Locomotive Mule

The short version:

Sheehan and crew talk with Conyers and they don’t like what he had to say. In fact they so don’t like what he had to say that they were willing to park their keesters in his office until they were hauled away by the Capital police.

And now they’re crying about how Conyers had the audacity, the mendacity, the [insert prefix here]city to throw them out.

Here’s Medea Benjamin’s story:

I remember before the 2006 election being at a fundraiser in Los Angeles for the Democratic Party when one of the featured guests was Rep. John Conyers. The issue of impeachment came up and the crowed roared in approval when Conyers said that if the Democrats took control of Congress, he would become head of the powerful House Judiciary Committee and would initiate impeachment proceedings. That, he said, was one of the reasons why it was so important to go all out to get Democrats elected.

Fast forward to July 23, 2007. About 300 of us gathered at Arlington Cemetery, convened by peace mom Cindy Sheehan, to march to Cong. Conyers office to demand that seven months after coming to power, he fulfill his promise about initiating impeachment proceedings. Shouting “Conyers, Conyers need a reason? Torture, lies, war and treason,” the angry crowd packed the halls outside the Congressman’s office while Cindy, former CIA analyst Ray McGovern and former Conyers’ protégé Reverend Yearwood met with the Congressman inside.

So here we have a situation in which highly emotional people are confronting what they believe to be an ally with his inaction on a promise. Given our recent history, this alone should alert everyone that the frustration level is already very high. Further stage setting requires us to acknowledge that Mr. Conyers’ (or at least his staff) knew these people were coming - they had an appointment.

Rejoining the story:

A hour later, they emerged stone-faced and disillusioned. Cindy said that Conyers had told them that “impeachment isn’t going to happen because we don’t have the votes” and that “our only recourse was to work to get a Democrat in the White House.” The crowd booed and 45 people sat down inside and outside Conyers’ office. They were arrested by the Capitol Police as the supporters shouted “Shame on Conyers” and “Arrest Bush and Cheney, not the peacemakers.”

Imagine that, protesters being arrested in the Capital building. Surprise, surprise. And what’s also not surprising is that these good folk appear offended that they were forcibly thrown out by one of their “allies”.

But wait a sec, exactly why were they thrown out? Was it because they were blocking the important work of a powerful committee head? Was it because they were being unruly? I s’pose the answer is ‘both’. But let’s take a little closer look at what happened here:

Conyers (and his staff) knew they were coming. Certainly they knew the agenda and if they’d taken even a passing thought at the positions the two sides were taking, they (Conyers’ people) would’ve realized that there was going to be a confrontation and the police would probably be called.

So why didn’t they arrange for the Sheehan contingent to be accommodated? Couldn’t they have met in a more ‘crowd friendly’ location than the Congressman’s office? Couldn’t Conyers’ people have done just a bit more to prevent the bad publicity that (surely) they knew would result?

This is the point that makes me really wonder just what the fuck is going on here. Conyers and Pelosi did nothing at all to protect their “allies” in this situation. They’re standing their ground, hanging all objectors in the breeze and acting all powerful and hubristic just like, like - oh dear GOD! - George Bush.

Sure Sheehan and her people went there loaded for bear and they surely found it - they knew exactly where to look. And the result plays well to those that like that kinda thing. But the vast majority of us that casually observe these things will conclude that “they’re whackos” and their cause suffers a blow - to the head.

But why? Why does it lose credibility? Because it was “in your face”? Or because they “broke the law”? Or is it ultimately that their rudeness is an embarrassment to those of us that prefer a more decorous approach to conflict?

Well this is yet another example of how decorum and protocol are used to disarm, insult and nullify an opponent. I believe the real rudeness, the real incivility here comes from the Democratic leadership. They’re using the time tested approach of allowing their opponent’s perceived “lack of civility” be used to stifle the discussion. By allowing Sheehan and her group to be labeled as ‘whackos’, they’re actually strengthening their position (from a public perception point of view at least) without actually having to defend that position.

By allowing this situation to progress the way it did (and I’m sure it went exactly to script), the questions surrounding Conyers’ and Pelosi’s “reasons” are never really investigated. They’re no longer required to justify and support their positions. They can simply turn their backs and smugly accuse anyone who disagrees as being “whacko” and “over the top”.

Civility? Decorous public discourse? Sure, there’s always a time & place, but when decorum is used against one, there is only one avenue left.

From here:

I’ll give this to President Bush. He makes no pretense when he disses. He would not meet with Sheehan to define for her the “noble cause” for which her son Casey died or tell her why he had said it was “worth it.”

Conyers, on the other hand, was dripping with pretense as he met with Sheehan, Rev. Lennox Yearwood and me Monday in his office in the Rayburn building. I have seldom been so disappointed with someone I had previously held in high esteem. And before leaving, I told him so.

Throwing salt in our wounds, he had us, and some 50 others in his anteroom arrested and taken out of action as the Capitol Police “processed” us for the next six hours.

Okaaayyyyy. I can’t say as I blame Conyers for booting these guys. I’m sure his anteroom is not large enough for 20 people let alone 50 pissed off folks. So Ray, sorry but no sympathy here.

Movin’ on:

On May 29, 2007, Col. Ann Wright and I were among those who flew to Detroit for a highly advertised Town Hall meeting on impeachment, because we were assured that John Conyers would be there.

That Town Hall/panel discussion was arranged by the Michigan chapter of the National Lawyers Guild less than two weeks after the Detroit City Council passed a resolution, cosponsored by Conyers’ wife Monica Conyers-calling for the impeachment of Bush and Vice President Dick Cheney. We had hoped that Monica’s clear vision and courage might be contagious.

I had to remind the congressman that he did not show up for the Town Hall.

Apparently, that incident was of such little consequence to the congressman that he had completely forgotten about it. Small wonder, then, that he has apparently forgotten the oath he took to protect and defend the Constitution of the United States from all enemies, foreign and domestic.

Selective Alzheimers? I don’t know. What was clear was that he had forgotten a whole lot.

When I raised James Madison’s role in crafting a Constitution that mentions impeachment no fewer than six times, he replied: Madison did not say Conyers has to impeach every one. Why, if I had to impeach everyone for high crimes and misdemeanors, that’s all my committee would have time to do.

I’ll even give Conyers a pass on not remembering “yet another meeting” - even one just a few months ago.

But what he doesn’t get a pass on is the hyperbole. If that’s his job then that should be his top priority. Nothing Conyers’ committee does should take precedence over removing and prosecuting corruption wherever it’s found.

How about just Bush and Cheney, we suggested.

Conyers protested that he would need 218 votes in the House and complained that the votes are not there. His priorities showed through in his loud lament that if he fell short of the 218 votes, the Republicans and Fox News would have a field day.

There was no getting through to Conyers, who seemed astonished at the direct questions we were posing.

Ummm, if this is really what Conyers said, then I pretty much have to agree with the author that it’s time for Conyers to go. He’s become too comfortable in his power - too beholden to the trappings and lord knows what else goes with it.

It’s ironic - Conyers and his ilk will quickly use some great dead guy’s words to their advantage - but they never seem to understand that quoting some great dead guy is not enough.
One must act in the face of adversity in order to become one of those great dead guys.

Think of it - the Attorney General of The United States Of America is accused (ever so politely mind you) by several Senators from the very same United States of America of perjury.

Perjury. Lying under oath. Lying to Congress. Lying to U.S. Senators under fucking oath!

Think about that again: The Attorney General of these United States stands accused of perjury by U.S. Senators.

Need to think about that again?

Now try this one on: The President of The United States continues to stand behind this man, continues to endorse him and support him. What does that say for our so called President?

I assert that among all the other things that G.W. Bush has done or allowed on his watch, he his now obviously guilty of malfeasance and obstruction of justice. For if he were an honorable man with a modicum of respect for the law, he’d demand Gonzales’ immediate resignation and demand that he be tried for every possible violation and infraction that could be drummed up.

Without a demand of resignation, G.W. Bush is guilty of malfeasance.

Without a demand of investigation and and indictment, G.W. Bush is guilty of obstruction.

Jeeeezzzzzuuuuuussssssssss……. what do they need? What does it take?

From The Speaker Of The House:

Today the Judiciary Subcommittee on Commercial and Administrative Law met to consider the executive privilege claims asserted by White House Counsel in response to the subpoena for the production of documents issued to Joshua Bolten, White House Chief of Staff or appropriate custodian of records.

Chairwoman Linda Sánchez’s ruling:

Ruling on White House Executive Privilege Claims

We have received letters from White House Counsel Fred Fielding on June 28 and July 9 refusing to produce documents concerning our U.S. Attorney investigation that were called for in our June 13 subpoena to White House Chief of Staff Joshua Bolten, and further refusing to even provide the necessary information to explain his purported executive privilege claim. On July 17, Chairman Conyers and I again wrote to Mr. Fielding, notified him we would formally consider those privilege claims today, and again urged compliance with the June 13 subpoena.

Let me say at the outset that Congress certainly recognizes and appreciate the fact that, in appropriate circumstances, a President may need to assert executive privilege over White House information. We therefore take executive privilege claims seriously, and treat them with the careful consideration we believe is appropriate. In this case, we have given the White House’s privilege claims careful consideration, and the Chair is prepared to rule that those claims are not legally valid and that Joshua Bolten of the White House is required pursuant to subpoena to produce the documents called for.

After I make my ruling, I will entertain a motion to sustain it, but first I would like to set forth the legal grounds for it. A number of these grounds are similar to the grounds in the ruling sustained by this Subcommittee on July 12 overruling the related executive privilege and immunity claims sought to be raised by Harriet Miers through her counsel, and where appropriate, I will incorporate the reasoning and legal authorities by reference. The grounds for my ruling today are as follows:

First, the claims of executive privilege are not properly asserted. We have not received a statement from the President himself asserting the privilege, even though Chairman Conyers has specifically requested one. As stated in my July 12 ruling and as incorporated by reference herein, the courts have ruled that a personal assertion of executive privilege by the President is legally required for the privilege claim to be valid, as, for example, in the Shultz case. 1

The second basis for my ruling is essentially the same as the fourth ground for my July 12 ruling as to Ms. Miers, which is incorporated by reference herein. The courts have required a party raising a claim of executive privilege as to documents to provide a “descriptive, full, and specific itemization of the various documents being claimed as privileged” and “precise and certain reasons for preserving their confidentiality.”2

Such a privilege log has been specifically requested from the White House, both in the subpoena and in a subsequent letter, and the White House has specifically refused. In other words, the White House is refusing not only to produce documents pursuant to subpoena, but also to even explain why the documents are being withheld. In effect, the White House is asking Congress and the American people to simply trust on blind faith that the documents are appropriately being kept secret. Our system of government does not permit the White House to demand this type of blind faith and secrecy.
[… more …]

So Miers doesn’t bother to show up, at Bush’s instruction. The House rules that even if there were basis for executive privilege, the White House hasn’t done ANY of the procedures necessary to invoke it. Call it what it is: Obstruction Of Justice

And from Conyers (same link):

Statement of Congressman John Conyers, Jr.

Subcommittee on Commercial and Administrative Law Meeting to Consider the Executive Privilege Claims asserted by White House Counsel in Response to the Subpoena for the Production of Documents issued to Joshua Bolten, White House Chief of Staff, or Appropriate Custodian of Records

July 19, 2007

I am disappointed that we have reached this day in our continuing investigation into the U.S. Attorney controversy. Time and time again, I have emphasized the critical importance of acquiring information from the White House, yet as we sit here today we have not received a single document from them.

What we have received from them is an unacceptable “take it or leave it offer” that excludes any internal White House communications and suggests informal discussions with no transcripts. If we accept that stingy offer, no one should expect that the White House would give us a second bite at the apple. In fact, they have made clear that they will not, and that a condition of the offer is that we cannot ask for more under any circumstances.

This is one of the main reasons why we reluctantly had to resort to the step of issuing subpoenas for White House documents. Yet, instead of producing documents pursuant to our subpoena, the White House produced an unprecedented, blanket assertion of Executive Privilege.

Our sincere effort to obtain documents from the White House is rooted in evidence that we have received to date that demonstrates White House involvement in this controversy. We have learned, for example, that the White House was involved in the politicization of the Justice Department. New Mexico Republican officials complained repeatedly to Karl Rove and his aides about a voter fraud case that they wanted former U.S. Attorney David Iglesias to pursue. Mr. Iglesias was fired soon after some of these complaints, and one of the complaining Republican officials was suggested as his replacement.
[… more …]

More obstruction. It’s obvious to anyone paying attention that the entire White House is involved in criminal obstruction. Sure, it’s for the Courts to decide if they’re guilty of it but the first step is bring the fucking charges.

This pussy-footin’ around because “we don’t want to cause a ‘crisis’” or in the name of “civility” has got to end.

The President Of The United States is Obstructing Justice. I can’t get away with it and neither can he.

The time has come to send the Sargent At Arms to the pickup Miers and throw her in jail. Armed Confrontation? It’s time. Force Bush to either 1) back down and account for his actions or 2) execute his coup in public.

From the Grave, a Senator Exposes Bloody Hands on Capitol Hill

by Norman Solomon

It was a chilling moment on a split-screen of history. While the Senate debated the Iraq war on Tuesday night, a long-dead senator again renounced a chronic lie about congressional options and presidential power.The Senate was in the final hours of another failure to impede the momentum of war. As the New York Times was to report, President Bush “essentially won the added time he said he needed to demonstrate that his troop buildup was succeeding.”

Meanwhile, inside a movie theater on the opposite coast, the thunderous voice of Senator Wayne Morse spoke to 140 people at an event organized by the activist group Sacramento for Democracy. The extraordinary senator was speaking in May 1964 — and in July 2007.

A typical dash of media conventional wisdom had set him off. The moderator of the CBS program “Face the Nation,” journalist Peter Lisagor, told the guest: “Senator, the Constitution gives to the president of the United States the sole responsibility for the conduct of foreign policy.”

“Couldn’t be more wrong,” Morse shot back. “You couldn’t make a more unsound legal statement than the one you have just made. This is the promulgation of an old fallacy that foreign policy belongs to the president of the United States. That’s nonsense.”

Lisagor sounded a bit exasperated: “To whom does it belong, then, Senator?”

Again, Morse didn’t hesitate. “It belongs to the American people,” the senator fired back. And he added: “What I’m saying is — under our Constitution all the president is, is the administrator of the people’s foreign policy, those are his prerogatives, and I’m pleading that the American people be given the facts about foreign policy –”

“You know, Senator, that the American people cannot formulate and execute foreign policy –”

“Why do you say that? Why, you’re a man of little faith in democracy if you make that kind of comment,” Morse retorted. “I have complete faith in the ability of the American people to follow the facts if you’ll give them. And my charge against my government is we’re not giving the American people the facts.”

As Wayne Morse spoke, applause pulsed through the theater. I’ve seen the same thing happen many times this summer — whether in New York or D.C. or San Luis Obispo or Sacramento — with audiences suddenly bursting into loud applause when they hear Morse near the end of the documentary film (”War Made Easy,” based on my book of the same name).

Even most antiwar activists don’t seem to know anything about Wayne Morse. Whited out of political memory and media history, he was long ago banished to an Orwellian vacuum tube.

Compared to Morse — even today, more than four years into the horrendous Iraq war — almost every “antiwar” member of the U.S. Senate is restrained and unduly deferential to presidential war-making power. If you doubt that, consider the Senate’s 97-0 vote in mid-July that laid a flagstone on a path toward military confrontation with yet another country: warning Iran that it would be held accountable for an alleged role in attacks on U.S. soldiers in Iraq.

Morse’s exchange with the “Face the Nation” host on May 24, 1964, occurred more than two months before the Gulf of Tonkin resolution sailed through Congress on the basis of presidential lies about a supposed unprovoked attack on U.S. ships in the Tonkin Gulf. Morse was one of only two members of the entire Congress to vote against that resolution, which served as a green light for massive escalation of the Vietnam War.

As the years of carnage went by, Senator Morse never let up. And so, when a hearing of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee neared a close on February 27, 1968, Morse said — on the record — that he did not “intend to put the blood of this war on my hands.”

A big media lie is that members of Congress are doing all they can when they try and fail to pass measures that would impose a schedule for withdrawal of U.S. troops from Iraq. The Constitution gives Congress the power to pay for war — and to stop a war by refusing to appropriate money for it. Every vote to pay for more war is soaked with blood.

Wayne Morse knew that truth — and said it out loud. Today, few senators come close.