[NYTr] Conyers Needs Just 3 Congress members to Begin Impeachment

[nytr at olm.blythe-systems.com]

sent by "Uncle Don B Fanning" via Ed Pearl 

John  Conyers is within THREE CONGRESS MEMBERS of what he
feels is a large enough contingent supporting impeachment!

Please forward this to whomever might follow through on the steps
needed to prepare for Conyers' plan to impeach.  Even if your own
congress member is unwilling to respond in a favorable manner, you
might reach a congress person in another district (or their staff)
who will listen.  You may also know other people in districts whose
congress members are more favorable to impeachment.

Due to recent developments, it is becoming more conceivable that
Bush might simply dispense with the next election, declaring, in
effect, martial law.  In that case, this may be one of our few
options for restoring the United States to a situation with some
semblance of popular governance.  I.e., ending a would-be dictatorship.

In that case, waiting for optimal opportunities in the 2008 election
will be USELESS.  In that case, hoping that a new regime will end the
endless wars, restore our constitutional rights and set other
governing processes back on a track where we some say in our civil
liberties, environment, health, safety or anything else we care about
will be USELESS.  In that case, hoping that another failure of
Democrats or Republicans will open opportunities for a third party
(disclosure: I'm a registered Green) will be USELESS.  In fact, I
don't know what means will still be found useful by any of us without
dire consequences for all of us.

I am, at times, at a loss as to what we can do to restore even a
somewhat democratic process to our country.  My philosophy is that we
must continue to use whatever non-violent tools we have even if we do
not know whether they will be effective.

The Bush regime employs a technique they describe as "shock and
awe" not only militarily but also against citizens of the US.  The same
psyops techniques used by our government against opponents in
war are also applied to effectively prevent its own citizenry from
providing reasonable checks and balances to governmental and
corporate excess and blatant abuse of power.

Thus, the GW Bush regime believes that it is immune from charges of
High Crimes and Misdemeanors that the many informed experts have
accused them of.

It is my fervent hope that impeachment proceedings might prevent
further and greater abuse of power and the possible dire consequences
thereof.  In any case, I strongly feel that, given the current
situation, it is worth a try.

Please make at least one call MONDAY and inform friends to do
the same.  Phone your own Congress Member at 202-224-3121

Thanks to Dick Kaiser for forwarding this on the [ImpeachBushAZ] listserv!

-----

Conyers: 3 More Congress Members and I'll Impeach

By David Swanson

http://www.afterdowningstreet.org/?q=node/24962

House Judiciary Committee Chairman John Conyers has said that if
three more Congress Members get behind impeachment he will start the
impeachment proceedings.

I was a guest today on Bree Walker's (<http://www.breewalker.com/>)
radio show. She's the progressive radio host from California who
purchased Cindy Sheehan's land from her in Crawford, Texas.

Bree attended an event on Friday in San Diego at which Congressman
Conyers spoke about impeachment. Her report was extremely
interesting. I had already heard reports that Conyers had said: "What
are we waiting for? Let's take these two guys out!" But, of course,
what we're waiting for is John Conyers. Is he ready to act? It was
hard to tell from that comment. In January, Conyers spoke at a huge
rally on the National Mall and declared "We can fire them!" but later
explained that what he meant was that we could wait for two years and
Bush and Cheney's terms would end. Was this week's remark just more
empty rhetoric?

It appears to be more than that. Bree Walker told me, on the air,
that Conyers said that all he needs is three more Congress Members
backing impeachment, and he'll move on it, even without Pelosi. I
asked whether that meant specifically moving from 14 cosponsors of H
Res 333 (<http://www.afterdowningstreet.org/cheney>) to 17, or adding
3 to the larger number of Congress Members who have spoken favorably
of impeachment but not all signed onto bills. Bree said she didn't
know and that Conyers had declined to take any questions.

Either way, this target of three more members seems perfectly doable.
It's safe to assume, I think, that we're talking about impeaching
Cheney first. But, even if Conyers is talking about Bush, the target
is perfectly achievable.

First, there are Congress Members like Jesse Jackson Jr. who have
spoken out for impeachment but not signed onto H Res 333. They should
be urged to act now! Second, there are dozens of members
(<http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/bdquery/z?d109:HE00635:@@@P>) who
signed onto H Res 635 a year and a half ago, Conyers' bill for an
investigation into grounds for impeachment, who have not signed onto
H Res 333 yet. Third, one of the excuses citizens often hear from
lots of Congress Members for not signing onto articles of impeachment
is that not enough of their colleagues have signed on and therefore
"we don't have the votes." Well that just changed. Now three more
votes is all that's needed to get this machine rolling. Fourth, many
of the 14 Congress Members backing H Res 333 have used similar
excuses to justify refraining from lobbying their colleagues to join
them. That can now end. Our 14 leaders can do more than just put down
their names.

Now, if Conyers begins impeachment proceedings in the House Judiciary
Committee, we should all be clear on what that will mean. If it is
serious, it will not mean sending any subpoenas or contempt citations
to the emperors' court. Bush and Cheney have already repeatedly
refused to comply with subpoenas (<http://www.democrats.com/subpoenas>).

President Richard Nixon did the same, of course, and his refusal to
comply with subpoenas constituted the offense cited in one of the
three Articles of Impeachment approved by the House Judiciary
Committee on July 27, 1974 as warranting "impeachment and trial, and
removal from office." But Bush and Cheney have gone further, ordering
former staffers not to comply with subpoenas, and announcing that the
Justice Department will not enforce any contempt of Congress proceedings.

What the impeachment of Cheney or Bush will be is very, very fast. It
will not disrupt or distract from the important business of passing
nonbinding resolutions and holding all-night gripe sessions over
bills destined to be vetoed. Impeachment in the case of Dick Cheney
need not take the three months it did for Nixon or the two months it
did for President Bill Clinton. In fact, it could take a day. Here's why:

Bush and Cheney's lies about Iraqi ties to al Qaeda are on videotape
and in writing, and Bush and Cheney continue to make them to this
day. There was no al Qaeda in Iraq until the invasion.

Their claims about Iraqi weapons have been shown in every detail
(<http://www.afterdowningstreet.org/keydocuments>) to have been, not
mistakes, but lies.

Their threats to Iran are on videotape.

Bush being warned about Katrina and claiming he was not are on videotape.

Bush lying about illegal spying and later confessing to it are on
videotape. A federal court has ruled that spying to be a felony.

The Supreme Court has ruled Bush and Cheney's system of detentions
unconstitutional.

Torture, openly advocated for by Bush and Cheney and their staffs, is
documented by victims, witnesses, and public photographs. Torture was
always illegal and has been repeatedly recriminalized under Bush and
Cheney. Bush has reversed laws with signing statements.

Those statements are posted on the White House website, and a GAO
report found that with 30 percent of Bush's signing statements in
which he announces his right to break laws, he has in fact proceeded
to break those laws.

For these and many other offenses, no investigation is needed because
no better evidence is even conceivable. This impeachment will be
swift. And it will require only a simple majority. We already know
that the Democrats can vote as a block if they want to, and that a
few brave Republicans might join them.

Whether the Senate will then convict Cheney will depend on how much
pressure citizens apply and how much information the House manages to
force onto television sets. The latter could be surprisingly large
and substantive, since the conflict of an impeachment is certain to
generate incredible ratings.

But even an acquittal would identify the Senators to be removed from
office by voters in 2008. And Cheney (or Bush) would still have been
100% impeached. Al Gore didn't run for president pretending he'd
never met Bill Clinton and pick Senator Joe Lieberman as a running
mate because the Senate convicted Clinton (it acquitted).

The timing of Conyers' remark may be related to the steps the White
House has recently taken to assert "unitary executive" dictatorial
power. Bush has commuted the sentence of a subordinate who obstructed
an investigation into matters involving Bush and Cheney. And, as
mentioned above, neither subpoenas nor contempt citations will go
anywhere. Impeachment is no longer merely the appropriate step that
it has been for the past six years. It is now the only tool left to
the Congress for use in asserting its very existence as a functioning
body of government.

But the timing is also quite helpful to the grassroots movement for
impeachment, and rather symbolic. Five years ago this Monday, the
meeting was held at #10 Downing Street that produced the Downing
Street Minutes (<http://www.afterdowningstreet.org/?q=node/840>).
Over two years ago, then Ranking Member Conyers held a hearing in the
basement of the Capitol, the only space the Republican leadership
would allow him. At that hearing, several Democratic Congress Members
for the first time began talking about impeachment. The witnesses at
the hearing were Ambassador Joseph Wilson, attorney John Bonifaz,
former CIA analyst Ray McGovern, and a then unknown gold star mother
named Cindy Sheehan. They discussed the evidence of the Downing
Street documents, which added significantly to the growing body of
evidence that Bush and Cheney misled the Congress about the case for war.

This Monday, Sheehan and McGovern and a great many leaders of the
movements for peace and impeachment will lead a march at 10 a.m. at
Arlington National Cemetery. We will march to Congressman Conyers
office and ask to talk with him about impeachment. We will refuse to
leave without either a commitment to begin at once the impeachment of
Cheney or Bush or both, or our arms in handcuffs. The same day,
groups in several states around the country will be sitting in and
risking arrest for impeachment in the district offices of their
congress members.

Not everyone will be able to take part
(<http://www.afterdowningstreet.org/sit>). But everyone can take two
minutes on Monday and do two things: phone Chairman Conyers at
202-225-5126 and ask him to start the impeachment of dick Cheney; and
phone your own Congress Member at 202-224-3121 and ask them to
immediately call Conyers' office to express their support for
impeachment. Your Congress Member might just be one of the three
needed, not just to keep us out of jail but to keep this nation from
devolving into dictatorship.