Conyers: Bush might be 'on the way to jail'

I've been late responding to some comments today for a variety of reasons. Apologies 'bout that. There were some goodies - so i'll get to them soon.

LeeB wrote:

Rep. John Conyers was a guest on Thom Hartmann's show this morning. If you act fast -- like before 2:00 a.m. GMT, TODAY, you can hear it for free on the internet toobz at the Seattle Air America affiliate I listen to. Thom specifically asked him about plans for impeachment.

Thanks for the heads-up LeeB.

Separately, in this post, LeeB writes:

Several times over the past few weeks Thom Hartmann (AAR) has made a point of mentioning the rapid sinking of KKKarl and FAUX's shriek that electing Dems would lead to impeachment. He loves it -- the polls show something like 60% of Americans (not just Dems) APPROVE of impeachment, so the thugs dropped that line like a hot potato.

Also, when Harper's had the discussion forum in NYC on the publication of Lewis Lapham's demand for impeachment (March 2006), I believe it was Liz Holtzman who said that the Dem-controlled Congress was not interested in impeaching Nixon and that the movement to do so was driven by the populace. She was there and wrote the Articles of Impeachment against Nixon. She went on to say that when the people demand it, impeachment will then rise to the top of the agenda.

November will be the first big step toward that end and it appears Rovie figured he had better STFU. :-) Members of the so-called pundit class keep repeating the "impeachment is nonsense" meme in hopes that they can make it be true.

It's up to us to make sure they don't succeed with that crap.

I wrote extensively about the 'FAUX's shriek that electing Dems would lead to impeachment.' - it was truly amazing to watch. As we've discussed here recently, impeachment is the least of their problems.

I grabbed a copy of the Hartmann interview before the internet toobz filled up too much and transcribed the relevant bits. as always, some snippage, some 'fudging', errors mine etc. (email me if you want the audio)

Conyers: You mentioned my report that's just out - which is 370 pages covering the Iraq debacle from where it began - before it began - AND warrantless wiretapping in the US. It covers both these areas. And it took so long to finally get it wrapped up, because every week there's a new development. Today, we have another new development... (the FISA ruling)

Hartmann: Congressman, you - more than anyone else in Congress - have done a really thorough analysis of the possible High Crimes and Misdemeanors of the Bush administration. I realise that in your report, you don't call them that - but I'm wondering, given that you were there for the impeachment proceedings against Richard Nixon, and for Clinton - in your opinion, are the things that you have documented in your report, and the things that have come out even since then - do these constitute the High Crimes and Misdemeanors that the Founders put in the Constitution as the basis for the impeachment of the President and Vice President?

Conyers: They well could, several of them. But I see my role as the most senior member of the Judiciary Committee to be one in which I refrain from the opinions that I may have - and to presenting the case for everyone else to determine themselves. And what's happened is, in the course of publishing the fallacy of pre-emptive strikes, the ignoring of the international rules of law, including the Geneva Conventions against torture - even the environmental treaties like Kyoto - the variety of incursions that have made the utter disregard of the United Nations (except when they serve as a convenient purpose) - all of these things including warrantless wiretapping of American citizens on US soil - constitute a huge series of deliberate - or even if unintentional - consequences - that have arrogated incredible new powers to the Executive Branch - more swiftly than any other president in the history of the 42 presidents who have preceded George Bush.

Go to johnconyers.com and you can pull this report free, right off the internet.

It's a stunning thing and what it leads to - the impressions that people get from looking at the report (and I guess that's my role - the constitution and it's oversight resides in the Judiciary committee. We are the only ones who have pulled all this together in one place) - and it's so astounding that people start thinking:

'Well - this means that this President, if he's not on the way to jail, he's certainly going to be the subject of massive hearings to verify this.'

The Executive Branch hasn't given us one bit of help in that regard - so the report builds up the calls against the president, and we're trying to figure out if the likelihood is that we prevail and have a new majority in the House of Representatives just what our agenda should be. And my Judiciary agenda would have to be enmeshed with all the other committee chairmen who also have corrections that need to be made in the course of the 110th Congress.

Hartmann: One last quick question - how's Resolution 635 - the bill that would call for an investigation into whether there have been crimes worthy of impeachment - that you've sponsored. How's it going getting co-sponsors and moving that forward?

Conyers: Well - I haven't looked lately - but we know that was the reaction that I was forced to resort to since I could get no sensible rational communications from the Executive Branch on the innumerable questions that my brilliant Judiciary staff have pulled together.

Whether that kind of stonewalling will continue, and force us to re-examine where we go in the 110th remains to be seen.

Hartmann: johnconyers.com for the report, and call your Representatives and ask them to sign onto John Conyers' House Resolution 635.

wow.

this President, if he's not on the way to jail...

That's from the next majority leader of the Judiciary Committee. The mind boggles trying to contemplate what these criminals might do to avoid that scenario.

updated to add this from cnn (thnx anon)

"As a brash backbencher on the House Judiciary Committee in the early 1970s, Michigan Representative John Conyers was enough of an irritant to the Nixon White House to earn 13th place on the Administration's original enemies list. "Coming on fast. Emerging as a leading black anti-Nixon spokesman," presidential counsel John Dean noted next to Conyers' name. In May 1972, Conyers introduced a resolution on the House floor demanding that Nixon be removed from office for his conduct of the Vietnam War. The measure went nowhere, but Conyers kept at it for the next two years, and when the Judiciary Committee finally voted in favor of impeaching Nixon, Conyers relished his vindication. "Impeachment is difficult, and it is painful," Conyers said at the time, "but the courage to do what must be done is the price of remaining free.""

he'll be licking his lips again.