Present the EVIDENCE, and only AFTER the evidence is presented should a jury (in this case, the House) vote on guilt or innocence.

        Conyers is a lawyer, is he not?  He should know that saying 'the votes aren't there' is an invalid argument.  Logically, it makes no sense whatsoever.

        (¯`*._(¯`*._(-IMPEACH-)_.*´¯)_.*´¯)

        by NonnyO on Thu Dec 27, 2007 at 11:07:34 AM PST

        [ Parent ]

        •  this isn't a prosecution with an impartial jury (2+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          kaye, brenda

          this is political in nature.

          I don't like it, you don't like it, but it is what it is.

          If, in the private conversations amongst Representatives, Conyers hears that a vast majority will never support impeachment because they're too afraid of the consequences (and too damn afraid to stand up for the constitution and laws of our land), if perhaps Pelosi has her foot on Conyer's neck because she's too worried about political fallout of a failed attempt at impeachment, then he can't really proceed.

          I know that Conyers is very worried that if they were to start impeachment proceedings and fail, the congress would be lambasted in the corporate-controlled press. It would put the Democrats in worse shape for gaining more control of the legislature and possibly cause a problem for gaining the White House.

          It totally sucks, but I see his point. The deck is stacked against the Democrats. Everything they do accomplish is ignored by the media (and many Democrats), and everything that the Republicans obstruct is reported as a "failure of the Democrats". Why wouldn't an attempt at impeachment be warped into a bat used to whip the Democrats over the head?

          I don't know for a fact that Pelosi is the one with a leash on Conyers, but I've read & seen enough, plus talked with the Congressman briefly, to get the feeling that he's an angry dog who is chained. He's pissed, but he's been around long enough to know that this is one fight he can't win.

          I remember a time when the American President was the leader of the free world. ****** Repeat after me: "Neoconservatism has failed America."

          by land of the free on Thu Dec 27, 2007 at 11:15:10 AM PST

          [ Parent ]

          •  But.... (9+ / 0-)

            Impeachment is NOT a "political" issue.  It's a constitutional issue.

            It only became political duing the Clinton impeachment.

            The Founding Fathers put impeachment in the Constitution to enable us to get rid of "leaders" unfit to hold office.

            (¯`*._(¯`*._(-IMPEACH-)_.*´¯)_.*´¯)

            by NonnyO on Thu Dec 27, 2007 at 11:20:24 AM PST

            [ Parent ]

            •  it is also inherently political (1+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              kaye

              a regular jury of peers in a normal courtroom have no connection to the defendant. Their jobs aren't affected by the verdict they bring.

              While, in the pure sense, impeachment is a constitutional protection, it is silly to pretend that politics have never played a role before the ridiculous Clinton impeachment debacle. Those who take on the role of participating in impeachment proceedings are politicians, their words and actions will be noted and considered by their employers - the American people. And, their words and actions will be noted and considered by their colleagues in leadership positions within their political parties. It's not realistic to assume that political maneuvering doesn't play a significant role in impeachment.

              Yes, on paper, Conyers leads the House committee that can start impeachment. But, if Pelosi blocks his way, either he has to decide to try and fight her (which is relatively stupid if he doesn't have the votes to back him up in the House), or he has to continue to investigate and unearth more apparent crimes until he can get enough votes to support him - or, sadly, he can only bitch about how Bush and Cheney are criminals, and his colleagues don't have the courage and committment to the laws of our nation to support impeachment.

              Our outrage about this should be directed not at Conyers, but instead at the other members of the House who will not support impeachment.

              Impeachment has always been a political process. While it was highly politicized during the Clinton debacle, it was still designed to be a political process. If the founders had meant it to not have any political influence, they would have had the trial by a jury of regular Americans instead of Senators. Surely, they could not have let the AG bring the charges (as opposed to the House), since the AG is appointed by the President.

              I remember a time when the American President was the leader of the free world. ****** Repeat after me: "Neoconservatism has failed America."

              by land of the free on Thu Dec 27, 2007 at 02:32:53 PM PST

              [ Parent ]

              •  It is time (2+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:
                victoria2dc, NonnyO

                to quit making excuses--any excuses--for this do-nothing nonsense.

                Your opinions and information are well-presented, and may very well have basis in history, but in the end, they unfortunately enable the criminals in our midst RIGHT NOW.

                The President, Vice President and all civil Officers of the United States, shall be removed from Office on Impeachment for, and Conviction of, Treason, Bribery, or other high Crimes and Misdemeanors.

                The enabling has to stop.

                Reality leaves a lot to the imagination--John Lennon

                by o the umanity on Thu Dec 27, 2007 at 06:32:24 PM PST

                [ Parent ]

                •  You say that I am enabling criminal behavior? (0+ / 0-)

                  That is utterly ridiculous, and frankly insulting as hell.

                  You are saying that I am enabling impeachable offenses simply by stating that impeachment is an inherently political process, and that Conyers hands seem to be tied by Pelosi? Give me a fucking break.

                  Call your f*#&ing Congressional representatives and tell them to do their jobs. Don't accuse me of such things because I'm simply relaying Conyers' position, and I say that I understand where he's coming from (but, as I said many times, I don't like it whatsoever).

                  I remember a time when the American President was the leader of the free world. ****** Repeat after me: "Neoconservatism has failed America."

                  by land of the free on Thu Dec 27, 2007 at 10:05:57 PM PST

                  [ Parent ]

                  •  I am sorry that you're insulted (0+ / 0-)

                    and I understand that you don't like it.

                    But to say "well, it's always been a political process" is an EXCUSE. It is.

                    If your mileage varies, that's your misfortune. I have called and written and emailed and faxed my representatives until steam comes off my keyboard, out of my telephone and off my fingers. They're not listening.

                    Conyers' position on this is bullshit. . If you "understand where he's coming from", then you enable the continuation of this crap by defending it. Sorry you disagree with that, but there it is.

                    Reality leaves a lot to the imagination--John Lennon

                    by o the umanity on Fri Dec 28, 2007 at 07:09:19 AM PST

                    [ Parent ]

                    •  ok, I get it now (0+ / 0-)

                      since your representatives aren't doing what you want, I'm an asshole for sharing what Conyers has said about this.

                      He's saying the same thing you're saying - and the same thing I'm saying. That too many OTHER members of Congress are sitting on their hands.

                      So I guess that makes you an enabler, too.

                      I remember a time when the American President was the leader of the free world. ****** Repeat after me: "Neoconservatism has failed America."

                      by land of the free on Fri Dec 28, 2007 at 08:54:55 AM PST

                      [ Parent ]

                    •  p.s. how can the notion that (0+ / 0-)

                      "impeachment is an inherently political process" be an excuse for inaction? It isn't. It is a fact.

                      The impeachment process cannot be equally compared to the criminal law system. Those on the "jury" in impeachment are directly affected by the process and the verdict. Their professional futures are affected.

                      That was my point, but I guess you're too excited to beat up the messenger of something that is a basic fact.

                      I remember a time when the American President was the leader of the free world. ****** Repeat after me: "Neoconservatism has failed America."

                      by land of the free on Fri Dec 28, 2007 at 08:57:06 AM PST

                      [ Parent ]

            •  and that is what we intend to do (3+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              victoria2dc, land of the free, NonnyO

              through the Wexler petition.

              *a hundred years from now, the future may be different because I was important in the life of a child*

              by bonesy on Thu Dec 27, 2007 at 04:41:56 PM PST

              [ Parent ]

              •  yes, and I am supporting this move (1+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:
                bonesy

                but I guess a lot of people don't understand the point I was trying to make.

                Conyers is saying that he's being prevented from proceeding.

                The only way to proceed is to stop calling Conyers a coward who won't defend the constitution. Put that energy toward the members of Congress who are not publically calling for impeachment. Sign Wexler's petition. Make sure your Congressional representatives are aware that you do not believe political convenience should be prioritized over flagrant infractions of the law.

                I remember a time when the American President was the leader of the free world. ****** Repeat after me: "Neoconservatism has failed America."

                by land of the free on Fri Dec 28, 2007 at 09:11:15 AM PST

                [ Parent ]

        •  the Wexler petition and the people (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          victoria2dc

          who sign it, are the Jury.

          *a hundred years from now, the future may be different because I was important in the life of a child*

          by bonesy on Thu Dec 27, 2007 at 04:39:09 PM PST

          [ Parent ]

      •  The numbers may not be there now (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        Fallon

        but that's why Congressman Wexler surprised us with his impeachment project. Isn't that what "politics" is about?  Don't the 217 votes have to be pulled in?  I've never heard of 217 politicians agreeing to some important vote without a fight on the floor or in committee, have you?  

        Remember the FISA hearings in the Judiciary and Intelligence committees?  Fights, weren't they? We succeeded in getting Harry to shut it down, but we know that we'll have to double that effort to win and hold telecoms accountable for the illegal spying they did/are still doing.

        All we're asking for is a very well planned hearing to take place in the House Judiciary Committee.  We (act concerned citizens and activists) need to contact ALL members of the committee and ask for their vote at the same time the hearing is taking place.

        If you will, everyone PLEASE listen to last week's telephone call.  It's on the wexlerwantshearings.com site.  He admits it's an uphill battle, but he is willing to spend his time to do it.  He's asking for our help to get a hearing. That's the first step.  Chairman Conyers can't say no if he has enough phone calls, faxes, e-mails and signatures of ordinary Americans.  

        Please use this time to take action.

      •  We don't need votes to open a hearing (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        Fallon

        on impeachment.

        All we need is people like us pressuring Conyers and the Judiciary Committee members to schedule a hearing. We can do that. We have the power to call the committee members and ask for their votes for a hearing, we have the power to write the letters to local newspapers to publish Wexler's Op-Ed, and we have the powerto get people to sign the petition so he can take it to the members of the committee.  His challenge is to use the petition to convince the members to agree to call for a hearing.

        Look at it that way and it becomes possible.  

    •  Have you signed the petition yet, (0+ / 0-)

      if not, who is calling the kettle black? I believe the word you used was coward!

      *a hundred years from now, the future may be different because I was important in the life of a child*

      by bonesy on Thu Dec 27, 2007 at 04:28:14 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  No I haven't signed it yet... (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        bonesy

        ...because I'm not yet convinced he's being upfront with us (my reasons given elsewhere on this thread).  He needs to tell us what kind of talk he and Conyers have had about this.

        •  I do believe Wexler has been up front (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          victoria2dc

          with us and will continue to share all information about talking to Conyers or anyone else.
          In my way of thinking, the first step has to be up to the American people to show all of Congress the way to proceed. aka Wexler's petition.
          Have you heard Congressman Wexler speak on this? Very powerful!Wexler is pushing for 250,000 by the new year.
          The American people are making a very defining statement through this petition. Lead us to where we want to go, or step aside, you are in the way of where we want to go!

          *a hundred years from now, the future may be different because I was important in the life of a child*

          by bonesy on Thu Dec 27, 2007 at 07:52:07 PM PST

          [ Parent ]

          •  Don't you find it at least curious.... (0+ / 0-)

            ...that he's strangely silent on any contact he's had with THE HEAD OF HIS OWN COMMITTEE in charge of impeaching Cheney?

            I find that very odd.  Something big missing from the puzzle.

            •  no, Wexler is one smart guy, (0+ / 0-)

              best to keep some of the cards hidden. The evil spin masters he is going after are not stupid either. At every turn they have turned our plan around. I'm willing to wait. What is the rush. We have endured this agony for so long, it won't hurt to endure it a little longer.

              *a hundred years from now, the future may be different because I was important in the life of a child*

              by bonesy on Fri Dec 28, 2007 at 07:26:12 AM PST

              [ Parent ]

              •  The problem is that... (0+ / 0-)

                ...every day impeachment is ignored, the war goes on and more people are killed for nothing.  It's a life and death matter than can't and shouldn't wait for a petition that may very well have no impact anyway.

                Impeachment, if successful, may be one indirect way to slow down or stop the war that Congress incredibly continues to pay for.  And slow down or stop the torture, abrogation of rights and other crimes and abuses of power.

                As I've said, I honestly can't shake the feeling that we're being treated like children here:  "Forget the Constitution, kids, but here's a crayon -- sign this petition."

                It's an insult.

          •  I wrote (e-mailed) Wexler yesterday.... (0+ / 0-)

            ...and asked him if he's spoken to Conyers about it.   I just want to see what he has to say on that before I sign.

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site