Impeachment Resolution “Under Active Consideration” - Conyers Tells Scoop.co.nz

http://www.scoop.co.nz/stories/HL0711/S00262.htm

Stateside With Rosalea Barker

Impeachment Resolution "Under Active Consideration" By The Judiciary Committee

Following a discussion on “War and the Fourth Estate”, held in the Ways and Means Committee hearing room on Wednesday night, Rep. John Conyers—Chair of the Judiciary Committee—said that the impeachment resolution against Vice President Cheney is “under active consideration”. However, he stopped short of giving any indication of a timeline, saying that he can’t “telegraph” any information on what is “the most sensitive matter before the nation”.

During the discussion, which was organized by the Congressional Out of Iraq caucus headed by Rep. Maxine Waters, former Senator George McGovern, journalist Bob Woodward, and two other authors, Ron Suskind and Michael Isikoff, were asked by Rep. Stephen Cohen if—politics aside—they thought impeachment was warranted.

Isikoff, author of “Hubris”, suggested that Conyers should answer, but gave no answer himself. Woodward passed on the question of impeachment and said “there’s abundant evidence that it’s a legal war.” McGovern stated that he didn’t think “the mood of the country would carry it very far, but I do think misleading the Congress to get into the war is impeachable…. The grounds for impeachment are stronger than the ones we had against Nixon.” Suskind, author of “The One Percent Solution”, didn’t get the opportunity to answer, as Rep. Waters tried to move along the discussion.

Conyers then said to the four panelists, “Why is it all but one of you chose not even to speak to the issue? Every member up here is being besieged by people demanding an impeachment action be begun,” adding that “this is the subject that governs what happens in 2008. This is the subject that people are coming to us asking ‘if they don’t apply now, when will they ever apply?’”—meaning the impeachment provisions.

Woodward’s response was, “You’ve just fortified me in my resolve NOT to answer. What is the job of a reporter? It is limited. It is not the job of a reporter to make a judgment.” He pointed out that he didn’t do so even during the Watergate investigations, instead presenting facts in a neutral way, as is the job of a reporter. “To step out of that would be to cripple us. We need independent inquiry. We have a very limited role in this.”

Isikoff said he agreed with everything Woodward said, but that “there’s a lot we still don’t know.” On the question of whether it was a valid subject to be reporting, he thought Yes. Suskind responded that “All of us are trying to find the right line on the rule of law.” Earlier he said he thought that politicians and officials no longer thought it was bad policy to lie to a reporter, and that “you need to trust truth”.

The discussion had been announced last week, and tonight it coincided with floor votes on whether to debate the Iraq supplemental (HR 4156) that ties funding to troop withdrawal timelines, whether to pass an anti child pornography measure, and the debate on HR 4156 itself. At one time during the discussion, the only member of the House remaining in the committee room asking questions of the four authors was Eleanor Norton Holmes, who is the Washington DC Delegate to Congress. (Delegates are allowed to vote in committees, but in the House can only vote on amendments, where their votes are thrown out if they constitute the margin of victory.)

About twenty members of the public attended the event and the only daily media presence beside Scoop was a Fox cameraman. Although held in a committee room, it was not a formal committee hearing so was not recorded by the House. It ended after 8 pm.

The 10pm vote in the House on the passage of HR 4156—which passed 218 to 203—is here:

clerk.house.gov/evs/2007/roll1108.xml

*************

--END OF STORY—

According to the Scoop reporter:

"I had to chase Conyers down in the hallway. It was in answer to my saying, how can I frame the question so you'll answer it? Is it under active consideration? He replied, it's under active consideration. Stay tuned. I have a blog, website, emails."

"... Woodward passed on the question of impeachment and said “there’s abundant evidence that it’s a legal war.”
There's ABUNDANT evidence that it's NOT a legal war. IMHO. What a weird thing to say. Not only did he sidestep the question of impeachment, but then he goes off topic with "it's a legal war"? Even if it was a legal war (I don't believe it is), that doesn't mean there's no grounds for impeachment.

Is he saying it's a legal war based on the fact the President got permission from Congress for it?

That's like saying there's nothing wrong with the used car you bought that the dealer sold to you as being a Lexus, but in reality it's a Pinto. Yeah, the car's fine, I don't see anything wrong with the transaction. You paid for a car, and you got a car.

Repeatedly. I suspect that Watergate reporting happened only after the CIA decided to throw Nixon under the bus.

-Hoot

I was thinking of Bob WOODRUFF (ABC News guy) instead of Woodward! Major brain fart! You saying Watergate, is what got me back on oxygen. I know who Woodward is. Thanks!

indicating that impeachment of Nixon became a go once Bush Senior and the proto-neocons surrounding him turned against Nixon.

important to remember that Bob Woodward fully disqualified himself from being considered an objective voice on the Cheney administration's war in Iraq when he failed to disclose his role in the Plame scandal.

Nominated.

He was an invited guest at the Indiana University School of Journalism and had an opportunity to make a courageous, inspiring statement to 100's of young J-school students. What did he say? Well, his grand insight over the past few years is that reporters should work more at night. He recently took his young daughter to see "All the President's Men" and she said she didn't like it because the man who played him didn't look like him. He said that what he noticed about the movie was all of the interviews that they did at night -- that going to people's homes happened at night, talking to anonymous sources happened at night. He thought reporters should perhaps work more at night but that it would be hard on their families so he understood why they might not want to do that.

He got a very polite round of applause at the end of the talk. I sat quietly still stunned at the vacuousness and cowardice of his big insight -> reporters should work more at night.

Fully disqualified indeed.

Conyers, some woman, Mcgovern, Bob woodward (who if you ask me is biased (likes bush) as he's been writing book after book while sitting in the man's freakin' bedroom practically) and a couple book writers are all sitting and talking???

"Conyers then said to the four panelists, “Why is it all but one of you chose not even to speak to the issue? Every member up here is being besieged by people demanding an impeachment action be begun,” adding that “this is the subject that governs what happens in 2008. This is the subject that people are coming to us asking ‘if they don’t apply now, when will they ever apply?’”—meaning the impeachment provisions."

This is the most important text in the article. CONYERS is saying that PEOPLE ARE DEMANDING an impeachment.. but he, the politician in office, has to ask REPORTERS what to do??? Why doesn't he run out and find a priest like every freakin' politician in a movie with a tough choice?

These people need to be like Supreme Court judges. They need to be smart, need to know the law, need to have confidence in their own leadership and decision making. Conyers seems to have none of these qualities.

If they won't listen to the voices of the people then they should at least be talking to lawyers and Judges and find out what the rule of LAW is.

People with demands for impeachment. It felt like no one was listening to us!

Here's my take: I don't think he was asking the reporter what to do, as much as he was asking them to do something. (Please!) Why isn't the press and the media talking about it? The nation is clamoring for action to impeach, and where is the coverage? We wouldn't be talking about this right now without Scoop. We got this piece of news via New Zealand.

The topic was "War and the Fourth Estate". If we had a healthy, functioning Fourth Estate, we wouldn't be in this hole. We've lost what - 90% or so? of our free and independent press, if not to actual corp/gov control, then to its' influence. The Fourth Estate, historically, has been a huge part of holding the government accountable, and keeping the People informed and strong. If we could cut the cords to their corp/gov masters...

I didn't know Bob & bush were all chummy and working closely on a book!

Nail hits head - bang!

It was an odd thing for Conyers to say and in the context this interpretation makes a lot of sense.

I think COnyers is plenty smart and knows the law quite well. He's been through an impeachment, actually two if you count the sham Bill Clinton impeachment. I suspect the Dem House leadership wasn't so weak-kneed in the Nixon era.

I was thinking of Bob WOODRUFF (ABC News guy) instead of Woodward! I know the books you were talking about and you're right, he is too chummy. Sorry!

p.s. i like you're username.

It seems like he was floating a balloon to the reporters to see how it would be covered. That is Nancy's biggest fear, what angle the press may use.

Conyers needs to know that when he moves forward on Impeachment Hearings that the press won't chew him up. I don't think they will, as more of dickie's dirty lies and crimes are aired out on the public line, support for Conyers will just rise.

No amount of spin can cover treason and illegal wars-for-money.

the discussion group together. Maybe hoping to give a reluctant Conyers coverage or maybe Conyers and Waters are so frustrated with Pelosi's position they decided to do this.

I think what you say about "floating a baloon to see how it would be covered," is spot on.

The press currently is irrelevant. The process hasn't started in earnest yet. Only real constitutional experts should be consulted. Freedom does not wait for the opinions of the state's newspapers.

I have noticed that Alternet seems to be on the case. Moveon too perhaps. DFA.

:bounce:

Is this some new term that means nothing other than to invoke some sort of false hope ?

... its better than "off the table"...

Perhaps it means it is on a tray, on the way to the table. Plus he added some more remarks which suggest actual timing of something that he cannot disclose.

"Under Consideration" = "They've lost the file."

"Under *Active* Consideration" = "They've lost the file, but they're trying to find it."

J.

They don't have "Yes Minister" over there do they?

I think "Yes, Minister ..." and "I, Claudius" should be required viewing for every high school student in America. But that would require at least partial concession to reality, so I doubt it will ever happen.

Another gem from the series, which seems eerily prescient these days:

backdrop: the president/commander-in-chief of some failed state is causing problems a la Noriega or Hussein:

Sir Humphrey: "Well, Minister, in practical terms we have the usual six options: One, do nothing. Two, issue a statement deploring the speech. Three, lodge an official protest. Four, cut off aid. Five, break off diplomatic relations. And six, declare war."
Jim Hacker: "Which should be it?"
Sir Humphrey: "Well, if we do nothing we implicitly agree with the speech. Two, if we issue a statement we'll just look foolish. Three, if we lodge a protest it'll be ignored. Four, we can't cut off aid because we don't give them any. Five, if we break off diplomatic relations we can't negotiate the oil rig contracts. And six, if we declare war it might just look as though we were over-reacting."

Absolutely classic stuff.

J.

on Woodward and what a neocon stooge he's turned into?

Can he really believe that dipshit would have anything useful to add?

:shrug: