By John Conyers Jr.
Thursday, May 18, 2006; Page A23
As Republicans have become increasingly nervous about whether they will be able to maintain control of the House in the midterm elections, they have resorted to the straw-man strategy of identifying a parade of horrors to come if Democrats gain the majority. Among these is the assertion that I, as the new chairman of the House Judiciary Committee, would immediately begin impeachment proceedings against President Bush.as don noted:
I will not do that. I readily admit that I have been quite vigorous, if not relentless, in questioning the administration. The allegations I have raised are grave, serious, well known, and based on reliable media reports and the accounts of former administration officials
[]
So, rather than seeking impeachment, I have chosen to propose comprehensive oversight of these alleged abuses. The oversight I have suggested would be performed by a select committee made up equally of Democrats and Republicans and chosen by the House speaker and the minority leader.
The committee's job would be to obtain answers -- finally. At the end of the process, if -- and only if -- the select committee, acting on a bipartisan basis, finds evidence of potentially impeachable offenses, it would forward that information to the Judiciary Committee. This threshold of bipartisanship is appropriate, I believe, when dealing with an issue of this magnitude.
One-party rule has dug our nation into a deep hole over the past six years. The Judiciary Committee needs to fully implement the recommendations of the Sept. 11 commission, strengthen laws against wartime fraud, ban trade with state sponsors of terrorism, increase funding for community policing and protect government whistle-blowers. Most important, before we have another presidential election, I believe we need to pass laws protecting the integrity of our electoral system -- the very foundation of our democracy.
"If you're not doing anything wrong, you've got nothing to worry about."and
"We want to get to the truth. Investigation is our first priority, but all options are on the table"
12 comments:
"Impeachment? F that. Bush is going to The Hague."
That is how one should answer the question IMHO.
Whenever Bush leaves office his last act will be to provide comprehensive pardons for any convicted cronies. It might not be a bad idea to defer prosecutions of Rove et al until after Bush has left.
he can order pre-emptive pardons cant he?
Never thought of it. But, yeh, pre-emptive pardons sounds right. And if you can pre-empt wars then you can certainly pre-empt pardons for war crimes carried out while acting on instruction from a, still classified, divine authority.
good point. "i was only following orders from the big guy upstairs" won't cut it at the hague
...yes, the Son of Sam defence. Where was Barney when all this was going on?
barney was undermining the optimism of the WH rug.
barney was undermining the optimism of the WH rug.
LMAO!
Presidential pardons of criminal prosecutions flowing from cases of impeachment can be voided, so we have to impeach the current occupant of the Oval Office to make it all stick.
"flowing from cases of impeachment can be voided"
what exactly does this mean? if a pres is impeached, does that mean all pardons are voided?
It means that presidential pardons for criminal prosecutions flowing from cases of impeachment can be voided. If the criminal prosecutions were related to the impeachable offenses and the pres is impeached, his pardons can be voided. It's a long shot, of course, but comforting to think that the people on top would be punished to the full extent of the law the way we at the bottom always are. Article 2, Section 2, Clause 1.
thnx - fp'd
Post a Comment