Conyers explains refusal to impeach Bush

By Ed Brayton 1/19/09 1:23 PM

The House Judiciary Committee, headed by Rep. John Conyers (D-Detroit), has released a report called Reining in the Imperial Presidency: Lessons and Recommendations Relating to the Presidency of George W. Bush. The document lays out the case against the Bush administration for rampant lawbreaking and constitutional violations ranging from warrantless wiretaps to presidential signing statements to the abuse and torture of detainees around the world.

In a foreword to that document, Conyers explains why, despite having spent years documenting such abuses and arguing that they comprise impeachable offenses, he has refused to bring formal impeachment proceedings against the president.

Despite arguing that “this President and Vice-President are among the most impeachable officials in our Nation’s history, and the more we learn the truer that becomes,” Conyers says that he has refused to pursue formal impeachment charges against them because they simply did not have the votes to win on the issue and failure to win the vote might set a precedent for avoiding such proceedings against future presidents:

The simple fact is, despite the efforts of impeachment advocates, the support and votes have not been there, and could not reasonably be expected to materialize. It takes 218 votes in the House and 67 votes in the Senate to impeach and remove a president from office. The resolution I offered three years ago to simply investigate whether an impeachment inquiry was warranted garnered only 38 cosponsors in the House, and the Democratic Leader of the Senate labeled it “ridiculous.” Impeachment resolutions against Vice President Cheney and President Bush offered by my friend and colleague Dennis Kucinich only garnered 27 and 11 House cosponsors, respectively…

While some of the difficulty in garnering support for impeachment results from fatigue over the recent and unjustified impeachment of President Clinton, and concern about routinizing what should be an extraordinary constitutional event – whatever the reason, an impeachment vote in the House was certain to fail. What, then, would be the precedent set by a House vote against the impeachment of President Bush or Vice President Cheney for deceiving our nation into war, allowing torture, engaging in warrantless domestic surveillance, and retaliating against those who attempted to reveal the truth about these acts? In my view, a failed impeachment – by an almost certainly lopsided vote – would have grossly lowered the bar for presidential behavior and caused great damage to our Constitution. More immediately, a failure to impeach President Bush and Vice President Cheney would have been trumpeted by their allies as a vindication for them and for their overreaching policies.

He may well be right about this, but at what point does it become a self-fulfilling prophecy? Is he not setting such a precedent in a de facto manner by presuming that he is avoiding that very result?

Viewing 11 Comments

ed56 1 month ago 1 point
Please login to rate.

Do you already have an account? Log in and claim this comment.

Actually I did read both, the report said “Rumsfeld's authorization of aggressive interrogation techniques for use at Guantanamo Bay was a direct cause of detainee abuse there” and Crawford said “I sympathize with the intelligence gatherers in those days . . . there still has to be a line that we should not cross. And unfortunately what this has done. . .”

Bill Clinton on the other hand had FIRST HAND knowledge by performing the very act, which he decided to lie about. My point is that Conyers dismisses this, rather than discussing the comparison of the two events.

reply edit reblog flag

1 /people/ed56/ /people/ed56/following/

Rayne1 1 month ago 1 point
Please login to rate.

Do you already have an account? Log in and claim this comment.

You need to re-read pages 110-112 very carefully. The White House deliberately sought legal opinion that supported their use of techniques that were in violation of Geneva Convention.

The WHITE HOUSE. Not Donald Rumsfeld, although Rumsfeld is clearly responsible for actions that happened on his watch and with his implicit if not explicit approval.

There's far more documentation to support the White House's role in the deliberation to use torture; the report by HJC Majority Staff only gives a high-level review.

Conyers didn't dismiss Clinton's impeachment; rather, he took into consideration the public's distaste for another impeachment after the debacle that was Clinton's, to the point that he chose not to pursue one during the Bush administration. You might also consider there were other pressures on members of Congress during the last eight years; those who had objections were often silenced, as Sen. Rockefeller was when he had objections to warrantless wiretapping.

reply edit reblog flag

-1 /people/Rayne1/ /people/Rayne1/following/

ed56 1 month ago 1 point
Please login to rate.

Do you already have an account? Log in and claim this comment.

John Conyers sits squarley on the left side of the Democratic party, and being so situated, his antic of investigating Bush comes as no surprise.

But to make the comment “unjustified impeachment of President Clinton”, after Clinton clearly lied under oath, truly shows his bias. I am pleased that President elect Obama shows moderation and common sense.

reply edit reblog flag

1 /people/ed56/ /people/ed56/following/

Rayne1 1 month ago 1 point
Please login to rate.

Do you already have an account? Log in and claim this comment.

Apparently you didn't read the report prepared by the House Judiciary's Majority Staff? Apparently you missed Bush Pentagon official Susan Crawford, who oversees military commissions at Guantanamo Bay, acknowledgment this last week that the so-called “20th hijacker” was tortured — a war crime and a high crime authorized by the administration?

Amazing that some still think lying under oath about marital infidelity can be so much more deserving of impeachment than war crimes and high crimes against the state.

reply edit reblog flag

-1 /people/Rayne1/ /people/Rayne1/following/

chetlyzarko 1 month ago 1 point
Please login to rate.

Do you already have an account? Log in and claim this comment.

Amazing that some still think “lying under oath” is justified because of the reason underlying the lie.

That aside, I agree – Clinton's lying under oath would not be “as deserving” as “war crimes” or most other crimes against the state (actually, I prefer crimes against the people as the term, but either way, “lying under oath” is a crime against the state/people because it erodes a central premise of the justice system – truth and truthful testimony – regardless of the motivation of the law). But impeachment is a binary question – yes or no. Not one of degree. Surely, Nixon's crimes against the people and the system were large orders of magnitude more destructive to the system than Clinton's – but that doesn't excuse Clinton's.

But finally, your point regarding the Bush-Clinton comparison is a strawman, because there is no evidence that Bush committed a “war crime” or other crime against the state (whereas the evidence of obstruction and lying by Clinton is clear, even though the crime “smaller”). There may be evidence individual soldiers (Abu Graib, certainly) or military officials committed some minor degree (compare to historical war crimes like Hitler, or more directly, Saddam himself), but no evidence of a Bush order. While there was an attempt by the administration to obtain lawful authority to engage in limited torture and detentions without trial during the heat of battle – each time lawful challenges to these policies were made and the Supreme Court acted as a check on the administration, the administration never willfully violated such rulings. It can hardly be said that there was clear precedent on each of these matters – so arguably the administration was acting in good faith in its belief that it had such authority. Compare this to say, Andrew Jackson's willful defiance of US Supreme Court rulings in the 1830s that the Indian Removal Act was unconstitutional and a violation of ratified treaties. Jackson's actions implementing that law – which the Supreme Court rightly tried to check – both lead to the nearly genocidal “Trail of Tears” episode and constituted a clearly impeachable high crime against the Constitution. So if we want to go back into the past and impeach presidents ex-post-facto-from-office-office, the evidence is clear for the first Democratic populist – Andrew Jackson. But such historical work is a distraction from the future – and while I certainly agree with the lack of wisdom in several aspects of the Bush foreign policy and homeland security plan, I can't see a clear case for it being a high crime or war crime (he was, after all, authorized by 90% of Congress to use force – I presume Hillary and others should be convicted by a future war crime tribunal under this theory?). The fact that the case is tenuous is evidenced by the fact that Congress – a Democratically controlled one after 2006, chose neither to impeach or even seriously attempt to restrain (more more easily within Congress' reach) Bush's ability to carry out the war. If the case for impeachment were clearer, I propose there would have been a stronger movement for it.

But IF – a big IF – someone commits a war crime, it would be “worse” than Clinton's lies under oath. But impeachment is a binary decision – magnitude should only matter in determining what the initial lower threshold of misconduct should be. I'd suggest any conduct that involves abuse of office for personal gain automatically passes the bar (Clinton's fit that clearly – he lied and misused his position for petty personal reasons, which is worse in some ways than doing it out of a belief it was helping the country), and then any conduct which knowingly breaks laws (that would be breaking the oath of office as well) even if with good intention (Nixon's intentions were arguably for the good of the country, but his willful breaking of law is intolerable), also pass the bar.

Of course, impeachment in reality is solely a political decision of the legislators of the time, given the public pressures and perceptions they may face.

reply edit reblog flag

3 /people/chetlyzarko/ /people/chetlyzarko/following/ http://www.outsidelansing.com chetlyzarko chetlyzarko

Rayne1 1 month ago 1 point
Please login to rate.

Do you already have an account? Log in and claim this comment.

You expended how many words to get to

But IF – a big IF – someone commits a war crime, it would be “worse” than Clinton's lies under oath.

???

Clinton's lie about his marital infidelity should never have happened; his failure as a husband was between him and his wife. Did he lie under oath? yes, but did anybody die? Why were the American people badgering him about his sex life anyhow, via Congress? Is that really what Congress was supposed to be doing?

The law certainly does measure intent and magnitude — we're talking about differences like those between accidental death, voluntary manslaughter and involuntary manslaughter, second or first degree murder. There's clearly a difference between each of those legal terms.

Bush's failure to protect the integrity of this nation combined with willfully breaching his oath to faithfully uphold the law is a serious matter; he failed a nation and people died as a result of his actions. There's an enormous difference between Bush's actions and Clinton's.

It'd be nice for once for conservatives to simply own up to Bush's multiple unlawful behaviors without the red herring of Clinton's lie about a blow job.

reply edit reblog flag

-1 /people/Rayne1/ /people/Rayne1/following/

chetlyzarko 1 month ago 1 point
Please login to rate.

Do you already have an account? Log in and claim this comment.

Perjury of any type is considered a serious crime not because the underlying motive of perjury is serious or high in magnitude, but because the system's effort to achieve truth is undermined. There are people who sit in jail for many years because they lie under oath in divorce and even harassment cases.

Of course the law measures intent and magnitude. Of course those perjury cases should be measured as less than murder or other higher crimes.

But the law also measures intent and degrees of negligence. You are reduced to vague broad swipes like “Bush's failure to protect the integrity” … and a weak negligence argument “people died as a result of his actions.”

Well, so too did people die as a result of Clinton actions, from Somalia to cruise missile strikes on genuine pharmaceutical plants (because of an error of intelligence). Even 9/11 owes to some extent blame for Clinton decisions, although it would be unfair in hindsight to give him an unfair share of blame (there's lots to pass around to everyone in government for many years). Clinton – nor Bush – should be impeached for making decisions based on imperfect information. You've absolutely no case other than vague arguments about the outcomes. Not everything presidents do will work. Failure itself does not make one a criminal. The presidency is a tough job – the forces of society and history are vastly beyond the control of even the most powerful person and what is called luck plays a role. But if you want to apply this standard to it – success or failure equals criminal activity, don't be surprised if an O'Bama is judged by the same standard.

I'll own up to “multiple unlawful behaviors” when you make a case for specific ones. Conservatives, on the whole, have owned up to the strategic failures of Bush decisions – if he was a criminal, Conyers would have gotten traction or prosecutors will bring him up on real charges (I look forward to that). And I didn't bring up Clinton's lie – you did as the comparison – I pointed out the spuriousness of the comparison. I have no need to defend Bush or look back to the past – he is now in the hands of history and future history.

reply edit reblog flag

3 /people/chetlyzarko/ /people/chetlyzarko/following/ http://www.outsidelansing.com chetlyzarko chetlyzarko

Rayne1 1 month ago 1 point
Please login to rate.

Do you already have an account? Log in and claim this comment.

SPECIFIC: the authorization of torture in direct contravention to U.S. law and treaties. See pages 110-112 of the report cited in this blog post.

Defend conservatives' position on that one; why did they not hold Bush accountable at a time when they had a majority in Congress? We're not simply talking about failed efforts here; we're talking about breaking multiple laws and making a concerted effort to do so. It wasn't just Bush alone, but Congress at that point in time which failed. Conyers makes the case that he did not believe he had the votes once power shifted to the left in 2006 — but right owned this from 2002 through Jan 2006.

As for the argument that perjury is a serious crime in comparison to war crimes: you must be comfortable with Libby's conviction as a perjurer.

Clinton was brought up by the commenter who initiated the thread into which you jumped — apparently you didn't notice.

reply edit reblog flag

-1 /people/Rayne1/ /people/Rayne1/following/

chetlyzarko 1 month ago 1 point
Please login to rate.

Do you already have an account? Log in and claim this comment.

PS – No, it was not “brought up by the commenter” – the Clinton impeachment issue was brought up by Conyers himself and quoted by Ed Brayton in the article. Conyers – and the article – make an issue of the relative justifications of the Clinton impeachment and the proposed impeachment of Bush.

Apparently, YOU didn't notice.

reply edit reblog flag

3 /people/chetlyzarko/ /people/chetlyzarko/following/ http://www.outsidelansing.com chetlyzarko chetlyzarko

chetlyzarko 1 month ago 1 point
Please login to rate.

Do you already have an account? Log in and claim this comment.

I have no particular problem with Scooter Libby's conviction.

I've read the three pages you cite. They still do not demonstrate Bush ever ordered torture – just that legal opinions within the administration advised him he might have legal authority to do so. Those opinions spurred an ongoing debate on the issue. In fact, spurring this debate was probably a good thing in the long-view. Certainly, you wouldn't jail presidential staff for issuing legal opinions (unless the opinions are so devoid of merit as to be frivolous), and while I take the McCain, position against the wisdom of torture, I don't think the “expansive presidency” argument (FDR took the expansive presidency argument to the extreme, and violated his oath of office under that theory just by lend-lease not to mention social programs, stacking the Supreme Court attempt, etc.), the non-citizen (not entitled to American law protections because they are non-citizens, but still theoretically entitled to Geneva protection), or the “non-state actor” argument (that's the weakest Bush lawyers came up with, but not frivolous) are so far out-of-bounds as arguments as to justify frivolous claims. Bottom-line – when Bush lost arguments in the Supreme Court, there is no evidence his administration willfully ignored those rulings. That's the essence of going over the line in legally gray areas. And finally, Bush was acting on the advice of his legal counsel – while that I don't think exonerates him from war crimes (just as taking orders doesn't exonerate a Nazi or anyone) -we have no evidence he ordered a single torture, and if we are to weigh “magnitudes” as you have proposed, the “war crimes” you propose Bush caused at most amount to a pinprick on the scale of history. Not a single death – some (clearly unauthorized) excesses of sexual torture at Abu Graib, and maybe some harsh interrogation techniques. Weigh that against millions under any of a half dozen historical figures (when some on the left compare Bush to Hitler, that common-sense weighing should be apparent). Harsh interrogation (which I object to as not effective because it elicits false responses), by the way, was par for the course by Americans in WWII. Indeed, if we are to ex-post-facto impeach Bush as Conyers proposes – let's include FDR on the list at the same time. He ordered massive detentions of AMERICAN CITIZENS and put them in camps. That said, I'm not against the further roll of history in documenting the Bush administration – but if its a partisan hack job be prepared for the long-term consequences when the political cycle shifts again away from the left. There will be partisans on the right looking to tarnish O'Bama or whomever for whatever, and they'll be just as wrong.

You certainly don't like Bush, you certainly may consider his administration to be immoral, but you need more than those opinions.

reply edit reblog flag

3 /people/chetlyzarko/ /people/chetlyzarko/following/ http://www.outsidelansing.com chetlyzarko chetlyzarko

Michael_Heath 1 month ago 1 point
Please login to rate.

Do you already have an account? Log in and claim this comment.

Conyer's inability to garner adequate political support is an example of what I believe is a continued flaw of our Constitution. The framers structured executive power oblivious to the fact that political parties (factions to them) would cause a centralization of power that effectively stripped congressional members of the power to fluidly caucus around issues and instead pressured them to yield to the leadership of their respective political party which finances them and provides them with their committee assignments. So rather than a legislature checking the President, we instead have two parties trying to check each other.

Here is an excellent article by Gordon Epps in The Atlantic magazine that takes up the cause of identifying and even proposing amendments that would better limit the power of the Executive: http://www.theatlantic.com/doc/200901/founders-…

reply edit reblog flag

1 /people/Michael_Heath/ /people/Michael_Heath/following/

Trackbacks

(Trackback URL)

Conyers explains refusal to impeach Bush

Add New Comment

Viewing 11 Comments

Add New Comment

Trackbacks

CATEGORIES AND TAGS IN THIS STORY:

Related Posts

Latest Posts