Ohhhh, no, God forbid, not ANOTHER letter!!! Excuse me while I pluck the figurative slings and arrows out -- Conyers, who knew how SCARY you could be?!

For the casual reader, new to the site, Jake D. is a bothersome troll, attempting to set the tone of each story by being an early poster of such drivel. Please read below for more insightful comments.

And here I thought he was a contrarian troll.

Thing is, Jake, our elected officials aren't supposed to be scary to us. In fact, we're supposed to be scary to them.

Scott:

Conyers is neither "scary" nor "effective" -- you take your pick.

Just a thought...
If the RNC decides not to comply with Congress, would it be possible for Congress, with a simple majority, to yank the RNC's nonprofit status...
If it were, the RNC would be bowing at Congress's feet to keep its tax free status... they wouldn't need to do any other proceedings...

Josh, you're getting your site jacked...

To my esteemed colleague and fellow Texan, VultureTX.

If official business had passed through RNC, MSN and Google, then that's a violation of the Presidential Record Act, and potentially, violations of many security statutes.

the inherent contempt authority means they are not going to refer it to the USA for DC, but arrest him directly and send him to the House Jail. Yeahhhhh!!!! Glad to see they are getting some balls.

Soooooooooo . . . the Republican National Committee is protected by "executive privilege" now? PUH-LEEZ!

These cretins have GOT to go! They have been sucking the nation dry long enough. Time to take your war profits, your lucrative oil deals and your seven-figure spots on oil company boards; and get the hell out of OUR White House. It'll take months to remove the stench and have it fit for occupation by humans by January 09.

Oh, for heaven's sake, just find them all in contempt, arrest all three, and bring this constitutional crisis to a head. I'm really tired of the Democrats' nibbling at the edges of their power while the Republicans laugh at them. We liberals deserve better than this crop of quislings representing us.

Ooohhh, another threat. I'm sure Rove, RNC, etc. are really scared. Fricking democratic wimps.
Why threaten? Do it!!!

Conyers is not overtly a gutsy man. That said, he is very knowledgeable, diligent, mindful, cautious, and sure of his facts and opinions. He doesn't 'do' frivolous. Ever.
h/t Judge Conyers in this endeavor.

Jake has admitted to receiving Social Security, which means he is not a true Conservative. Just talks the talk.

Oh boy, another line drawn in the sand. Yes sir Mr Conyers, you just give them ONE more line to cross. Now mind you, when they don't cross that line, write them ANOTHER FUCKING LETTER!!!

JESUS H FUSHING CHRIST!!!

FUCK YOU CONYERS! FUCK PELOSI AND ANY OTHER LAME-ASS SELL-OUT CRETIN THAT DOES NOT DO JUST ONE THING ... indict - impeach - imprison

>

There are people who know they are ignorant and try to correct the situation, but then there are those who are totally ignorant of the fact that they are ignorant. Seems that JakeD belongs to the latter category.
The little bugger no doubt thinks he's a cutting edge comedian with the ability to bring liberals to tears with his dazzling one liners. Little does he know that a good analogy to his antics would be a mortally obese woman who thinks she's 'hot' in a string bikini.

>

There are people who know they are ignorant and try to correct the situation, but then there are those who are totally ignorant of the fact that they are ignorant. Seems that JakeD belongs to the latter category.
The little bugger no doubt thinks he's a cutting edge comedian with the ability to bring liberals to tears with his dazzling one liners. Little does he know that a good analogy to his antics would be a mortally obese woman who thinks she's 'hot' in a string bikini.

It seems that Jake's sole purpose in life is to harass those of us who deign to differ from his limited view of life, but are trying to carry on a serious discussion.

If Josh gets fed up enough, maybe he will publish Jake's email address and we can put a stop to it...

enough with the warnings already. send out the Sargent at Arms. Bring the violators into the dock. Demand answers or straight to jail.

What is the reason to delay? Why the second, third, forth chances? the Constitution is burning down.

Don't let the perpetrators get out of town.

IMPEACH, INDICT. INCARCERATE!

Chris Cannon signed this letter??? THE Chris Cannon from Utah who so objects to these proceedings as lacking in integrity, because there's no "underlying crime"? THAT Chris Cannon? Sumpin's fishy, here.

I anxiously await Big Time and the Chimpster explaining why the chairman of the RNC is protected by Executive Privilege.

Conyers, Waxman, Leahy, etc. are wisely building a paper trail of evidence to be used at the time of their choosing. Yeah, it's maddening to watch, but I think they are doing it the smart way. One of these days, the hammer will come down. If the bushies weren't so worried, you wouldn't see so many of these paid trolls showing up on dem sites lately. Their increasing desperation is actually kind of pleasing to watch - sort of added entertainment to the main show of the complete destruction of this criminal administration, which you can just smell coming.

Representative Conyers is just doing the right thing, making sure the foundation is laid properly.

He's getting everyone's attention. He gives every reasonable opportunity to Mr. Duncan.

Consider the massive number of lawyers hired by the collective dictatorship, arranged layer upon layer. All real thorough and creative lawyers.

Twenty-seven for Chimptator alone. I always thought the truth only required one voice. The volume of truth here must be enormous!

Conyers wants to serve us. And he is, by the numbers.

So if executive privilege extends to e-mail systems outside of the White House, why didn't the higher ups at Enron claim executive privilege when they were under investigation? I mean, there had to be e-mails to Bush/Cheney/et. al. somewhere in there. Thus, if an e-mail involves the White House then it must be subject to the all-encompasing umbrella of protection afforded by executive privilege.

When you go to work tomorrow, immediately send an e-mail to the President. Then march right in to the CEO's office and demand a six figure raise, because you just saved the company from any possible investigation they could be subjected to. They can literally break the law and not have to deal with the various compliance laws because one of the e-mails involved the White House.

Yes, I'm laying the sarcasm on pretty thick, but doesn't anyone feel as annoyed as I do by these fallacious arguments coming from the White House?

Jake D.: "Ohhhh, no, God forbid, not ANOTHER letter!!!"

What are you expecting to happen here -- that the Magnificent Seven will ride into town and shoot all the bad guys?

We are a nation of laws, not men. Rep. Conyers is doing exactly what he needs to do to build a public case, and in the process is giving the administration just enough rope with which they'll subsequently hang themselves.

Either learn to have patience, or take Xanax. Your choice.

Who can embrace these whiners anymore? I surely can't! What 7 years of NO OVERSIGHT and now with 6 1/2 months of oversight the whiners expect justice overnight?

The dirty laundry list is massive. The paper trail that is being built will prevail. Karma!!

"We've been patient with the Democrats for six months while they did noting but stoop and bow to Bushist intractability."

Do the math, ass: the Democratic "majority" in the Senate is essentially illusion. The fot-draggers and obstructionists are the REPUBLICANS.

"Non-binding resolutions? Sorry!"

Do you know the purpose of such resolutions? I thought not.

"Democrats don't have the votes."

Correct.

"Impeachment? off the table. It's too messy, we are told."

No, we are not told that. In fact, Kucinich submitted a resolution to impeach Cheney. Murtha has publicly said that impeachment is on the table.

Some of us, not being assholes/Republicans, are for democratic due process of law _actively pursued and applied_. That includes the "nicety" of ethics. Third in line for the presidency is the Speaker of the House. Pelosi is the Speaker of the House. Ethically, because an obvious conflict of interest -- obvious to those who aren't clueless in that regard -- Pelosi is the LAST person who should initiate impeachment.

"The plain fact is that Conyers et al. are engaged in the same stall they've been running since last November."

The Democrats didn't take control until January, 2007; if you can't get that right, what else can you get right? The Democrats are not stalling; the Republicans are foot-dragging and on the record as being about obstructing, obstructing, and obstructing.

"If die-hard partisans like Daniel from Hawaii would quit shilling for them, they'd be driven to do the right thing pretty damned quick."

Driven by what, ass? The fact that they don't (yet) have sufficient votes to satiate your whining because the REPUBLICANS are foot-dragging?

"Tell you want, there, Daniel from Hawaii: Get yourself subpoenaed by the nearest federal prosecutor to testify at a grand jury investigation. Tell the prosecutor you need two weeks to consider his request and then, maybe, you'll comply. See how quick the federal marshals come to your house and explain the situation to you in terms you can easily understand. I guarantee: when you get out of jail (or the hospital), you'll be glad to testify."

What in hell are you talking about?

"So why should Bush and Cheney be different? Does our justice system work for everyone, or not? You can defend elitists like Conyers as much as you like. That doesn't mean they're not un-American scum."

It also doesn't mean they are un-American scum. Grow up, or go back to Sports Channel.

Posted by: Jimmy Montague
Date: July 18, 2007 7:28 AM

Inherent Contempt Power Google it.

The gears of justice grind slowly but inexorably. The respondents are given every opportunity to gather evidence and to raise objections. When the deadline passes and they are not forthcoming, they will have no legal recourse because they will have blown their opportunity. It's very difficult to appeal afterward when there is no evidence of due diligence beforehand.

Could these dumb bastards actually DO something? Do they realize how utterly ineffective they demonstrate themselves to be with this endless parade of letters? Any three-year-old can spot the parent who threatens to punish but never follows through.

Executive privilege won't hold up in court if congress says it's investigating a potential crime. In fact, the farther the claim of executive privilege wanders from being used to protect national security interests, the weaker the WH argument for it becomes.I think at this point in time the overriding concern at the WH is to run out the clock and then get out of Dodge before all their criminal activities come crashing down on them.

stop the BS and just do it, I'm tired of waiting for the it to hit the fan. Does anyone in Congress care about the Constitution?

"Chris Cannon signed this letter??? THE Chris Cannon from Utah who so objects to these proceedings as lacking in integrity, because there's no "underlying crime"? THAT Chris Cannon? Sumpin's fishy, here."

Could Cannon's signature be interpreted as a success by Conyers in getting a conservative Republican on board on this matter? If so, then it would be very short-sighted and unfair to rebuke Conyers so harshly for proceeding so gingerly.

The support for contempt citations and impeachment is overwhelming, so just get on with it.

Posted by: Captain Nemo
Date: July 18, 2007 1:30 PM

No, Cannon did not sign. The "CC" above the names is a courtsey copy; Cannon was on the CC: list, and did not sign.

JNagarya,

1) Do you feel at all hypocritical for telling someone else to grow up while calling that person an ass?

2) Yes, we have been told that impeachment is off the table. Nancy continues to be the obstruction to impeachment, and to make it worse, she has no right, legal or otherwise, to do so. Conyers is being held back from starting impeachment by Pelosi (if you are as up on it as you claim, you'll remember that when in the minority Conyers actually introduced a HR to impeach). Why would Conyers hold back if he wasn't being told to by Pelosi? Which leads one to wonder what Pelosi has on Conyers (or what they have to gain by not impeaching), and subsequently, what the bush administration has an Nancy.

Kucinich is the only Congressmember actually doing his/her sworn Constituional duty by introducing a HR to impeach Cheney, but don't think for a second that Pelosi is happy about it.

Need proof. How about the fact that the state of Washington was on the verge of actually forcing debate of impeachment to the House floor through the Jefferson's manual procedure when Nancy sent elected officials at the Federal level to a state to strong arm it into not letting the vote happen.
All so Nancy doesn't have to do what she knows she must do.

This is the most impeachable president, vice-president, and AG in the history of our country. The crimes are so many and so open that entire books have already been written (The Impeachment of George W. Bush by Elizabeth Holtzman for example) based just on what is in the public record to show just how it could be successfully carried out. You need to ask yourself why your "leadership" isn't doing it's job. And don't pop up with the oversight angle, its as worn out as shrub tying Iraq to 9/11.

Oh yeah, and as for the "don't have the votes" thing; the Dems do have the votes in the House. They have a clear majority there and could very easily begin the process of impeachment. Yes, the Senate is where the trial would be, and it might be killed there, but it doesn't really matter. What I, and many people I know want at this point is for the process to start. Success or failure is not the point, this president needs to be impeached and to have the tag to his name for eternity. Further, I happen to believe that the evidence gathered during an impeachment inquiry would be so damning and so unimaginable that there would be no choice but for the Senate to convict and/or the whole administration to resign (and be later held accountable for war crimes in international court).

"JNagarya,

"1) Do you feel at all hypocritical for telling someone else to grow up while calling that person an ass?"

No. Because my statement of the facts are the facts. When will such twists as "AngryAmerican" deal with the facts, instead of gratuitously bashing Democrats based upon a determined ignorance of those facts?

"2) Yes, we have been told that impeachment is off the table."

Murtha says it's on the table. Kucinich has filed a resolution to impeach Cheney. Democracy in action.

"Nancy continues to be the obstruction to impeachment, and to make it worse, she has no right, legal or otherwise, to do so."

Substantiate any of that. But don't leave out the ethical concerns re. such as conflict of interest.

"Conyers is being held back from starting impeachment by Pelosi"

Substantiate.

". . . (if you are as up on it as you claim, you'll remember that when in the minority Conyers actually introduced a HR to impeach). Why would Conyers hold back if he wasn't being told to by Pelosi?"

Why would Conyers know less about what he's doing, and what Congress knows and intends, than you?

"Which leads one to wonder what Pelosi has on Conyers (or what they have to gain by not impeaching), and subsequently, what the bush administration has an Nancy."

Ah, yes: the usual "I don't know anything, so I h speculate and "wonder" -- and immediately forget it is speculation and "wonder" so as to gratuitously mouth off and bash Democrats.

"Kucinich is the only Congressmember actually doing his/her sworn Constituional duty by introducing a HR to impeach Cheney, but don't think for a second that Pelosi is happy about it."

I haven't any idea what Pelosi's "mood Is as concerns Kucinich's resolution. Neither, in fact, do you. You simply make it up as you go along, then pretend it's the reality.

"Need proof."

Yes. Let's see what you falsely believe is "proof":

"How about the fact that the state of Washington was on the verge of actually forcing debate of impeachment to the House floor through the Jefferson's manual procedure when Nancy sent elected officials at the Federal level to a state to strong arm it into not letting the vote happen."

Substantiate that she did that re. Washington state, but not as concerns any other state, including California.

"All so Nancy doesn't have to do what she knows she must do."

It's real helpful that some humans -- such as you -- can read minds.

"This is the most impeachable president, vice-president, and AG in the history of our country."

No shit, Dick Tracy.

"The crimes are so many and so open that entire books have already been written (The Impeachment of George W. Bush by Elizabeth Holtzman for example) based just on what is in the public record to show just how it could be successfully carried out."

At least a half-dozen books so far, the above being only one-sixth of those.

"You need to ask yourself why your "leadership" isn't doing it's job. And don't pop up with the oversight angle, its as worn out as shrub tying Iraq to 9/11."

You need to ask yourself how you know more than Congress what Congress is doing, especially behind the scenes. While you're at it, ask yourself how far impeachment would get in the Senate.

"Oh yeah, and as for the "don't have the votes" thing; the Dems do have the votes in the House."

No, they do not. If they did, Kucinich's resolution would have carried by now.

"They have a clear majority there and could very easily begin the process of impeachment."

And when it got to the Senate . . .

"Yes, the Senate is where the trial would be, and it might be killed there, but it doesn't really matter."

Of course it matters.

"What I, and many people I know want at this point is for the process to start. Success or failure is not the point, this president needs to be impeached and to have the tag to his name for eternity."

Success or failure is the whole point, as a start. To try it and fail would bury it as an option.

"Further, I happen to believe that the evidence gathered during an impeachment inquiry would be so damning and so unimaginable that there would be no choice but for the Senate to convict and/or the whole administration to resign (and be later held accountable for war crimes in international court)."

Congratulations: you manage for a change to distinguish between, on one hand, belief, and on the other, fact.

I don't happen to believe that; but than again, I wasn't born circa noon yesterday.

Posted by: AngryAmerican
Date: July 18, 2007 5:12 PM

BTW: "Jake" is a troll who endeavored, briefly, to imply that he was a lawyer, in order to gain dishonest advantage for his BS. He supports your BS -- but not against the Bushit criminal enterprise, because "Jake" is a wingnut. I would blanche at such support.

JNagarya says "BTW: "Jake" is a troll who endeavored, briefly, to imply that he was a lawyer, in order to gain dishonest advantage for his BS. He supports your BS -- but not against the Bushit criminal enterprise, because "Jake" is a wingnut. I would blanche at such support."

That takes some chutzpah considering how the DEMs willingly seek the support of MoveOn and DailyKos. Whereas as a group they are known for false self representation, false accusations and routinely ignoring the the misdeeds of their allies in order to tear down their enemy. Which shows that both DEMs and GOP use the same tricks.

Oh I actually bothered to read the Presidential Records Act, and GWB can claim Executive Privilege to the specific emails of his staff on the RNC servers. Why, because the Act allows individuals personal possession of journals (notes,etc) that they are to turn in at the END of office. Till then they can store them as they please as long as they DON'T delete/destroy the journals. So the electronic equivalency means they are covered if they had direct consultations with GWB.

Oh I actually bothered to read the Presidential Records Act, and GWB can claim Executive Privilege to the specific emails of his staff on the RNC servers. Why, because the Act allows individuals personal possession of journals (notes,etc) that they are to turn in at the END of office. Till then they can store them as they please as long as they DON'T delete/destroy the journals. So the electronic equivalency means they are covered if they had direct consultations with GWB.

Posted by: VultureTX
Date: July 19, 2007 8:55 AM

Not if it involves violation of other law, such as the Hatch Act, as it appears to do. Based upon the evidence so far gathered and released, the Bushit criminal enterprise has violated the Hatch Act at every opportunity (see Doan and Taylor evidence and testimony, and Executive branch findings against Doan on the point).

If the current occupants of the White House were Democrats, and doing exactly the same thing, you'd be screaming your head off against it, and demanding impeachment, and prosecution, and worse.