Impeachment Hearing! Conyers Screws Us AGAIN

By David Swanson

That's the latest title that Chairman John Conyers has given the hearing his House Judiciary Committee will hold on Friday, July 25th.

The previous title had been "The Imperial Presidency of George W. Bush and Possible Legal Responses." The idea that had preceded that one was to hold a hearing on Congressman Dennis Kucinich's latest article of impeachment: "DECEIVING CONGRESS WITH FABRICATED THREATS OF IRAQ WMDs TO FRAUDULENTLY OBTAIN SUPPORT FOR AN AUTHORIZATION OF THE USE OF MILITARY FORCE AGAINST IRAQ."

The problem with that initial idea, of course, was that impeachment is opposed by Nancy Pelosi who recently explained that she's against it because she's "bipartisan", and by Barack Obama, who says it should be "reserved for exceptional circumstances", and by John Conyers who claims that if he upheld the Constitution Fox News would call him mean names, not to mention Harold Ford who alleges that "The Constitution doesn't poll well," and Cass Sunstein who argues against ever holding Bush or Cheney to account for anything, and Chuck Schumer who insists that voters don't care about detentions and torture and such things.

On top of that problem with impeachment, there was the problem of the war. The Congress that was elected in 2006 to end the war, expose the truth of its origin, and hold people accountable for it has very carefully avoided holding any hearings on the topic. During the previous Congress, Barbara Lee led a push along with Kucinich to investigate the White House Iraq Group. I asked her early in 2007 why she wouldn't do the same in the majority, and she claimed, rather half-heartedly, that she would do so, but never has.

The problem with the second name for the hearing was perhaps what I pointed out last week: it's oxymoronic. If you're going to have an imperial presidency, why not a presidential emperor? And since when has it become acceptable to acknowledge the empire in the halls of Congress? People could begin questioning why we pay to maintain a half million soldiers in 1,000 bases in 150 countries at great expense and to the serious endangerment of ourselves, generating resentment and hatred around the globe.

So the third title was arrived at: "Executive Power and Its Constitutional Limitations." This handily avoids any reference to Bush or Cheney or impeachment or war or empire. And yet it's that much more absurd, since we have no executive and really do have an imperial co-presidency. And then there's the Constitution problem. The Constitution brings up impeachment in six places but never once mentions censure. Never does the Constitution propose a remedy of redundantly recriminalizing crimes once a criminal president is out of office. Never does the Constitution mention political parties or loyalty to them. Never does the Constitution place the election of an excutive ahead of the importance of maintaining an executive rather than a king. It's very hard to imagine how several of the speakers Conyers hopes to have on Friday, on the topics he wants them to discuss, are going to be able to fit the Constitution into their remarks.

Here's the lineup, give or take:

Rumor has it there are two (maybe three) panels being planned for the hearing, one consisting of Kucinich and four other members of Congress (Jane Harman, Walter Jones, Brad Miller, and Maurice Hinchey), and the other consisting of non-Congress Members (Elizabeth Holtzman, Bruce Fein, Frederick Schwartz, John Dean, Bob Barr, Ralph Nader, Rocky Anderson).

These speakers can be expected to favor impeachment:
Dennis Kucinich
Elizabeth Holtzman
Ralph Nader
Maybe Bruce Fein

→