Comments (72)

Jimi wrote on October 10, 2007 1:05 PM:

That's just it, we don't have faith in congressional oversight. There is far too little and that being done is spineless.

anonymouse wrote on October 10, 2007 1:17 PM:

.... brought to you by the same folks who just signed the last surveillance bill which was supposed to be just hunky dorey, also...

Of course... we can't expect our overworked congress to actually give up an important vacation to pay much attention to a meaningless, little ol' unimportant surveillance law, now, can we?

blondie wrote on October 10, 2007 1:45 PM:

Jimi,

I agree. The sentiment expressed by Conyers is sweet and all, but if the last 7 years has taught us anything, it is that you can't always trust the independence of the Court, and more often than not, faith in strong Congressional oversight has been sorely misplaced and abused.

Stronger please.

gtash wrote on October 10, 2007 2:04 PM:

Jimi,anonymouse,blodnie:

True, true and true.

gtash wrote on October 10, 2007 2:05 PM:

Jimi,anonymouse,blondie:
True, true and true.

HelpMeIveFallenDownAndICantGetUp wrote on October 10, 2007 2:09 PM:

"I say that if you trust an independent court and have faith in congressional oversight, those liberties will not be jeopardized."

So, Mr. Conyers is claiming that whether or not our liberties are jeopardized is entirely dependent on whether or not we trust judicial and congressional oversight. If we trust them, our liberties are not jeopardized; if, however, we do not trust them, then our liberties are jeopardized. How very bizarre...

Well, count me among the untrusting. The courts have already ruled that this stuff is none of our business, as long as the Executive says its a State Secret. And the Congress has already demonstrated that they are not willing stand up to people who might call them names.

So, I guess my liberties are jeopardized.

Peter Principle wrote on October 10, 2007 2:10 PM:

If you can't trust the courts to interpret or enforce the law, and you can't trust Congress to oversee it, then you can't trust the law, which means it doesn't matter what's in the legislation because Big Brother will just ignore it or flout it.

But it seems to me that if anyone deserves the benefit of the doubt here, it's John Conyers. If HE'S in Big Brother's pocket, then the Republic is doomed anyway.

oleeb wrote on October 10, 2007 2:17 PM:

I have tremendous respect for John Conyers, but in this case I have to disagree with him for a number of reasons. First, we can no longer trust that congressional oversight will even occur let alone that it will be effective in curbing any abuses particularly if a rogue adminstration chooses to tell them to get lost. We have such an administration now and may have others in the future. This "compromise" bill gives such rogues a free hand to act as they please and there are no consequences. Our best defense of the constitution's protections is to staunchly defend and refuse to dilute the protections in the constitution itself. Second, and perhaps more importantly, this "compromise" the Democrats have rolled out hands this criminal adminstration almost everything it wants. What is left? In the process of conference, the Democrats will compromise away even more making this bad bill even worse and no doubt they will, in the end, allow the telecom companies to have gotten away with breaking the law with impunity scott free. That alone is enough reason to kill this bill now and not let it live a day longer. If we put this stuff into law as proposed, how on earth are we ever going to prosecute people who break it? Answer: we won't. What's to keep another Congress from retroactively protecting those who break this law? Answer: nothing at all.

Glenn wrote on October 10, 2007 2:19 PM:

Ditto the above comments re Conyer's paean to congressional oversight. I mean, was that supposed to be a joke?

As for the independent court, try this formulation instead: "If you trust a court that operates in total secrecy and whose members are appointed by John Roberts..." How's your faith now?

destor23 wrote on October 10, 2007 2:20 PM:

Trust independent court? No. Trust congress to apply proper oversight? Stop making me laugh.

dhs wrote on October 10, 2007 2:21 PM:

"and have faith in congressional oversight,"

So, John, what are you doing about the firing of the U.S. Attorneys? Why haven't you begun impeachment proceedings of Dick Cheney? Why did you quickly pass the Protect America act last summer and run off for your summer break. Why did you vote to condemn MoveOn.org? Why did you pass continuing legislation last spring to continue funding the war?
etc. etc.

When are Democrats going to get the message that they have lost our trust?

thomas wrote on October 10, 2007 2:21 PM:

I only trust the Constitution.
The last time I checked John Conyers and the rest of the congress critters took an oath to protect and defend it. It's about time they started protecting and defending! God knows the executive branch isn't going to and the judiciary is in league with the executive.

Craig Huber wrote on October 10, 2007 2:25 PM:

My response to Rep. Conyers:

Show me substantive responses to Congressional requests for documentation, or consequneces for failure to respond.

Show me individuals going to prison for failing to appear before Congressional committees under subpoena.

Show me individuals being brought up on charges for bald-faced lying to those same committees.

Show me a Congress that can perform even the basic rudiments of "oversight", and I will then determine whether I have any "faith" in it. Until then, your entire argument is a moot point.

quasar wrote on October 10, 2007 2:26 PM:

The substance of the bill is what matters. Not a COMPLETE reversal of what is needed for a reinstatement of civil liberities. We already have that in the Constitution. All that is needed now is a forestalling of the FISA bill through the RESTORE act for THE FISA bill to become non-existent in February of 2008. Let Bush veto this... is all this House is saying. What you may be watching is not the thrill of an explosion by way of results...but an implosion by striping away of the inner corrosion.

ARG in Chicago wrote on October 10, 2007 2:28 PM:

I also have a lot of respect for John Conyers. But I remain skeptical of this particular bill. The guy I really trust on things like this is Russ Feingold. If he comes out and blesses the bill, then I'll be satisfied. (Of course, he's on the Senate side, and they are drafting their own version now, so he may not say anything about this House version.)

-- ARG

Brian M wrote on October 10, 2007 2:29 PM:

When Conyers says that trust in judicial restraint and congressional oversight "is the premise our democracy" he is exactly correct. The fact that he does not even address what to all thinking people is the state of the level of trust the citizens have in that premise is disconcerting.

There seems to be a disconnect between our national leadership and the real anxiety that is evident in the citizenry that something is going wrong, terribly wrong with our system. I for one am more afraid of that direction than I am the terrorists and it is that direction which means the terrorists are winning.

They may not be able to destroy our nation but they are certainly succeeding in the destruction on our national soul from within.

Wil Burns wrote on October 10, 2007 2:35 PM:

It's time for House Judiciary Committee chairman John Conyers (D-MI)to retire!

Legalize wrote on October 10, 2007 2:41 PM:

What? I'm supposed to "trust" the Congress that has repeatedly failed to oversee stuff, to actually oversee other stuff? You have to do better than that.

Bill Cameron wrote on October 10, 2007 2:42 PM:

Yup. Me too. No trust.

linda wrote on October 10, 2007 2:42 PM:

***I say that if you trust an independent court and have faith in congressional oversight***

bingo. no, i don't trust that there is an independent court and i sure as shit don't have any faith in congressional oversight. (please provide evidence that such a thing actually exists)

OCPatriot wrote on October 10, 2007 2:43 PM:

Time to replace Conyers, Waxman, Leahy, Pelosi and all the rest of these wimpy scared of their own shadow Democrats who were going to turn things around and get us out of Iraq. What a disappointment these cowardly politicians have been. We need more people like Webb.

Shinobi wrote on October 10, 2007 2:46 PM:

Y'know, the RESTORE act may not be my ideal situation. But it is surely better than what we currently have, completely under the table wiretapping. I would prefer none at all, but if I can get it being overseen by SOMEONE, PLUS accountability for companies that complied, well then I'm going to take it.

And then in a year, I'm going to get rid of the rest of it, and sue the pants off those companies.

k wrote on October 10, 2007 2:46 PM:

The ACLU said the following in an email this morning:

1. Please support the FISA Modernization Act of 2007 introduced by Representative Rush Holt, instead of the RESTORE Act. Only pass a FISA modernization bill that has individualized warrants.

2. Blanket or program “warrants” that allow the government to vacuum up the international telephone calls and emails of Americans aren’t really warrants at all, and they aren’t constitutional.

What does each bill say about amnesty for the telcos? I don't know.

HelpMeIveFallenDownAndICantGetUp wrote on October 10, 2007 2:47 PM:

Peter Principle: "If you can't trust the courts to interpret or enforce the law, and you can't trust Congress to oversee it, then you can't trust the law, which means it doesn't matter what's in the legislation because Big Brother will just ignore it or flout it."

Dear Leader has continually asserted that he is not bound by restrictive statutes like FISA. The administration continues to claim that as our Savior, Dear Leader can choose to ignore FISA and spy on us in any way he decides. So, we already know that the law is irrelevant.

Furthermore, the specifics of the Conyers bill are equally irrelevant. This act is about getting something to pass the House. Once they have something passed in both branches, they will simply rewrite the thing in Secret Conference. They will then pass the thing that they wrote in Secret Conference. And they will then complain that they waz twicked by the twicky wepublicans. But they will promise to get them wepublicans wext time.

J. Knight wrote on October 10, 2007 2:51 PM:

Vote Republican and let Congress with the help of the
DemocRATS finish Newt Gingrich's Contract ON
America

oldtree wrote on October 10, 2007 2:52 PM:

having yet another member of congress or a government asking us to trust them is not the productive sort of cough one requires when removing phlegm from one's bronchia that is better not swallowed

Thucydides JR. wrote on October 10, 2007 2:56 PM:

Craig Huber - Exactly. Superbly put.

If these folks actually used the teeth the Constitution gave them, then I would agree with Conyers. As it is, we have sound and fury, sternly worded letters, and much handwringing. I do not call that effective. oversight.

It's your Jerry Maguire moment, Mr. Conyers. You want faith. We're saying:

Show us the documents. Show us the enforced subpeonas. Show us the perjury charges.

Our faith is drained. You need to build it up again.

quasar wrote on October 10, 2007 3:01 PM:

For those that want to get behind impeachment proceedings then support Dennis Kucinich's proposed bill and presidential candidacy. What are the various representatives in your state doing to uphold congressional oversight?.

phil james wrote on October 10, 2007 3:09 PM:

1) Faith in what independent court? You mean an independent court like the one that brought us Bush in the first place? Or like the current court stacked by Bush with Roberts and Alito who took a secret oath to uphold the neo-con far-right agenda?
2) The Dems were elected because it was pretty clear there was no Congressional oversight. Not much to trust about that. The newly elected Dems were supposed to shine a bright light on the nefarious activities of Bushco being done in the name of protecting us, which we suspected were unlawful and dangerous to our own civil liberties. Now the Dems are doing the same thing and telling us to just shut up and take it. We want to know what the hell is being done to us that is supposedly for our protection. Don't give us this "trust us" crap.

Clearly, you misunderstand the trust issue here. You Mr. Conyers are not Daddy who can't trust us with the car because we haven't gone through driver's ed yet. WE own this country and we've given you the keys to it just so long as WE trust YOU. Give us just one good reason to.

VictorLaszlo wrote on October 10, 2007 3:15 PM:

A couple of years ago, even a year ago, my reaction to this would have been "well, Conyers is OK with it, it must be OK."

Today, however, my reaction is "Oh God, we've lost Conyers".

quasar wrote on October 10, 2007 3:18 PM:

...and with the ear deafening outcries of public and personal dissatisfaction on the national level...why are not our neighborhood, city, county, district, and state levels receiving the same loud public protests of oversight from us?
Seems we do want demigods to lead us. Freedom can be scary, I guess.

rmwarnick wrote on October 10, 2007 3:20 PM:

Has Rep. Conyers lapsed into Bush-speak? You can't protect the Constitution by passing unconstitutional legislation.

neo1 wrote on October 10, 2007 3:22 PM:

seems to be another Jack Bauer moment -- "you're going to have to trust me on this".

Well I would trust Jack before I would trust these clowns. "By their fruits ye shall know them."

chisholm wrote on October 10, 2007 3:28 PM:

Conyers' statement--"If you have faith in congressional oversight"--sums the whole thing up perfectly. He STILL has no idea of what a joke he and the Democrats have become! In the chasm between that statement and reality lies the Democrats' problem.

jm wrote on October 10, 2007 3:31 PM:

OCPatriot wrote: "We need more people like Webb."

WTF? Last August, Webb vocally supported the Fourth Amendment gutting abomination the RESTORE bill lamely seeks to redress.

What good will leaving Iraq do if we live in a society that ever more resembles a police state, a country that will soon be engaged in battle elsewhere?

Webb opposes Iraq on practical grounds. If there was a way to achieve Bush's aims without breaking the military, Webb would undoubtedly be in support of it. Just as he will undoubtedly support the next engagement in line undertaken as part of our perpetual war policy. Given that these future battles will likely be asymmetrical, it makes perfect sense that Webb and his ilk want warantless eavesdropping power once their party is pulling the strings again (or is it having their strings pulled?).

We need more people in congress who take their oath to protect and defend the Constitution seriously.

We need more citizens capable of critical thought.

Anonymous wrote on October 10, 2007 3:36 PM:

rmwarnick wrote on October 10, 2007 3:20 PM:
Has Rep. Conyers lapsed into Bush-speak? You can't protect the Constitution by passing unconstitutional legislation.

EXACTLY!

Get where they're going on this one?
*hint hint*

Let Bush veto it. He's racking them up. He had been the only president not to veto a bill. This and SCHIP are damaging. He will because he doesn't want to issue siging statemnts to these things! Can you imagine?

Barry Champlain wrote on October 10, 2007 3:39 PM:

Rep. Conyers has always been, thus far, an unassailable ally of the rule of law and the preservation of the Constitution. His efforts to investigate these filthy thieves at the top of our country has been brave and laudable.

Therefore, when he affixes his seal of approval to this bill, he's lending his good name to it. Which we, by and large, have always trusted.

Now... if it turns out we got screwed yet again... this will dismiss Conyers permanently, as a leader we can trust, and he will be relegated to the pile of capitulationist enablers to which the base has now dispatched the rest of our Democratic Congress (whether they realize it or not).

That's the deal. Benefit of doubt, to a guy who's really earned it, until proven differently. Okay?

busdrivermike wrote on October 10, 2007 3:48 PM:

I am done with "the benefit of the doubt" hypothesis. Where the heck has everyone been the last six years?

All the Democratic Leadership has gotten in line to get the White House in '08. Trouble is, they are becoming right wing Rethuglicans to do it.

osage wrote on October 10, 2007 3:52 PM:

The GOP's enabling of Bush has too thoroughly poisoined the well of trust Americans once had for the integrity of elected officials. We now want a system wherein their is no "need" for trust or subjective interpretation, only ironclad rules/laws that are enforced to the letter with unfailing vigilance and unflinching severity. We can no longer afford the luxury of "differing" legal opinions. EVERYONE needs to know that if they even come close to violating a law, they will be prosecuted immediately no matter WHO they are!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

quasar wrote on October 10, 2007 3:52 PM:

Let...Bush...veto...it!

chabuka wrote on October 10, 2007 4:02 PM:

Thank You....Congressman Conyers..!

Now if you would please take Nancy Pelosi in for a brain transfusion (or at least have her read the Constitution, and take a test on it)....she said on the Ed Shultz show just yesterday, that she could not see a connection between Bush/Gonzales "torture memos" and impeachment..brain dead

chabuka wrote on October 10, 2007 4:03 PM:

Thank You....Congressman Conyers..!

Now if you would please take Nancy Pelosi in for a brain transfusion (or at least have her read the Constitution, and take a test on it)....she said on the Ed Shultz show just yesterday, that she could not see a connection between Bush/Gonzales "torture memos" and impeachment..(brain dead woman)

phil james wrote on October 10, 2007 5:13 PM:

When an exhausted parent can't come up with a substantive reason for Junior to do whatever it is Dad or Mom wants them to do the reason almost invariably becomes "because I said so". This is a because I said so moment and we are the unruly children. No TV tonight and no music in your room and no slumber party this weekend. I don't have to explain my rules. You're just children. Children should be seen and .... etc.

Randy H wrote on October 10, 2007 5:40 PM: Randy H wrote on October 10, 2007 5:46 PM:

....sound of crickets.....

The Man wrote on October 10, 2007 5:53 PM:

Maybe if Conyers showed some guts and actually enforced some of the subpoenas he has issued and that have then been summarily ignored I would have more faith in congressional oversight.

But then again, why are we debating this bill? George Bush has already stated that he has absolute authority to do whatever it takes to defend this country.

In this case, it may require another signing statement informing the congress that their opinions and bills are irrelevant! The idea that congress has any control over the President is a silly throwback to a simpler time when the constitution guided our country. As we are all aware…this all changed with 911! Now only the President knows what is right and can protect us! Conyers huffs and puffs and threatens to blow the White House down, but in the end he gets eaten by the big bad bushy wolf.

quasar wrote on October 10, 2007 6:48 PM:

Congress doesn't have any control over the President...only the purse strings.

quasar wrote on October 10, 2007 6:53 PM:

Maybe Congress is gonna cut off Georgie's allowance. Like a good parent would.

Mary wrote on October 10, 2007 7:00 PM:

How do you have "faith" in the oversight of a Congress that takes impeachment off the table? That rubber stamps? That won't enforce subpoenas? And on and on.

starwheel wrote on October 10, 2007 7:01 PM:

This shouldn't even be up for discussion.

Congress should have impeached the President for admitting he violated the existing laws on the books.

And Conyers wants me to trust him?

Please.

Anonymous wrote on October 10, 2007 7:02 PM:

"Conyers huffs and puffs and threatens to blow the White House down, but in the end he gets eaten by the big bad bushy wolf."

This sounds like a Disney version of the fairy tale.

What I seem to remember is that the character that took time to build his house with bricks (even to the harsh criticisms of his more impulsive brothers) is the one that had to shield his brothers from the big bad wolf.
...Then they ate Wolf soup.

quasar wrote on October 10, 2007 7:13 PM:

"Congress should have impeached the President for admitting he violated the existing laws on the books."

What laws has Bush admitted he violated?

You want the circus of impeachment now? Remember how in the last impeachment proceedings nothing got done? You want that? Or a measure of your civil liberties reestablished? Or a consensus on a withdrawal? Or the funding stopped?

Congress is trying to defuse a bomb!

Praedor Atrebates wrote on October 10, 2007 7:25 PM:

Well, see Conyers, here's the thing. Ya'll are in the majority and have been since 2006. There STILL isn't any Congressional oversight. None. All you do, in the House and Senate, is BEGIN investigations to give the impression of oversight but when Bush resists, you quit. In EVERY case, either Bush simply says "no" and you quit, most likely, because ANY investigation actually going anywhere would demand impeachment. Under NO circumstances must there be impeachment. Thus, you don't actually DO oversight for fear of having to do your Constitutional duty for real.

When the Republicans are in the majority, they don't even pretend to practice oversight if the President is a Republican, but if it is a Democrat, they fire off Independent Councils at every single office of the Executive and obstruct literally everything else and call THAT oversight.

You people, GOP or Democrat, cannot be trusted to actually DO oversight, let alone do the "people's business". So I'll end this short and sweet: Shut the hell up you useless candyass.

feckless wrote on October 10, 2007 7:36 PM:

CONGRESSIONAL OVERSIGHT?

You mean like Karl Rove refusing to answer subpoenas?

I am a big fan and former constituent of Mr. Conyers, but it isn't 1984 yet, some of us can still remember last May.

Anonymous wrote on October 10, 2007 7:37 PM:

Wow...that was rude

lisa wrote on October 10, 2007 7:38 PM:

"Trust me.

Just because I kicked you in the jimmy before, and the time before that, and the time before that ... why do you assume I am going to kick you in the jimmy this time?"

Yeah, Mr. Conyers. The problem is definitely with us. We'll try to be less critical.

In the meantime, though, I'm buying a cup.

quasar wrote on October 10, 2007 7:46 PM:

What I don't get is why so many people want to impeach Bush when Cheney would be the one next in line to hold the office.
How is THAT better?

Don't you think he's snickering somewhere in the dark everytime someone mentions impeach Bush in a drastic tone? He'd love that.

Taxes, Death, and Corruption wrote on October 10, 2007 8:12 PM:

i both fear and despise this government, and i have NO CONFIDENCE in anything it spits out. The concept of freedom that this country was so violently fought for is DEAD, as is my and all of our protections from it.

Big Brother is not only an active creature, but he's hungry.

quasar wrote on October 10, 2007 8:53 PM:

Taxes, Death, and Corruption wrote on October 10, 2007 8:12 PM:
"i both fear and despise this government, and i have NO CONFIDENCE in anything it spits out. The concept of freedom that this country was so violently fought for is DEAD, as is my and all of our protections from it.

Big Brother is not only an active creature, but he's hungry."

Well...so much for give me liberty or give me death.

sdhays wrote on October 10, 2007 9:26 PM:

"if you trust an independent court and have faith in congressional oversight, those liberties will not be jeopardized."

How am I supposed to have faith in Congressional oversight when the administration can simply choose not to give Congress information when it demands it? Congress still writes laws based on what the administration wants without knowing how the administration is using the current law. Blanket warrants aren't warrants. The fact that you have the FISA court granting blanket warrants doesn't really make them less prone to abuse than if Dick Cheney is the one granting them. So I don't think that the "independent court" is sufficiently involved to make a difference and I don't have faith in Congressional oversight. Do you see the problem now, John?

What does Conyers have to say about immunity for lawbreakers? Is he willing to trade the rule of law for information he should be given anyway?

Anonymous wrote on October 10, 2007 10:01 PM:

sdhays wrote on October 10, 2007 9:26 PM: "What does Conyers have to say about immunity for lawbreakers? Is he willing to trade the rule of law for information he should be given anyway?"

Obviously you don't understand (or didn't read) what was in the RESTORE act and why Bush was sweating today.

Ben F. wrote on October 10, 2007 10:02 PM:

James Madison, Virginia Ratifying Convention
20 June 1788Papers 11:163

I have observed, that gentlemen suppose, that the general legislature will do every mischief they possibly can, and that they will omit to do every thing good which they are authorised to do. If this were a reasonable supposition, their objections would be good. I consider it reasonable to conclude, that they will as readily do their duty, as deviate from it: Nor do I go on the grounds mentioned by gentlemen on the other side--that we are to place unlimited confidence in them, and expect nothing but the most exalted integrity and sublime virtue. But I go on this great republican principle, that the people will have virtue and intelligence to select men of virtue and wisdom. Is there no virtue among us? If there be not, we are in a wretched situation. No theoretical checks--no form of government can render us secure. To suppose that any form of government will secure liberty or happiness without any virtue in the people, is a chimerical idea. If there be sufficient virtue and intelligence in the community, it will be exercised in the selection of these men. So that we do not depend on their virtue, or put confidence in our rulers, but in the people who are to choose them.

quasar wrote on October 10, 2007 10:10 PM:

Madison was a Federalist wasn't he?

phil james wrote on October 10, 2007 11:22 PM:

If there be sufficient virtue and intelligence in the community,

Well that's gone to hell already hasn't it with the election and re-election of Dubya in the first place. In fact, the electoral strategy of the Rovepublican party is to put full trust in the ignorance, fear, and intolerance of the governed. Welcome to AMERIKA

Patrick wrote on October 10, 2007 11:30 PM:

Sigh. Conyers asks us to embrace the Dems cave on warrantless searches/seizures with a "trust me -- you can trust the courts and Congress" on the same day Patrick Leahy caves on his threat to hold up the USAG confirmation until he gets documents regarding the attorney purge that the White House has been withholding. Actions, or rather inaction, speak louder than words.

Don't ask for my trust or faith any longer. By failing to hold this Administration accountable for the innumerable lies, the countless times breaking the law and violating the Constitution . . . by not really even trying . . . the Democratic leadership has killed my faith, squandered my trust and left me completely convinced that this sick system of government will totter on for another decade or so until it collapses upon itself.

So where's that leave us? Frankly, I think it leaves me with a "fight or flee" choice. I've got a family. So I'm fleeing. Good luck & Godspeed my former fellow Americans.

quasar wrote on October 11, 2007 12:03 AM:

TOODLES!

parrot wrote on October 11, 2007 2:33 AM:

What Conyers failed to note was that many Americans are losing faith in the ability of the Republic to enforce the laws it has passed in the past, let alone those in the future. Right now, under the old FISA, there have been enormous, obvious violations of the law...by King George and his henchmen. Where is the law enforcement? Lost in a sea of legal speculation on the Constitution? For some reason, the creation of legal opinions is deemed more important than actually following the letter and intention of the law and America's signed and ratified treaties. So, will passing another law do any good? Let's hope so...but let's not kid ourselves...given the history of the past seven years under the Bush regime.

Duckman GR wrote on October 11, 2007 2:44 AM:

Independent Courts?

After 12 years of reagan/Bush, 8 years of compromised Clinton, and 7 years of this freaking idiot?

Trust?

Don't think so, sorry John.

Geez wrote on October 11, 2007 6:18 AM:

The Man: "Maybe if Conyers showed some guts and actually enforced some of the subpoenas he has issued and that have then been summarily ignored I would have more faith in congressional oversight."

Either you don't read this site very often or have memory problems. Conyers and the House Judiciary folks voted to hold the White House and Harriet Miers in contempt of congress TO ENFORCE THE SUBPOENAS. According to this site, Conyers is pressing for the House to follow suit, and it has not happened yet. Thanks to Pelosi, hoyer and Emanuel.

Meanwhile, Leahy hasn't done anything, nothing, nada, zilch, to enforce his subpoenas. remember the big Karl Rove subpoena? What a f--in tease that was.

And Waxman's investigations are like a movie of the week episode. Whatever is on the front page, he is investigating, when it is not anymore, he stops.

And you trash one of the guys who actually has done something?

quasar wrote on October 11, 2007 8:24 AM:

I'm starting to think this site is full of provacatuers...or trolls

wagonjak wrote on October 11, 2007 1:58 PM:

I saw Conyers yesterday, and the way he blubbered and stammered his way through his statements made him sound like a candidate for a retirement home....

We need straight-forward people representing the Dems...those who will speak clearly and courageously for the truth...and what do we get?

Bumblers like Conyers, Reid and Hoyer who wouldn't know the truth if it bit them in the ass...and others like Pelosi, Hillary and Emmanuel who talk out of both sides of their mouths...

The only straight talkers I see are those like Feingold and Kucinich who are mocked and ridiculed by the MSM.....VERY SAD!

quasar wrote on October 11, 2007 2:42 PM:

I thought his written statemnt was pretty clear. It basically says "Shut the (insert expletive) up".