Top Lawyer's Open Letter to Pelosi re: dumping Conyers over Impeachment -

Complments of Mark Adams, Florida Freedom Fighter for civil and voting rights. Jennifer Van Bergen is the real deal, a true expert on the Constitution, civil rights, etc. Now I'm back on vacation.



Impeachment hearings!
Jennifer Van Bergen

Dear Congress-woman Pelosi:

I am a journalist and book author. I have written not only many articles about this criminal administration and not only a book, but several law review articles (see below and see my website to view them www.jvbline.org). I am astonished to hear the rumor that you have threatened to remove Rep. Conyers from his chairmanship if he proceeds with impeachment hearings!

You were put into power by an electorate that wants accountability, wants out of Iraq, and wants the criminality to STOP. Why are you betraying your constituents and the constituents of your Democratic colleagues?

Impeachment is not a waste of congressional resources; it is a moral obligation. This administration has not only encouraged waste of and damage to natural resources, not only lied about reasons for invading Iraq -- a huge travesty and a crime, not only engaged in some of the most irresponsible leadership in the history of this country, but it has morally degraded us, lost our credibility and good standing in the world, and, worst of all, it has committed MULTIPLE crimes. Let us not use euphemisms. Our President and VP are criminals. All those they appoint toe the same criminal, lying, morally degrading line. Every congress-person should be standing up to remove and prosecute these individuals. America cannot wait for e-l-e-c-t-i-o-n-s, which have also been degraded and corrupted. We need to remove these men NOW and bring criminal charges against them.

See several of my articles on these issues:
http://www.tompaine.com/articles/2006/12/08/why_impeachment_is_crucial.php
http://www.tompaine.com/articles/2006/08/11/criminal_administration.php
http://www.counterpunch.org/bergen07312004.html
http://www.counterpunch.org/vanbergen02202006.html
http://writ.lp.findlaw.com/commentary/20060109_bergen.html
(c) Jennifer Van Bergen

How did I miss this?

Repeated by an idiot who addresses letters "Dear Congress-woman" rather than Dear Madame Speaker.

she puts more thought in color coordinating her outfits to match the surroundings than she has to what we need done. I hate
to say this but it is true, and I am a woman.

How dare she fail to address Her Majesty as the divine law demands?

And how do we go about getting rid of her? Impeachment was not hers to take off the table. It belongs to we the people and the sooner Ms. Pelosi learns this the better for her and certainly for us.

Comment from: debocracy

"If Pelosi continues to block all attempts to impeach Bush and/or Cheney, and use her power to intimidate American patriots who want to stop the war on US, she should be impeached as well."



K&R

was postulating this theory today...

of reps in the Out of Iraq Caucua.

On one hand, she's well within her rights to wield the power she was given when she became Speaker -- at least, imo.

But, there are steps Mr. Conyers could take that aren't so head on were he so inclined. I just don't know what to think about him any more. :shrug:

What Randi apparently knows about the process by which committee chairs are appointed and removed wouldn't fill a thimble.

like that of many others is just astounding

By the way... there have been threats, starting not with this Congress but going back to 2002

Not that you would know that.

I have no idea what you're talking about, but its clearly off-topic. (Quelle surprise)

Sorry if it bothers you that those who claim that CONyers has been threatened with the loss of his committee chairmanship can't explain how Pelosi could pull that off while I've explained why she can't.

into something other than the truth.

rather than just talk out of your hat.

:applause: :applause: :applause:

,...of mass democratic destruction.

We need REAL DEFENSE!!!

Don't we? :shrug:

why don't they let people like Jennifer and Elizabeth Holtzman and a bunch of other Constitutional lawyers do the work so that Pelosi can attend to fighting the WH for her agenda. There are many who could whip out the case - just as the lawyers on the staff in Congress could - let those in Congress work with Pelosi and let the outsider lawyers develop the case for Congress.

Impeach for sex and a lie cover-up?
But, don't impeach for every kind of act against the people of this country - acts that noone could have ever /envisioned?

Bring the people of this country to their knees so that the corporate-baron-military can get richer? Out of their houses and into apartments because of schemes? Out of their apartments and on to the streets because they are falling further into the ranks of the poor.

A shrinking middle class is paying for a secret sub-government who tells a Congress person to go xxxx himself - which is telling us to do it?

Someone is out of tune and the noise is horrible on every inch of the body and soul.

that manages to ignore what voters want. If one more Congressional Democrat says what I need is not the AGENDA, I may explode.

and the fact that Pelosi likely won't go for it only goes to demonstrate that she has her own upper class agenda.

Did he just get onto the Internet?

If this is true, Pelosi and the rest of the leadership, are collaborators.

Do you have any idea what it would take to remove Conyers? Think about it for a moment and you'll realize how utterly stupid this rumor is.

Starts out with "unbelievable" and follows it with "If true" as if the "unbelievable" had no effect on "If true"

No clue that "Unbelievable" means "not true"

What is the practical side of this alleged threat to remove the Chairman? Is it possible? Is it impossible? What?

And the likelihood of that being attempted is essentially zero. It would create a rebellion within the Democratic Caucus in general and in the Congressional Black Caucus in particular. It simply isn't feasible and, with over 40 years on the Hill, Conyers isn't going to be cowed by idle threats that he knows can't be carried out and Pelosi isn't going to make such threats knowing that they are an empty bluff.

So, take my word for it (and its based not only on the above but on conversations with present and former Conyers staffers), the story that he's had his chairmanship threatened is complete and utter bullshit.

Perhaps congresspersons are showing deference to Ms. Pelosi. But who got to her and what do they have on her? Why is it beyond consideration?

Remember, the party that impeaches, or even threatens it always takes the White House.

--IMM

by the repubs to rally their base and scare swing voters.

It remains "off the table" because a purely partisan vote on impeachment has no chance of succeeding. There simply are too many conservative/moderate Democrats who are not going to push for impeachment unless there are repubs joining in the effort as well. These moderate/conservative Democrats will point to the fact that there was bipartisan support for starting an impeachment inquiry in both the Nixon and Clinton cases. They also (along with even some more progressive Democratic members) will point out that because impeachment wasn't an issue during the campaign a year ago, it should not become a priority now.

Those are the arguments (don't shoot the messenger).

OK, not your fault.

I don't agree about the "purely partisan vote" stuff. When hearings on Nixon started, it was partisan, but Republicans had to face the evidence. I'm sure you know the rest.

--IMM

The vote to authorize the House Judiciary to start the hearings/inquiry regarding Nixon's possible impeachment was 410-4. THat's the first step that we have to be able to take now and that's where I see a problem with the current partisan split. Even when the repubs went after Clinton, the resolution to authorize the Judiciary Committee to hold hearings and consider articles of impeachment garnered the support of 31 Democrats. If we could get 10 repubs to support taking that step now, I think we might be able to do it. But until then, I think that the blue dogs and other swing state Democrats will be too gun shy to jump on any impeachment bandwagon. Maybe I'll be proven wrong, but at the moment, I see no evidence that any of them are chomping at the bit to move ahead.

--IMM

Read it and weep.

http://clerk.house.gov/evs/2007/roll1037.xml

This is sooooo tiring, having to keep responding to statements like yours on this topic.

Keep telling us all about how you have everything figured out.

They could have killed this bill by voting to table it. Instead, they prefer to bring it on. What is your major malfunction?

and end all talk of impeachment.

If you don't seriously think that's what they were trying to do (and would've succeeded), you are very very naieve. Indeed, if the goal was to have it out on impeachment immediately, why did virtually all of DK's co-sponsors vote for the referral? If they had voted against, DK's resolution would've gotten an hour of debate and been voted on right then and there. That's why the repubs voted against referral as well. They were more than willing to put it on the table so they could (and they would have) killed it.

No malfunction on my part. You're just playing games and not playing them well either.

Gibberish.

Unintelligible gibberish.

165 of them. Why? I think it was to provide political cover for the few who HAD to vote against it of face getting slammed at the polls next year. Many of these guys HAD to vote a certain way, and the rest just piled on to give political cover so that their individual positions are not PERCIEVED as weak. That is a very logical and consistant argument, IMO.

You say:
"If you don't seriously think that's what they were trying to do (and would've succeeded), you are very very naieve."

Just give me a clue what in the world you are talking about when you say "and would have succeeded." What were you EXPECTING to happen when 165 of them voted NOT to kill it?

I honestly cannot imagine whatever you fantasy is that "would have succeed" except for some magic wand being waved.

Gibberish.

The vote on the resolution, passed by the full House in February 1974, that authorized the House Judiciary to conduct an impeachment inquiry and report back with articles of impeachment, was 410-4
http://www.watergate.info/impeachment/

The comparable resolution, in October 1998, authorizing the Judiciary Committee's impeachment inquiry against Clinton was not as overwhelmingly bi-partisan, but still picked up support from 31 Democrats.
http://www.cnn.com/ALLPOLITICS/stories/1998/10/08/defect/

If just a dozen repubs would indicate support for moving forward with a formal inquiry against cheney, I think there is a chance it could happen. But without some repubs jumping ship, I don't see it moving forward in any meaningful way. (There might be a hearing on DK's resolution, but it won't amount to a hill of beans unless some repubs start changing their tune, I think).

was not a majority in favor of impeachment either. The mood among the public and the poltiticians to impeach grew during 1973 with the hearings convenend by Sen. Sam Ervin.

By saying "impeachment is off the table", Pelosi et. al. rigged the game. Who knows what Daniel Ellsburgs and John Deans are out there, too scared right now of being "Plame-ed" to speak out? this is what public hearings do; they create a relatively safe space to speak up.

N.B. I will now only vote Democratic, if the candidate is a progressive Democrat. I will no longer vote for Dinos like Harman or Feinstein. And I no longer consider myself a Democrat. I now consider myself a swing voter (between the Democrats when they're progressive and the Socialist Party\Peace and Freedom Party when the Democrat is a war pig like Harman).

...rather than follow the oaths they swore to hold criminals against the Constitution accountable.

--IMM

Riddle me this:

If there are not enough votes to remove Conyers if he were to persue impeachment, where are all the votes that supposedly exist to thwart impeachment if it goes forward?

Who are these imaginary Congress critters?

I cannot believe how stupid this line of argument is.

Let's assume that Conyers starts to move forward with impeachment. If that's what the Democratic caucus wants, why would they support an effort by Pelosi to remove him? And if its not what the majority of the caucus wants, why would one assume that the reason Conyers isn't pushing impeachment is because of a threat from Pelosi as opposed to his simply doing what a leader does: count votes?

Now all of this is fun to speculate about, but there is an overarching political reality that explains why the "pelosi threat" meme is so silly. The vote to install, remove committee chairs actually is a vote of the entire house. Traditionally, the minority party doesn't attempt to block appointment, so the process is a rubberr stamp. But if Pelosi tried to remove a committee chair without the unanimous support of the Democratic caucus, the repubs would have an opening to frustrate what Pelosi wanted to do by siding with the Dems that opposed what she was doing. Pelosi would never risk that. Indeed, remember that she originally said that she was going to give WIlliam Jefferson a spot on the Homeland Security Committeee but after the repubs indicated that they would force a recorded vote on the appointment, which would've put Democrats in an awkward position given that Jefferson was caught up in a corruption probe, Pelosi backed down and didn't make the appointment. http://www.npr.org/blogs/news/2007/06/federal_authorities_indict_la.html

Pelosi's power is far from as great as some here think.

(This isn't the article I was looking for and it is Novacula.)

November 01, 2007
Nancy's 'Committee of One'
By Robert Novak

A story told in cloakrooms of the House of Representatives shows how ironic life on Capitol Hill can be. Jim McCrery, the low-key, hard-working ranking Republican on the Ways and Means Committee, has spent all year trying to establish good relations with the tax-writing committee's first Democratic chairman in 12 years, Charles Rangel. He succeeded, only to discover that Rangel does not really run Ways and Means. Nancy Pelosi does.

Rangel, a crafty New York politician, so far looks like the weakest Ways and Means chairman during my 50 years in Washington. That's only because Pelosi so far is the most powerful speaker of the House during that same period, a reality obscured by her historic role as the first woman to hold that office. She does not confer with or defer to standing committee chairmen, whose predecessors made previous speakers dance to their tune.

On both sides of the aisle, the beautiful 67-year-old grandmother from San Francisco is referred to as the "Committee of One" who rules the House. Many speakers over the years relied on their majority leader, as Republican Dennis Hastert let Tom DeLay handle day-to-day operations. But not Pelosi, who actually opposed Steny Hoyer's election as majority leader.

Ruling absolutely does not mean even Democrats think she rules well. Her misguided effort to pass a resolution condemning the 1915 Armenian holocaust constitutes a rare public blunder, but beyond that she has not crafted a coherent Democratic message. This month's Harris Poll puts her nationwide job disapproval ("fair" or "poor") at 57 percent. But she is an icon at the Democratic grass roots, and none of the committee chairmen who have been downgraded by her -- certainly not Charlie Rangel -- utters a word of public criticism.

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2007/11/nancys_committee_of_one.html

Pelosi Turns Up Heat On Global Warming
Speaker Ignoring House Traditions To Force Legislative Action On Climate Change

(AP) WASHINGTON House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, intent on putting global warming atop the Democratic agenda, is shaking up traditional committee fiefdoms dominated by some of Congress' oldest and most powerful members.

http://cbs11tv.com/topstories/topstories_story_018123543.html

She has a lot of power, just not the absolute power that people think she has. And when it comes to committee appointments, she is given a lot of deference, but publicly stripping one of the most senior, respected members of his seat on one of the most important committees isn't the kind of thing that any speaker can simply do because they want to.

I don't believe she is unfettered by convention or by the culture or by the necessity to build coalitions that must be her daily routine. But when I hear John Conyers repeating her talking points, I have to wonder what the hell is going on -- particularly when those talking points contradict his direct and shared experience.

But, this is the same person who has decided that I am not her constituent, that wished she could simply have me arrested, and that decided that her agenda is impervious to the wants or needs of her constituency. That does bespeak a measure of authoritarianism. So, when these rumors get out, she herself has created the conditions that make them believable. She's done that.

I seriously doubt that there's anyone on this board (except disruptors) that takes any pleasure whatsoever from this situation. We were proud of Pelosi when she gaveled in. We wanted her to succeed, which isn't the same as wanting her to agree with us at every point. She is the one who has gone out of her way to dismiss and to alienate progressives when it was impolitic and unnecessary to do that.

On edit: And, you don't know that this is a bs rumor. You only know that you don't know if it's true or how true it may be.

which include current and former Judiciary staffers that work directly for Conyers.

and others are entitled to their myths.

substantiates the concerns. Nice try invalidating public concern, though. Maybe someone is insecure enough to go with that.

You argue that she has the power to force a vote (or deny a vote) on Conyers' chairmanship, which would in effect expose him to the full House as a referendum on impeachment, which you also argue that any referendum on impeachment will fail in the whole house, and then you argue that she has no power.

Just pick a side, any side, in this discussion and try to stick to it. I cannot tell if you are being disingenuous, or if you are really so obtuse that you don't see the contradictions in your arguments.

Pelosi has the power to try to strip Conyers of his chairmanship if he went forward on impeachment. But if she tried to do so, she'd risk losing. Why? Because a sizable number of Democrats, regardless of their views on impeachment, will not tolerate that sort of autocratic approach to the committee assignments, particularly when it involves a respected, senior member of Congress. While you might think that the repubs would join with Pelosi in publicly humiliating Conyers, Pelosi can't afford to do that. The caucus would call for her head and the ensuing chaos would cripple her tenure as speaker. In the end, it is the Speaker's job to try and hold the caucus together. Going after Conyers would have the opposite effect, put her at the mercy of repub shenanigans and be a complete disaster.

She knows it. Conyers knows it. So if he wanted to move forward on impeachment, he could do so without the slightest worry that Pelosi would run to the floor of the House and try to have him stripped of his chairmanship. Martians will live in penthouses on Fifth Avenue before that would happen.

There are many consequences possible for Pelosi to hand to Conyers before we reach the point "running to the floor of the House".

Consequences so great that they would prevent Conyers from pursuing impeachment if in fact that is what he wanted to do and thought should be done.

I'm all ears.

are answered to how soon actions out of his committee are processed by the Speaker.

Maybe some of that "all ears" energy would be usefully transferred to "all frontal lobes".

Okee-dokee..

How long did you work on the Hill anyway?

You can do better than that.

what motivates the speaker's cowardice. or is it puro fear that when iran takes over iraq and syria invades to widen its borders, israel will nuke 'em all, the long and the short and the tall, then where will the u.s. be other than up shit creek without a canoe? the entirety of opec will boycott the u.s. market, china will have cornered african resources, ecoterrorists will repeatedly destroy alaskan pipelines leading to irreversible damage to that tender environment--talk about irony. mexico will demand 5X market price for its near-by oil. with the riches garnered from its heavy crude, mexico will be a paradise and all sorts of gente now residing in northern aztlán will head for the border, even if they don't have driver licenses. food prices will skyrocket and there'll be mass starvation in the states when crops rot in the fields for lack of hands to harvest. talk about grapes of wrath and chickens coming home to roost!

pelosi ranks up there with the greatest political disappointments in history.

alternative analysis: it's a smokescreen to buy conyers time. pelosi is far more clever than her detractors credit. i just produced cold fusion in my kitchen with a blender and a microwave.

mvs


http://readraza.com

http://labloga.blogspot.com

oh, yes. recommended. you can believe that.

Maybe. I don't know if I believe they care enough to go to all that trouble.

I used he Utah method, you?

I like this letter because it's lawyerly - it's a "notice letter." You tell the object of your ire (at being defrauded) - look buddy, you did this and that, I told you to take care of it, which you didn't. Now if you don't fix it, I'll cya on the Judge Judi show." That's the set up for court. These lawyers, clever right;) But very useful when you need one.

When the Southern migrations starts, you get there first and I'll rent your pool house.

so i used the RC approach and did a series of novenas with an extra hail holy queen, and voilá, inexhaustible low-cost energy. but i'm not giving up the details until cheney takes a jarvik-5 up the ingus.

i doubt that mexico will have me. every time i go down there people look at me funny and ask where i got my cute yanqui accent. but then, i could buy a fake red-white-green card and be a reverse indocumentado.

in the meanwhile, let us hope the weekend doesn't weaken the impetus of this letter.

The hypocrisy and stupidity of the positions Pelosi has taken (e.g. calling handing Bush all those billions of dollars last spring to continue the war without any conditions and calling it a major step towards ending the war) are so mind boggling that no explanation for her bewildering behavior I've seen, however far-fetched, adequately explains it. I've become resigned to thinking that there's some very, very dark secret going on that may never see the light of day that causes her and others like her to plant their heads so far up Bush tush that we are left scratching our heads in shock and awe.

A person I know real well a highly placed CA Bar member sent this letter to Diane FinkeNstien the other day for her vote on the AG!

Here's my letter to California Senator Dianne Feinstein


Dear Senator Feinstein,


I am so disappointed that you have supported the nomination of Michael Mukasey for US Attorney General. Any lawyer or educated person, let alone a former judge who cannot decisively say that waterboarding is torture is unfit to serve and casts our country in a continuing terrible light to the rest of the world.

This is a total disgrace.


As a lawyer for more than 30 years in California, I am so ashamed and dismayed about our country's abandonment of its most basic obligations under our Constitution, international law and certainly the Geneva Convention.

When will this stop? As an active Democrat I am truly disappointed as well with the miserable lack of leadership on these issues.

Sincerely,
XXXXXX X. XXXXXXX

It's time for her to go too. She's the very worst - supporting the tax cuts, the war, all the b.s. I thought she spoke well on FISA but damn, all the rest. This is really serious, the letter. No more $$$'s from her/him.

Nancy's husband must be a hard core rethug and HE wears the pants in that family!

I think that there are tensions within the party leadership on how to respond to the calls for impeachment and/or censure.

There are definitely tensions within our party, on everything including impeachment and censure.

There have been obvious tensions between the grass roots anti-war democrats and the members of congress who provide the president with every penny he requests; tensions between the party in terms of the presidential primaries; and numerous other similar issues. I'm not sure that there has been evidence of a tension between the party leadership in congress over the issue of possible impeachment or censure, which is what I noted.

The latest Iraq survey shows 50% strongly disapprove of the policy now and another 13% or so disapprove, totaling 6% Thats a very significant shift. The "very strong" faction is pissed off and they're finding no path for their determination to see the war end.

Frankly, I can't imagine what is motivating Pelosi and Hoyer. They must be confident of victory because their career as Democratic leaders is fast coming to a close. The votes to support Dennis nearly reached 200. That's a message. I need to look at who voted against this and when they were elected. Interesting;)

and it ranges from the cold calcualtions of not rocking the boat and treating us like children

to the tin foil hat they've been threatened...

And the reality is somewhere in between

We will not know until an enterprising graduate student puts this together in forty years or so.

And that pisses me off...

I'd like to sit them all down and say, "Your cold calculations are wrong every single time. Why don't you just tell the truth and say it with passion." Then I wake up after they say, "But this is how we really feel." It's all been a dream...the waking is the nightmare.

impeachment over abuse of power yet he's a boy scout up against these people. It strikes against all reason and it certainly isn't being held back for the reasons they are giving which a blind dog could see is a lie. I think I know who but I would dare not say but I will never be silent on the very truthful need that impeachment is required for this textbook case of our modern era. Neither forgetting nor forgiving is an option to any real patriot in this country.

I would have thought a letter from a 'journalist with a law degree' would have included more substance - citations of case law, precedents, etc. Also, to fly off the handle because of an admitted rumor does not reflect well.

This letter got no further that a staffer that will send a polite form letter back.

And, afaic, it reflects poorly on both Mr. Conyers and on the Speaker that he began to resort to her talking points on impeachment after the last election. I expected more from both of them.

Since when does unfunded rumor suffice to make the news, excepting for yellow journalism, of course?

At this point, this is just more Dem bashing at best, if not divisive diversion to hamper the process.

one way or the other of how Pelosi has conducted herself.

On the other hand, I ran across two articles by Novacula this morning that push this idea. Which leads me to two conclusions. One, there is a weakness or a bit of truth in this general area and two, he sees an opportunity to exploit it.

Pelosi herself isn't doing anything to better the general distrust unless I'm missing something big here. Am I?

/oops

I can't stand Pelosi. She needs to step down. It is not known whether she is threatening the chair, it is speculated that
she did...

I wouldn't put it past her, but it is still a rumor