On Thursday, June 5th, several members of CodePink's NYC and DC chapters attended a meeting with John Conyers on the subject of impeachment. Nancy Kricorian, the CodePink NYC coordinator, returned with a full report stating that Conyers had presented five points against impeachment that he wanted them to address. marktheshark wrote an excellent diary addressing that request which made the recommended list.
On June 9th, Dennis Kucinich introduced articles of impeachment against Bush which as of today have been sent to the House Judiciary for consideration.
It's time we let ourselves be heard in the offices of the members of the House Judiciary. My letter to Conyers is below the fold, along with some suggestions for how you can help.
Dear Mr. Conyers,
I am writing to you in reference to the meeting you held with members
of CodePink on Thursday, June 5th. I was unable to attend that meeting
in person but would like to respond to your call for rebuttals to five
points which you claim impede progress toward the impeachment of the
Bush administration.
By now I am sure you are aware that Rep. Kucinich has read 35 articles
of impeachment into the Congressional record. Article 27 of that
document details at least nine Congressional subpoenas that the Bush
administration has blatantly ignored, dating all the way back to April
10th of last year.
In ten days Scott McClellan will testify before the House Judiciary.
Testimony he gives may yield the need for more subpoenas. Karl Rove is
due to testify in July and he may or may not comply with that subpoena
as well. Stern letters and subpoenas have already proven to be useless
when dealing with this administration.
Mr. Conyers, with respect, it should not fall not to CodePink to rebut
the five points you gave them. It is the clear cut duty of Congress to
enforce the subpoenas that have already been issued, and it is the
duty of Congress to investigate the Executive if there is suspicion of
impeachable offenses.
Sir, as a man of color, I am sure you are painfully and intimately
familiar with what prejudice is. You are a champion and an example to
those who share your heritage, and an intelligent gentleman like
yourself who has been around the block more than a few times is
certain to have developed effective responses toward those who exhibit
the unfortunate and quite stupid prejudice that the quality of your
suntan somehow makes you less worthy to share in the benefits the rest
of our world enjoys.
Therefore I am quite certain I am preaching to a choir when I remind
you that prejudice is the reaching of a decision before all the
information or experience given concerning a person, place, thing or
situation has been fully evaluated.
The statement that there are not enough votes to impeach is a
prejudice, sir. It is a decision based not on a thorough investigation
or even the ATTEMPT to make that investigation.
I do not know if this prejudice is yours or simply to be assigned to
the rest of Congress as a whole, but it reveals a fundamental logical
flaw in the rest of the precepts given. Without an investigation,
without examination or even simple exposure to the evidence for
impeachment, the statement that there are insufficient votes to
impeach is nothing short of prejudice. Representative Robert Wexler
raised this very point on the House floor several months ago, yet he
too has been ignored.
The prejudice that there are insufficient votes to impeach, sir, does
not merely result in hurt feelings, unfair treatment or blocked
opportunities for the people it affects. This prejudice is directly
responsible for the daily maiming and death of thousands of our
troops, hundreds of thousands of innocent Iraqis, theft of billions of
our tax dollars, and the inexorable erosion of the rule of law in our
country.
It is your duty as chair of the House Judiciary to make impartial,
unprejudiced decisions. Mr. Conyers, I strongly suggest you and the
rest of Congress do your duty before you no longer have the option.
Best wishes for peace,
Eileen Coles
We need to put serious pressure on Conyers, Pelosi and the rest of the House Judiciary. FAX them. A fax, unlike a voicemail or an email, is a physical piece of paper that CANNOT BE IGNORED or easily deleted. Use FaxZero to send 2 free faxes a day.
Nancy Pelosi: 202-225-4188
Harry Reid: 202-224-7327
Jerrold Nadler: 202-225-6923
John Conyers: 202-225-0072
On June 20th, Scott McClellan is due to testify before the Judiciary about possible impeachable offenses committed by the Bush administration. The time to let the Judiciary know what the will of the people is is NOW.
Use these poll results to get your points across:
No more sternly worded letters. No more subpoenas which are flagrantly ignored. It's time to let the Judiciary know they need to earn their pay. If they are worried about how the Democrats will do in the elections if they pursue impeachment, perhaps they should be made to know that they should be more worried about how they'll do in the elections if they DON'T.
Adam Sullivan is running against Nadler in NY District 8. New Yorkers in his district are urged to back Sullivan, who is running SPECIFICALLY because Nadler refuses to support impeachment.
Shirley Golub and Cindy Sheehan are both running against Nancy Pelosi SPECIFICALLY because she refuses to support impeachment. If you are in Pelosi's district, familiarize yourself with their respective campaigns.
If there are candidates in the districts of Conyers and any other members of the Judiciary who are behaving in an obstructionist manner, we need to get the word out on who those people are and we need to provide them with backing.
They don't want to listen to our voices? Let them listen to our dollars and our votes. It seems to be the only language they understand anymore.