Conyers Considers Cheney Impeachment Hearings
On Thursday, Chairman John Conyers’ House Judiciary Committee held a hearing at which Attorney General Michael Mukasey said that he would not investigate torture or warrantless spying, he would not enforce contempt citations, and he would treat Justice Department opinions as providing immunity for crimes.
None of this was new, but perhaps it touched something in Conyers that had not been touched before. Following the hearing, he and two staffers met for over an hour with two members of Code Pink and discussed activism and impeachment, including Congressman Robert Wexler’s proposal to begin impeachment hearings on Cheney.
Conyers expressed his concerns about what might happen following an impeachment, the danger of installing a Bush replacement or losing an election. But he said he’s listening to several advocates for impeachment, including Liz Holtzman and David Swanson of Democrats.com. He hinted he could be swayed by a convincing argument, leaning out of his chair for dramatic effect.
Apparently Conyers needs convincing on political grounds. It is certainly clear that should hearings commence, Cheney would be gone almost immediately – there is no way he would not step down when all the dirt begins to come to light – and I do agree that it is a daunting prospect to consider who Bush would appoint as a successor to Cheney. Rummy? Rice? TurdBlossom? The mind reels.
But here’s what you do. You RECOGNIZE YOUR POWER and you MAKE A DEAL. Chairman Conyers tells Bush who he’ll appoint – pick a Democrat, NOT JOE LIEBERMAN, who agrees not to run for President in 2008 – or he’ll start impeachment proceedings on teh Deciderer himself.
I do believe that if you stand up to a bully, he will back down. Will Congress remember this in time for their approval ratings to stay above negative numbers? Stay tuned.
And in the meantime, help convince Conyers to do the right thing.