It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.


Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.


Conyers Flip-Flops on Impeachment

page: 1
<<   2  3 >>

log in


posted on Nov, 11 2006 @ 10:04 AM
For the past few years, Rep. John Conyers, D-Michigan has been one of the most outspoken voices against the current administration, specifically citing The Downing Street Memo, torture, illegal domestic surveillance and the cover-ups in the Iraq War and 9/11. He was our guy! Not so much in the "Democrat" sense for me, but in the sense that he stood for the people and against this administration.

But it seems now that the Democrats are coming into power, he's backing off his widely known and held opinion that this administration should be impeached and a lot of the filth that they represent should be cleaned up.

And get this... He's saying it was a right-wing effort to distorted his position on Impeachment!!!

Conyers Toes the Party Line: No Impeachment

The latest Democrat "saviour" to flip flop 180 degrees in light of their victory is Rep. John Conyers, D-Mich. Presumed to become chairman of the House Judiciary Committee in January, Conyers today said that impeachment of President Bush "is off the table."

"In this campaign, there was an orchestrated right-wing effort to distort my position on impeachment," Conyers said in a statement released by his Judiciary Committee spokesman. "The incoming speaker (Rep. Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif.) has said that impeachment is off the table. I am in total agreement with her on this issue: Impeachment is off the table."

Conyers seems to have forgotten that last December he laid out the grounds for impeachment in a 350 page long report called "The Constitution in Crisis: The Downing Street Minutes and Deception, Manipulation, Torture, Retribution and Cover-ups in the Iraq War" and later updated to add "illegal domestic surveillance."

I know dgtempe is going to say, I told you so"! and rightfully so.
I'm absolutely sure a lot of people voted Democratic in this election with the hope of getting BushCo impeached. This just highlights the fact that there is no real difference between the 2 major parties and that the corruption is far too deep to weed out with a simple change of hands.


In December of last year, Conyers stated:

The Report also concludes that these charges clearly rise to the level of impeachable conduct. However, because the Administration has failed to respond to requests for information about these charges, it is not yet possible to conclude that an impeachment inquiry or articles of impeachment are warranted.

In response to the Report, I have already taken a number of actions. First, I have introduced a resolution (H. Res. 635) creating a Select Committee with subpoena authority to investigate the misconduct of the Bush Administration with regard to the Iraq war and report on possible impeachable offenses.

What in the world happened here, Mr. Conyers??

posted on Nov, 11 2006 @ 10:15 AM
Nothing is what it appears. I know i end lots of my posts saying this, but its true.

THIS is why i cant get "real excited" about the Democrats winning. One part of me says Yahoo!!! Impeach Bush, bring in the new, out with the old, and i'm cheering, and the other part of me says "You nut. Its all the same"

Thank you for posting this, BH. Its a real eyeopener. Pelosi's promise of "No Impeachment" is also a dead giveaway of what's going on here. She's called him every name in the book, but what is this promise? This isnt reaching across party lines and making nice, this is about tricking the masses into more lies and deception.

I dont know why Republicans are in a flap about all this. Its all a part of an illusion.
Nothing more.

posted on Nov, 11 2006 @ 10:31 AM
On the other hand...

The Democrats must know that the crimes of the Bush administration will bring down both parties and the entire government. They must know that 9/11 was something the government came up with and was involved in.

Is this what they're doing? Covering up the lies so that the masses dont bring down the entire government?

Think about it.

posted on Nov, 11 2006 @ 12:33 PM
Bump to keep a worthy thread alive.

Does anyone else have an opinion on this?

posted on Nov, 11 2006 @ 01:04 PM
Impeaching Bush now is silly, wasteful, and overdramatic. And, anyone who thinks we should, really needs to vote for the Green Party next time.

We don't have the mandate for it.

He has two lame duck years left. If we move to impeach him, we end up with President Cheney, and Vice President Gingrich at helm.

If we impeach him now, we lose our mjaority in 08, and usher in another do nothing, corrupt Republican senate and house that will plunge us in another war.

We won by a stable majority of people (From all walks of life - conservative and Liberal. Evangelical and athiest) who want things to change, not a year long, gridlocked Congress. That happened to Clinton, and he got even more popular. If you make a victim out of Bush, then you give him credability for his failed policies.

If the goal is to get us out of Iraq, rebuild our military, and better the lives of the middle class, impeaching Bush is insane at best, and suicidal at worst.

If the goal is personal payback, then to heck with the rest of the country, and maybe you should start burning down houses one by one.

As a Democrat, as far as I'm concerned, our concern should be to prove to the moderate middle that we can govern, and increase our majorities in 2008. So that we can enact real reforms. Energy and healthcare, and the global warming.

But hey, why try to cure poverty and AIDS, when you throw a tantrum and send bench the funny little cowboy in the third quarter? Because, like it or not, Bush is still the leader of 49% of the country.

posted on Nov, 11 2006 @ 09:29 PM
Brimstone is pretty close to right.

It would be strategically foolish for the dems to push an impeachment they can't succeed in right now. The far left would enjoy it, and it would ever so slightly help Clinton's long-term legacy by placing an astrisk next to his impeachment in the textbooks (an astrisk reading that partisan politics went through an era when impeachment was done whenever a president faced a hostile congress), but the moderates would be seeing nothing but impeachment in the news, when what the democrats WANT the moderates to see in the news for the next two years is Democrat-originated bills on immigration, spending, healthcare, and energy.

Thats not to say that the dems will do substantially more than republicans have, but that they'll make sure that they're seen talking about it and osstensibly making legislative efforts at it.

When it comes time for the dems to score a few more victories in the media and try to take the legs out from under the Republican party for 2008 they may go for an impeachment, but if they're smart they'll target it at Cheney and cut a deal with congressional republicans to put a powerful, corrupt, unelectable republican in the vice presidency, making him heir apparent to the Republican nomination and hopefully preventing a potentially successful 2008 primary run by someone like Guilliani.

posted on Nov, 12 2006 @ 12:11 AM

Originally posted by Benevolent Heretic
I'm absolutely sure a lot of people voted Democratic in this election with the hope of getting BushCo impeached.

I certainly did.

You know, for one quick second I actually had faith in the electoral system, that we had waited our turn and won, but now I see that...

there is no real difference between the 2 major parties and that the corruption is far too deep to weed out with a simple change of hands.

I understand that it's not politcally viable, or whatever, to impeach, but so what? Whatever happened to a person being guilty, and actually getting into trouble for it? This just goes to show that he, and 'they', really are invincible.

So sad.

posted on Nov, 12 2006 @ 12:20 AM
Remember it takes 2/3 of the Senate to convict on impeachment and they'd never get that unless some smoking gun is uncovered that makes even most Republicans turn against Bush. I don't believe that exists, because I think Bush acted in good faith.

The impeachment of Clinton, even though he did have an easily provable crime, didn't help the Republicans and as brimstone said, probably even made him more popular.

Not that'd I'd be one to likely give the Dems advice, but if they were smart they'd move ahead by trying to pass some new moderate legislation, not tying up the federal government for the next two years.

posted on Nov, 12 2006 @ 01:33 AM
Bingo DJ- no conviction in the senate without the Republicans. The only way to do it would be a trojan horse: agreeing to confirm another Republican leader in his place without a fight. The only motive for that though is if he's more of a trojan jackass than a trojan horse- somebody the democrats really think will do damage to the party, and someone just stupid enough to sell his party's soul like that without figuring out that he was being played.

posted on Nov, 12 2006 @ 12:11 PM
Although I do think that Bush should be impeached, after thinking about it, I can agree that probably it isn't the most prudent course to pursue. There are still alot of Republicans in both Houses, it would be difficult, but it wouldn't accomplish alot. All of Dems energy would go into impeaching a prez who's very much a lame duck anyway. He has no support, even the leading neocons have abandoned him, saying his admin is "dysfunctional". He stands pretty much alone, as he doesn't get along very well with Cheney, who will probably take the fall for alot of what's gone wrong in the past 6 years. What Dems need to do, if they're smart, is concentrate on making real changes through legislation.

In other words, he's not worth the effort to impeach him. He has no following left in either House, or in his own administration.

posted on Nov, 12 2006 @ 12:28 PM

Originally posted by brimstone735
He has two lame duck years left. If we move to impeach him, we end up with President Cheney, and Vice President Gingrich at helm.

Newt Gingrich?

Newt resigned from the House of Representatives years ago.

posted on Nov, 12 2006 @ 03:14 PM
Cheney, as president, would be able to nominate anyone to fill the vice presidency. In order to prevent McCain from winning in 08, Gingrich would be chosen, because he's the one guy who has a chance of beating McCain in the primaries. Plus, he's a GOP godfather with a lot of insider support.

Doing so would give Gingrich stature, and a 2 year headstart on the 08 election.

EDIT: This would be Vagabond's electable Republican 08 candidate. Gingrich would win the Southern primaries, but lose in the general.

[edit on 12-11-2006 by brimstone735]

posted on Nov, 12 2006 @ 04:35 PM

Section 2

[Vacancy in office of vice president.]

Whenever there is a vacancy in the office of the Vice President, the President shall nominate a Vice President who shall take office upon confirmation by a majority vote of both Houses of Congress.

Would a Democrat majority Congress confirm Newt Gingrich?

posted on Nov, 12 2006 @ 06:14 PM
Almost certainly not Grady. The only way of getting the 2/3s is to cut a deal with an influential Republican in Senate leadership, on the grounds that it will keep the nomination away from someone like McCain or Guilliani.

It'd be a pretty corrupt bargain, basically the dems saying "we think we can beat you, but hey, win or lose at least you'll maintain your faction's hold on the party by staving off a loss to moderates in the primary" and then someone (presumably Frist) being dirty enough to say, "yeah, we can live with that."

Odds are one in a million, less than that if it's someone outside the Senate Republican leadership.

Edit: On the other hand, they could always leave the senate republicans out of it and just work with Bush to put in a moderate Republican like McCain for the sole purpose of putting him in the lime-light and weakening him before the election. Wouldn't be nearly as corrupt, but it would make it harder to get the 2/3s for impeachment without cutting a deal with the Republicans in the senate. You'd need pictures of Cheney playing golf with Satan to make that work.

[edit on 12-11-2006 by The Vagabond]

posted on Nov, 13 2006 @ 02:37 AM
The main problem, and I speak as a Democrat here, is that hypothetically, if Bush is impeached, that leaves Cheney as the President.

Cheney is twice as disliked as Bush, so you would almost have to expect him to get impeached as well, probably the same day, which would leave you with President Pelosi.

Now, if they leave Cheney as the sitting president, he has to nominate the new Vice President. Which creates the big problem for both sides. Because, whoever Cheney nominates instantly becomes the front runner in 08.

If the Dems get a guy who they would normally approve of; if Cheney nominates a liberal or moderate Republican, then he becomes a main source of competition for the Dems in the 08. Rudy G. and John McCain.

If, however, Cheney nominates a far right winger, then the Dems increase their chances of winning in 08, by taking out McCain's knees early. This man gets two years to build a network, and act presidential.

He gets to be the lone incumbant in an open presidential season.

So, in that sense, the Dems would be more inclined to support the most right wing, conservative nominated, because they would rather bank on their chances running against a hardliner, than a moderate.

They would play a huge role, and I hate to use this word, by sabotaging the GOP primaries, by picking the easiest guy to beat - and making him VP.

That's why I think they would actually support a Gingrich nomination, because they know they can beat him. They can't beat McCain.

posted on Nov, 13 2006 @ 06:06 AM
I get why impeachment wouldn't make things any better for us.

Can we at least agree to take legal action against Bush Co., as private citizens, in 2009?

Pretty please...

posted on Nov, 13 2006 @ 09:39 AM
I sure hope so, HH.

There are 2 sides to this subject (at least) and I do understand them both.

On the political side, it wouldn't do any good to impeach Bush. For one thing, he wouldn't be convicted and for another, even if he were, Cheney would be pres.
Also, even if Cheney went with, the last 2 years would just be like a ship without someone at the helm... The same stuff would happen, the captain would just look different. It would also give the appearance of insecurity to the rest of the world. There are other reasons (politically) that it's a bad idea.

Then there's the logical or moral side. Bush is a criminal. He deserves to be brought to justice. He has stomped on the Constitution and killed many thousands of people in an illegal and immoral 'war'. Without an impeachment, he and his cronies will be getting away with the biggest takeover of government in our times.

I honestly don't think it would do the country or world any good to impeach him at this time, but I HATE to see him (and his puppeteers) get away with what they've done...

posted on Nov, 13 2006 @ 12:23 PM
I read in another thread, I forget which, that once they're private citizens, they can plead the fifth.

Oh well.

posted on Nov, 13 2006 @ 02:17 PM
That's the reason for impeachment, then. If he can't be punished afterward, he should be punished now.

Dear Ms. Pelosi and Mr. Conyers...
I am writing this open letter to you both on the day after Veteran’s Day. A day that has so much more meaning to me since my son Casey was KIA in Iraq for absolutely no reason but to line the pockets of the war machine.
We the people are shocked that you two are already stridently saying over and over again that impeachment is "off the table."
We the people put the Democrats back into power because we want to see a change in this country and a rejection of politics as usual.

posted on Nov, 13 2006 @ 03:26 PM
I have a bit of a bone to pick with the idea of civil/criminal liability for heads of state in some cases, in that much of what they do is inextricable from their duty as the sovereign of a nation. Although this justiffication has narrowed with the articulation of international law over the past 60 years, it does remain true that states (and thus ultimately some person or people within the government) are less bound in their dealings with the outside (and dependent upon the spirit of the laws, within the nation as well) than a private citizen dealing within his society. This is because laws, particularly in a democracy, are the result of a social contract, while the relations between states are subject to different contracts. Thus it is a breach of the contract (a crime) to kill in retribution against murder as a citizen, yet it is legal to for the state to kill in retribution against a murderer.

In short, I believe that no law not specifically designed to bind the government ought to bind the government, lest our sovereignty as a nation be impugned. If we feel that a moral highground must be taken in certain issues we must legislate separately to bind the government.

It is EASILY arguable of course that certain people within this administration have already violated laws which specifically bind our government, especially whereas our constitution stipulates that our treaties have the force of our own law, but that's one of the few instances where we can really even entertain the idea, and there we get into questions of our constitution and international law regarding the Vienna Convention and whether or not the constitution's establishment of a sovereign government in itself might void the very ratification of a treaty to begin with, thus preempting its application as law.

I suspect there will be at least 4 answers: moral and legal answers, both from statist and globalist interpretations. For my part, I'm reserving judgement pending further reading.

<<   2  3 >>

log in