« Subpoena power takes a powder | Main | Now Why Would They Want to Bury Plea Agreements? »

September 11, 2007

TrackBack

TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://www.typepad.com/services/trackback/6a00d83451b97969e200e54ef01b7d8834

Listed below are links to weblogs that reference I'd Love to See Conyers and Pelosi in a Spat:

Comments

OK.

Go get 'em, Conyers!
(There's another phrase that could be used today, but I don't want to go there.)

EW -- Here is a link to an article in today's L.A. Times that is right up your alley. It is a reveiw of John Dean's new book on the process of how Bush & Cheney are controlling the government, essentially leaving the congress and judiciary in the dust.

http://www.latimes.com/entertainment/la-et-book11sep11,1,5754612.story?ctrack=1&cset=true

Please Dear God give Conyers the strength and inclination to blow past Nancy and march right down the path to impeachment.

The fact that this guy's being quoted is enough for me to know who has Pelosi's ear:

“I don’t think anything is going to happen on that for a while,” said House Democratic Caucus Chairman Rahm Emanuel (Ill.). “When you decide to do that, you have to make your best case. You want everyone to understand what’s happening and why.”

Andy Card's BFF from the good 'ol Serious Center and Dem VP of Brand Marketing. And dosy-do...Like the Bush Administration I don't think the Democratic leadership knows what it's doing either though both are seriously afraid of the internetstubes and the dfh stay-at-home bloggers. (god, while writing this I'm listening to Petraeus (again) and almost fell asleep.)

der, my worry is the Dem leadership knows EXACTLY what they are doing...

We might as well forget the Dems. This thing is over. There will be no accountability, and newly elected Dems will not end the occupation or Iraq.

We are not currently a functioning democracy.

I see only two options, a huge movement from grassroots in both parties not to reelect in the primaries or a new party formed where corporate money is absolutely forbidden.

The first is probably the most expedient.

Sorry to say it guys, we're wasting our breath with the most of our current office holders.

Time to change course.

Please Dear God give Conyers the strength and inclination to blow past Nancy and march right down the path to impeachment.
Posted by: phred | September 11, 2007 at 14:38

AMEN

I kind of bought the argument about making sure that everybody knows the issues in depth before moving forward, but the skepticism here is pretty convincing. My guess was that the contempt charges would seem overly political in the midst of the Petraeus-Crocker Iraq PR fest. And it could fail because so many Dems are confused and want to play it safe. If I thought that the dems could put together a coherent withdrawl and anti-war strategy, and then take up contempt and bogus executive privilege, it would be great. But everybody here is probably right--it's a mess right now, and it seems like Pelosi just wants to follow Emmanuel's political calculations. I doubt Conyers will trump with impeachment, but he'll put pressure on to keep moving forward I'm sure.

What is so hard and deep about this that could possibly legitimately explain the stalling? The house duly issued subpoenas valid on their face that these two administration slugs failed to respond to. Subsequently, the Judiciary Committee voted Bolten and Miers in contempt. What more is there to brief, discuss and understand? You either vote to uphold the decision and power of the House, and the Democratically controlled Judiciary committee, AND THE RULE OF LAW AND THE CONSTITUTION, or you don't. Jesus, this isn't rocket science here.

It does make sense to want everyone to know the issues in depth. Of course, you could have sent them home with a two-pager that would have laid the groundwork. Instead, they voted on FISA and skedaddled.

We're actually uniquely positioned here, in that the issue has actually crystallized around itself.

All Members really need to know is that subpoenas were issued in the matter of the US Attorneys firings, and defied. And that if they vote contempt, the case is referred for prosecution to... the US Attorney.

Now, would you like to have the issue come together like that? Forcing the White House to instruct US Attorneys to decline to prosecute a case about how someone else defied a subpoena investigating whether or not US Attorneys were getting instructions from the White House about whether or not to prosecute their cases?

You would?

Well then, now you know how to vote.

yeah. what bmaz said.

There is one thing that makes sense about this to me and that is to hold until we see who we have for a new AG.

This is a pending matter that could make for interesting questioning during confermation hearings. However, I serously doubt the WH is actually going to go through that. They'll put a temp in place and ride it out.

The whole thing's like two dogs chasing each other's tails with neither one really wanting to catch the other.

And screw Hillary and Obama. Bill Richardson's the only guy that seems on the level to me, And I like what he's saying --

"On my first day in office I'll end the Iraq war, on my second day I'll put a plan in place to make this country independent of foriegn energy."

That works for me - who else has had the ball to put is so plainly?

There is one thing that makes sense about this to me and that is to hold until we see who we have for a new AG.

This is a pending matter that could make for interesting questioning during confermation hearings. However, I serously doubt the WH is actually going to go through that. They'll put a temp in place and ride it out.

The whole thing's like two dogs chasing each other's tails with neither one really wanting to catch the other.

And screw Hillary and Obama. Bill Richardson's the only guy that seems on the level to me, And I like what he's saying --

"On my first day in office I'll end the Iraq war, on my second day I'll put a plan in place to make this country independent of foriegn energy."

That works for me - who else has had the ball to put is so plainly?

Conyers would not even have to initiate an impeachment inquiry. All that would be necessary would be to start a resolution of inquiry, wholly within his committee's responbilities.

That's the first step, anyway--determining if there's sufficient evidence for an impeachment inquiry. It would inevitably generate some press, and put on the record a long list of questionable activities of this administration. My great fear is that inaction by Congress will allow the Bushies to simply skate on what they've done, with the actual evidence of their wrongdoing buried for years, if not decades.

It would also present so many opportunities for the Bushies to ignore subpoenae that even Pelosi would not brook that sort of obstruction.

Why is it a shocker that Pelosi won't do anything? They've got her. Something that they have shown her that says we own you. I would bet it was in an folder that Chimpy showed her on her first visit as speaker.

To get anything done will need a one more than half petition of the members of congress to force it to a vote. At least my rudimentary parliamentarian skills say so.

Is it possible that Rahm,Steny,Blue Dogs,Bush Dogs and Nancy? are all part of Rove`s math? The only way to a permanent Republican majority is to control the opposition

The comments to this entry are closed.

Where We Met

Blog powered by Typepad