Rachel Maddow - Statement from House Judiciary Committee Spokesman (Conyers!)

Conyers is NOT dismissing consideration of Kucinich's impeachment resolution.

STATEMENT FROM HOUSE JUDICIARY COMMITTEE SPOKESMAN
by Vanessa Silvert... on November 6, 2007 - 8:11pm.

We called John Conyers's office and they wrote us back just a few minutes later:

"The Committee has a very busy agenda - over the next two weeks, we hope to pass a FISA bill, to vote on contempt of Congress citations, pass legislation on prisoner re-entry, court security and a variety of other very important items. We were surprised that the minority was so ready to move forward with consideration of a matter of such complexity as impeaching the Vice President. The Chairman will discuss today's vote with the Committee members but it would seem evident that the committee staff should continue to consider, as a preliminary matter, the many abuses of this Administration, including the Vice President."

http://www.airamerica.com/maddow/node/2970

I guess that book I have which he signed means something.

for posting this.

Nominated.

move today will actually open the way to getting this done? I think the Republicans think that allowing the Dems to contemplate impeachment will grind Congress to a halt so they can accuse the Dems of being a do-nothing Congress, accuse them of stooping to political attacks rather than supporting the war/troops/defending the nation... What do you think?

:hi:

people in both parties that take their oath of office seriously. There are also republicans who want to distance themselves from the administration before the '08 elections, and it is easier to sacrifice Cheney that openly oppose Bush.

The evidence is there. The only thing that can keep the House from failing to impeach Cheney is if the democratic leadership sinks the effort.

:toast:

call them, email, them, fax them

We have a role to play in this too

:kick: & R

that it should be more than obvious by now that if they hope to get something, anything done they are going to have to remove the major obstruction they have been facing since day one.

http://www.govtrack.us/congress/bill.xpd?bill=hr110-333

"Sponsor: Rep. Dennis Kucinich show cosponsors (21)
Cosponsors
Rep. Tammy Baldwin
Rep. Robert Brady
Rep. Yvette Clarke
Rep. William Clay
Rep. Steve Cohen
Rep. Keith Ellison
Rep. Sam Farr
Rep. Bob Filner
Rep. Sheila Jackson-Lee
Rep. Henry Johnson
Rep. Carolyn Kilpatrick
Rep. Barbara Lee
Rep. James McDermott
Rep. James Moran
Rep. Donald Payne
Rep. Janice Schakowsky
Rep. Edolphus Towns
Rep. Maxine Waters
Rep. Diane Watson
Rep. Lynn Woolsey
Rep. Albert Wynn
Cosponsorship information sometimes is out of date. Why?
Bill Text: Summaries (CRS)
Full Text
Status: Introduced Apr 24, 2007
Scheduled for Debate -
Voted on in House -

This bill is in the first step in the legislative process. Introduced bills go first to committees that deliberate, investigate, and revise them before they go to general debate. The majority of bills never make it out of committee.
Last Action: May 4, 2007: Referred to the Subcommittee on the Constitution, Civil Rights, and Civil Liberties.
Show All Related Votes

Committee Assignments
This bill is in the first stage of the legislative process where the bill is considered in committee and may undergo significant changes in markup sessions. The bill has been referred to the following committees:

House Judiciary
House Judiciary, Subcommittee on Constitution, Civil Rights, and Civil Liberties'

and in such a public way

That changes dynamics, or should change them

If it doesn't... then you have to start asking. WHO THE FUCK ARE THEY PROTECTING?

acted and do not want to act on the bill.

Some are protecting themselves and then of course each other, their careers???

Two of the top three candidates are still able to use the excuse that the administration lied to them, as Dennis pointed out today there were questions with the intelligence, for those who read the reports before voting for war :(

and some of that ball is in our court

You need to act... not just complaint

and I have been doing a few things not just complaining :) My post was more of a reminder that it has been in committee prior to today and yes we do need to act on the momentum.


Three roll call vote links and video below...

http://www.afterdowningstreet.org/node/28469

"Kucinich's Resolution Survives Tabling Attempt, Is Referred to Committee
Submitted by davidswanson on Tue, 2007-11-06 19:47. Congress | Impeachment

OPEN TO READ ACCOUNT OF WHAT HAPPENED ON FLOOR TODAY

What's gained? 86 Congress Members showed a level of support for impeachment. The resolution is back in the same committee but with more momentum..."

but we need to keep the pressure on

And we need to do it... we led during Watergate... something folks forget

voted that this should go to committee fort rersearch. Big difference.

DK submitted H Res 333 in April under House Rule XII, which simply streamlines the process of introducing and referring bills/resolutions so that the House doesn't have to vote on every single piece of legislation that is put forth.

There is no difference at all in submitting a bill/resolution under Rule XII and submitting one which is later voted to refer to committee. For whatever reason, there's a misconception here that having the full House vote to refer a bill to committee is somehow different. it's not.

Now not only do polls show that most Americans favor impeaching both Cheney & Bush... but also this bill has gained widespread news coverage.

I'd say that's a pretty significant difference, actually.

I know Conyers will do what he can.

Rec'd.

Thanks! :bounce:

:kick: & Recommended!

Stop the insanity and IMPEACH.

"...should continue to consider, as a preliminary matter, the many abuses of this Administration, including the Vice President."

When I read that it says to me they intend to continue as they have been doing as opposed to acting on the referred resolution as a priority and will instruct their staff not to change their current focus which has NOT been the resolution on impeachment.

The best way to work on this, imo, is to put tremendous pressure on the Committee and Chairman Conyers to put this resolution as a priority and keep that pressure on. If that is done, whether my concern and interpretation of the above statement become moot because it will be the pressure that can make the difference.

do it.

Pelosi AND Conyers, imo. Pressure should be put on everyone to get this resolution dealt with and not closeted.

They're not idiots when it comes to strategy - unfortunately. :shrug:

I am in favor of impeachment but I hope it fails to remove Cheney from office. ;)

the committee should investigate, does that overturn executive privilege? I know that if it were, in fact, the impeachment process happening, Cheney would have to turn over documents requested by the Judiciary Committee, instead of playing little games of presidential privilege as they have been doing since day 1. Does Conyers now have the legal right to demand documents, since they are investigating a crime? Or would that power only exist once impeachment itself has been approved by the house?

the USSC back then declared that this was not doable and Nixon had to turn over documents

Precedent notwithstanding, I expect this to go down to the USSC... if this goes anywhere

It simply sent the bill to the Committee.

This is how this process "works"...hopefully Conyers will now proceede with an investigation into Congressman Kucinich's charges. But there's the rub. Charges are just that...allegations, but no real hard evidence. While the process IS political and burden of proof is usually the (R) or (D) next to a name, for the resolution to have any chance to pass out of the committee and back to the House floor for a vote, Conyers will need (and I expect demand) hard evidence of crimes that are stated. I honestly believe that Chairman Conyers wants to get this evidence and pass out articles, but getting the "smoking gun" or compelling evidence will be difficult.

As someone else noted in another post, it's now up to the accuser to prove the charges...innocent until proven guilty. Many of the ugly, horrendous things cheney has done can be passed off as "errors of judgement" or "mistakes"...for real charges to stick there has to be evidence and intent. Nixon tapes and direct evidence from witnesses like John Dean made his impeachment move forward...we need both tapes (documentation) and witnesses (first person, direct contact) who will substantiate that crashcart purposely went out of his way to break the law...to show intent. Yes, it's possible, but it's gonna take time and resources.

Yes...I'd love to see the Repugnicans attempt to defend the most heinous criminal to ever sit in an elected office. His crimes are beyond just being kicked out of office...this slime deserves to be tried as the war criminal he is. And this job can't be done in Washington...that's what the World Court in the Hague is about.

At no step in the process is there any "standard" of "proving" facts. It is a political process where each member decides what they believe, based on anything they like. The impeachment itself (the House vote) is merely accusation/allegation. All the House decides is whether they think there's a reason to have a Senate trial. But even the Senate trial is not a court of law. It merely has the trappings. No rules, just politics.

There's not much time or resources required either -- just the political will to face reality and carry out oath-bound duty.

And while you're correct that "His crimes are beyond just being kicked out of office," it is not correct that "this job can't be done in Washington." Because that is exactly what our treaty obligations demand. It is our responsibility to prosecute and punish our own war criminals. Just like we've done with the troops who've carried out the illegal torture orders.

The Court at the Hague exists as a failsafe should we not meet this obligation. It is certainly a viable option now that the DC Dems have become complicit since winning the majority and becoming "The US Gov't," but prosecution and punishment here is still what is demanded by treaty (and therefore US law). Prosecution here is also demanded by federal statute (US Code Title 18,2441).

---

I completely agree on the political nature of Impeachment...and that, unlike a court of law, burden of proof is negligable (witness the Clinton inquisition)...and that it's the job of each member to defend the Constitution by punsihing those that abuse it. As stated, I am in complete support of this resolution and hope it reaches at least a floor debate and vote. It's a no-lose situation as cheney remains unpopular and even in defeat a statement has been made, but that's about it. I would like to see a majority of Democrats sign on and support this...force the Repugnicans to defend this criminal.

In many cases...such as corruption or a sleazy blow job, I would concur that removal from office and "fall from grace" would be sufficient, however, sadly, this regime has gone beyond not just shitting upon the Constitution but violating International laws and treaties...true crimes that a political trial doesn't begin to address. Sadly, I don't see our political or justice system in any condition to properly meet the obligations you state above...thus it will require international prosecution and adjudication.

Cheers...

Nothing will follow without impeachment.

Without that formal objection from Congress -- even a failed attempt -- they can claim that everything has been "approved."

---

from the Bush administration "which everyone hates outside the beltway bubble." she said she long believed that there would be a push to oust Cheney and bring in Jeb, in a move to heal the base.

And would be terrible for our side.

Still, I can't say it would be bad for the nation. The need for impeachment transcends politics as usual.

--

Maddow was BRILLIANT on Olbermann last nite, btw. she's prolly the best pundit i've seen in my lifetime -- and not just b/c i agree with her. she's solid.

And thank you to the 23 co-sponsors to his resolution.

You are truly patriots. :patriot: