for those dissappointed with today, what did you want to happen?

What was your expectations with HR333 today?

Shameful, but hey... as long as it's going to be discussed, that's what's important.

Yes, the vote to table it failed, but the vote to bury it in the judicial committee passed with flying colors.

And would have been defeated.

beats no debate at all.

:shrug:

despite all evidence to the contrary.

in the build up to the Iraq War, when it could just as easily mean burying this thing in committee and never discussing it again.

At least this way it still remains in play.

Good news is good news. I'm taking it!

http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/bdquery/z?d110:HE00333:@@@X

Yes, Conyers has sat on it for months. Will he continue to do so? Perhaps yes... and if he does, what will the results of that decision be, next year?

We'll see.

and support bringing it to a vote, not just to a committee.

I knew that wouldn't happen though.

It would've passed the 50% mark in that case. Then it would've been referred to the Senate for the trial. Of course, I'm dreaming, as I realize it's easier to enable an authoritarian than rock the boat to confront an authoritarian.

was written back then. Pelosi should have introduced Kucinich and stood up and condemned Cheney. Hell, * should be on the freaking thing too. But we all know that * is a good man, right? Cheney is too. Let's all play pattycake and ignore all the carnage and bodies stacked up on the side lines. I can't wait till we get to the new war. Maybe they'll start broadcasting it on Tuesday nights like they do football games.

Listen, I'm so disgusted with these politicians. Since when is it moral to just decide to kill people, and since when do we sit by and nod in approval or just plain wear rosy glasses so we can see it as just political gamesmanship? YOU explain to me what is right about leaving these war criminals in office.

DK introduced HR 333 on 4/24/07, at which time it was referred to the House Judiciary committee as per the Rules of the House. House Judiciary referred it to the Subcommittee on the Constitution, Civil Rights and Civil Liberties, which sat on it since then. I can't find a single record of a hearing, investigation, subpoena, or any other action taken by House Judiciary in the almost 7 months that they had the resolution. http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/bdquery/z?d110:HE00333:@@@C

Pelosi clearly meant what she said when she said "Impeachment is off the table." Conyers is on the Subcommittee that had jursidcition over HR 333 since April. Why didn't Conyers hold a hearing? He had the Articles of Impeachment right in front of him. Why the absolute silence from House Judiciary?

DK wanted to get the Articles out there, so he used Rule IX, wherein he could raise a question of the privileges of the House to move the Articles to the floor. He has my profound respect for that. But the R's were ready, and when they saw how the initial vote was going (overwhelming Democratic support for tabling the question, which would have killed the Articles), they attacked.

Make no mistake, LSK, the attack was coordinated and extremely well-planned, and had one goal; to make Pelosi and Hoyer look like absolute fools. Which it did.

I wanted this to die quietly. Instead, the r's turned it into a bloodbath and made the House leadership look like utter imbiciles.

To move it out of committee and that is why he does not act on it. That has always been my belief on why it sits. Now if I believe that, when a majority of the Congress votes it to Conyers committee, do you think that might change his mind?

Also, this is the same John Conyers who held those famous Downing Street Memo hearings in the basement with John Wilson and Cindy Sheehan, this is the same John Conyers who had the microphones turned off by James Sensonbrennor during the Patriot Act hearings, this is the same John Conyers who documented "What went wrong in Ohio" and this is the same John Conyers who wrote a book called Constitution in Crisis.

So given John Conyers track record, tell me why you think he did nothing to move on HR333? The only valid reason that I can think of is that he knew he did not have the votes.

Now given what happened today, I believe he might have changed his mind.

it was being overwhelmingly voted against by Democrats. only during the second roll call did it get crazy. i think the repug strategy was to get the resolution to the floor where it would be soundly defeated by a unanimous block of r's and a fractured Dem caucus. then all talk of impeachment would be forever silenced, because the House couldn't pass Articles.

they got their wish...the Democrats look like idiots because they introduced Articles, then couldn't control themselves and sent it back to committee.

Conyers still doesn't have the votes, and the first vote on the motion to table proves it.

Without a well documented case against Cheney, or *, this is going nowhere. Yes, we know there are impeachable offenses out there, but there are little bits here and there. You need a rock solid case, and as much as this administration needs to be gone, you should need a solid case to impeach a President or Vice President. It will turn into a fight between the administration, who has packed the courts, and congress. Patrick Fitzgerald couldn't even get all the documents he requested. In any case, it will spin out far beyond the end of this administration, and you can't impeach them if they are out of office. You can prosecute them however.

Remember, with all the millions and millions of dollars spent investigating the Clintons, the only thing they could impeach Bill on was Lying under oath.

Which is all that it takes.

Note: The Democrats have a majority in congress....for what it's worth.

Just proves the ones who didn't have no spines. :mad:

But, I'm happy that Dennis pushed this into the faces of the Congressional Complacency and I'm happy that his resolution will be played over and over in the media and I'm happy that it will generate discussion.