Veterans For Peace Receive No Answers From Conyers On Impeachment

Published on Thursday, July 10, 2008 by The Real News Network

WASHINGTON - Since June 9, when Rep. Kucinich’s introduced 35 articles of impeachment, the articles have remained shelved in the House Judiciary Committee. Chairman Conyers has the ability to bring the articles to a vote in the committee, but he is undecided on a course of action. In a June meeting with Veterans For Peace, Rep. Conyers promised to present his decision on impeachment in early July. However, Conyers failed to present such as decision during a meeting held with Veterans For Peace (VFP) on Wednesday, July 9. Members of VFP believe that Conyers is deploying stall tactics and that he has no intention of moving forward with impeachment. Conyers, once again, has promised to present his decision in a meeting planned for July 25. [view video]

Why am I running?

June 28, 2008

Dear Fellow Citizen,

My name is Adam Sullivan. Until recently, I was just another citizen of New York’s 8th Congressional District. Now I am running for Congress as a challenger to Jerrold Nadler for nomination in CD8 by the Democratic Party. And I need your help.

You may legitimately ask why I would challenge Congressman Nadler, a representative with a long liberal voting record. While this is true, Nadler has failed us all where it matters most.

The issue—Impeachment

CONTRIBUTE

Some months ago, I joined a New York City impeachment group in lobbying Congressman Nadler to support Rep. Robert Wexler's call for impeachment hearings and co-sponsor the Articles of Impeachment introduced in the House by Rep. Dennis Kucinich of Ohio.

You see, Rep. Nadler holds a unique position on the House Judiciary Committee as chairman of its Subcommittee on the Constitution, Civil Rights and Civil Liberties. I believed that my Congressman would do the right thing and use this influential position to begin impeachment hearings, once he realized that his constituents wanted him to do so.

I was wrong. Although Congressman Nadler has stated publicly that he believes the President and Vice President have both committed impeachable offenses, he refuses to support any efforts to bring impeachment or to co-sponsor the Kucinich resolutions. A meeting with Mr. Nadler, in person, proved equally fruitless.

He gave a number of reasons, but they did not satisfy me. He didn’t really convince me that he believed his own reasons. If Bush and Cheney have committed crimes or violated the Constitution, then they should be impeached, no ifs, ands or buts.

After all, the Constitution itself is at stake.

CONTRIBUTE

Rep. Nadler has broken his Oath of Office

The Framers wrote the word “impeachment” into the Constitution six separate times. It is the check given to Congress to correct Executive abuses of power. Impeachment is one of the checks and balances that makes our Constitution a living document, one that describes a body of government which can self-correct.

So, what if Congress does nothing? It sets a precedent which allows subsequent administrations to continue the same abuses of power. This is a death sentence for the Constitution, and that is no exaggeration.

Congressman Nadler not only serves as Chairman of this Constitutional subcommittee, but he has sworn his Oath of Office at the beginning of each of his eight terms. In that Oath, he swears “to protect and defend the Constitution against all enemies, foreign and domestic.” By refusing to pursue impeachment, he has broken his Oath.

Since he is my congressman, I take this personally. If he breaks his Oath of Office so easily and so willfully, I can no longer believe anything he says. He may be a liberal and a progressive, but that means nothing to me if I can’t trust him.

CONTRIBUTE

An Alternative--Sullivan for Congress

I am challenging Mr. Nadler for the Democratic nomination because the citizens of the 8th CD deserve better, as do all Americans.

To you, I make one promise: I will never break my Oath of Office. I will to the best of my abilities, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States from all enemies foreign and domestic, and I will represent the citizens of New York to the best of my abilities.

But I need your help. Rep. Nadler is deeply entrenched in Washington and in Democratic politics. While we have already seen signs that our campaign is rocking his boat, we have an enormous task before us.

In order to reach the people of New York City and the national media, we need private support from pro-impeachment advocates. With your help, we can put pressure on Nadler to fulfill his Oath of Office by running this Democratic primary challenge.

Our sworn representatives in Congress are meant to be the servants of the Constitution, and of the people of the United States. Your campaign donation can help to restore the ideal of government of, by and for the people.

Power to the People,


Adam Sullivan

CONTRIBUTE

Paid for by Sullivan for Congress

Conyers Subpoenas Mukasey for Documents

For Immediate Release June 27, 2008

(Washington, DC)- House Judiciary Committee Chairman John Conyers, Jr. (D-MI) today issued a subpoena to the Department of Justice (DOJ) to provide to the committee a number of previously requested documents by July 9. The Subcommittee on Commercial and Adminstrative Law voted this week to authorize committee Chairman John Conyers, Jr. to issue the subpoena at his discretion. The documents the committee is seeking cover a broad range of issues including the Valerie Plame leak, allegations of selective prosecution, and other matters.

WOW! Conyers subpoenaed Mukaskey to deliver by July 9, at 2pm complete and unredacted documents on:

The Valerie Plame outing - He's going after Bush, Cheney, Rove, Barlett and Card

The lead up to the war - Opinions issued by the Office of Legal Counsel, since 1.20.01 on everything relating to national security, war, terrorism, interrogations, civil or constitutional rights of U.S. citizens, or presidential, congressional, or judicial power

The New Hampshire Phone Jamming

The replacement of Minnesota U.S. Attorney Tom Heffelfinger with Paulose

A whole bunch of voting violations - 2001-2002 Mississippi redistricting, 2003 Texas redistricting, 2005 Georgia photo identification submission and either for comparison or for further violations he's looking at 1981 Georgia identification requirement for voter registration, 1994 Louisiana photo id requirement for voting, 1997 Georgia identification, 1997 Texas voter registration cards and 2005 Georgia photo identification.

The criminal charges brought against Governor Don Siegelman and Dr. Cyril Wecht

The Subpoena

The really sad part is, nothing will come of any of this!

Congress: The Name of In-Action

Tonight I'm going to see "Hamlet" in Central Park. It is the consummate actor's play, and as you may know, I am an actor. My fascination with the play is endless; I always learn and enjoy while watching it, even on the amateur level.

It is the question of "action," around which the play revolves, that draws me in every time. Rash action, thoughtful action, INaction and the consequences that result from each of these. It is no accident that the famous "To be or not to be" soliloquy ends with the words "the name of action."

While the speech has been interpreted many ways, it always made the most sense to me that Hamlet discovers--through sophisticated reasoning--that the question is really "to do or not to do." He's not contemplating suicide, but he IS wondering if he should bother doing anything at all. It is my belief that Hamlet here decides that he must take action, otherwise he is already dead.

Why am I going on about this?

Take a look at the video of Nadler, Conyers et al. provided on this blog by Jill Howell, wherein our Representatives question Yoo and Addington about the infamous 2002 torture memo, written to give legal cover to those who willfully violated U.S. laws and the Geneva Conventions set against torture.

Time after time, questions are met with evasions. It gets ugly, frankly. In my opinion, the evasions amount to Contempt of Congress. But even if they don't, shouldn't the Representatives asking these questions remind these men that they could be held in contempt?

The members of the Subcomittee on the Constitution, Civil Rights and Civil Liberties, under the Chairmanship of Jerrold Nadler of New York's 8th CD, have put on a show. They will say, "Well, we tried." Few, perhaps, will argue with them.

But I will. And so, I think, would Hamlet.

Preferring posturing to action, the Subcommittee's "native hue of resolution is sicklied o'er." Its "enterprises of great pith and moment...lose the name of action." In the face of "The oppressor's wrong...the law's delay [and] the insolence of office," Congress appears to be already dead.

Oh, sure, there are some signs of life. John Conyers especially seemed angry and incensed, but ultimately he resigns himself to the charade. He is content, finally, with playing Polonius. Mr. Nadler looks entertained, amused even, by the shenanigans of Yoo and Addington. He may be satisfied with an afternoon's polite entertainment, but I am not. Knowing that he will do nothing to hold this administration truly accountable, once and for all, by supporting impeachment hearings, I find his smile to be insufferable.

I am not the least bit amused by a Justice Department/White House joint cover-up of torture. I'm not smiling.

I'm ready for action.

Power to the People,

Adam

PS: No need to remind me that Hamlet winds up dead by the end of the play. I'm very aware of the risks that certain kinds of action carry. See what's happening to Wexler since he's co-sponsored Kucinich's AoI's. Then write him and thank him for the risk he's taking, if you haven't already.

Bush Lawyers on Child Torture & Burial Alive Video

On June 26, 2008, John Yoo and David Addington, two leading architects of the Bush administration’s policies on torture, testified before the House Judiciary Committee. Even seemingly simple questions yielded evasive answers.

Isn't it time to initiate impeachment hearings?




Video via American News Project

Bush impeachment debate focuses on subpoenas

David Swanson: Refusing Congressional subpoenas is an impeachable offense
June 24, 2008
The Real News Network [Transcript and Video]

Nadler: Right on FISA, WRONG on Impeachment

As I write this, I have just heard that the House of Representatives, controlled by a Democratic majority, has just passed a “compromise” on FISA legislation. Sadly, this is a capitulation to the whims of the Bush White House and to corporate telecommunications companies who spied on Americans without a warrant.

Worse still, Democratic presidential nominee Barack Obama has endorsed the legislation. This makes my blood turn to ice. Where are we headed, America?

Not only is this “compromise” an evisceration of the Fourth Amendment, but a roadblock between Congressional oversight and the uncovering of evidence of the crimes of Bush and Cheney. It is a direct assault on the campaign to impeach the Current Occupants. It will also give cover to those Democrats who were complicit in spying and war crimes.

The House leadership will tell us that they gained important concessions, that this was a bipartisan bill. But the Republicans don’t even believe it, so why should we?

Some in the 8^th CD will console themselves, “Well, at least Nadler was on the right side this time. He represented us well, even if we lost.”

But Mr. Nadler should not get off so easily. If he believes that the Telecoms broke the law, then he believes also that the President asked them to. He must know that this is a crime against the Citizenry, a violation of the Fourth Amendment, and an impeachable offense.

He also knows that Telecom immunity hampers the ability of Congress to investigate this administration, all the while furthering the notion that all of this is done to protect us.

So why not co-sponsor Articles of Impeachment? If he believes that the Democratic party leadership and all the Blue Dogs were wrong to pass this legislation, why not do something principled? Something to champion the cause of Executive accountability? Something required by his Oath of Office?

Now is the time for Mr. Nadler to break cover and lead the charge toward impeachment. He’d be a progressive hero, taking on the feckless leadership in Congress, braving the certain onslaught in the corporate media.

Those of us who have met him know that he is very unlikely to do so.

That Mr. Nadler breaks from the House leadership on this FISA bill, but gets cozy with them on keeping impeachment off the table makes me continue to question every word he utters. I hold him to a higher standard than Mr. Obama, because he currently serves as my direct representative to the federal government.

He can say to the House, “This bill abandons the Constitution’s protections,” but he himself has abandoned one of the most important protections afforded by the Framers. He can send out a press release denouncing the legislation, but it is easy to picture him among other House colleagues, behind closed doors, shaking the hands of Pelosi, Hoyer, Emanuel, even Boehner.

They smile. The deals are done. Everyone got what they wanted--immunity, contributions from telecoms, or political cover—everyone, that is, except the People of the United States, who want justice.

Jerrold Nadler has worked hard to lose our trust. He has earned our mistrust, and this challenge to his nomination. Let us not forget that when he reminds us how he voted on the FISA compromise of June ’08.

We need more than votes. We need action.