John Conyers, writing in today’s Washington Post, explains his plans for BushCo. if and when he becomes the chairman of the House Judiciary Committee.
…rather than seeking impeachment, I have chosen to propose comprehensive oversight of these alleged abuses. The oversight I have suggested would be performed by a select committee made up equally of Democrats and Republicans and chosen by the House speaker and the minority leader.
The committee’s job would be to obtain answers — finally. At the end of the process, if — and only if — the select committee, acting on a bipartisan basis, finds evidence of potentially impeachable offenses, it would forward that information to the Judiciary Committee. This threshold of bipartisanship is appropriate, I believe, when dealing with an issue of this magnitude.
Conyers reasoning for this is interesting. I’m not sure whether to take him seriously or whether to chalk it up to political calculation.
It was House Republicans who took power in 1995 with immediate plans to undermine President Bill Clinton by any means necessary, and they did so in the most autocratic, partisan and destructive ways imaginable. If there is any lesson from those “revolutionaries,” it is that partisan vendettas ultimately provoke a public backlash and are never viewed as legitimate.
impeachment
Perhaps nothing is as contentious as the debate over the Republican’s drive to oust Bill Clinton from power. The media seems to see the effort as a quixotic failure. I have never understood their reasoning. It’s true that the GOP suffered moderate losses in the 1998 elections. But they so tarnished Clinton’s presidency that it undoubtedly cost Al Gore the chance to succeed him. The Republicans had to wait two years, but their malicious and relentless attacks on Clinton eventually overwhelmed the Democrats and drove them from power in any branch of government.
The Democrats are facing a much different situation. The Republicans were faced with an effective President that had personal failings. The Democrats are faced with a criminal that has run our country into a ditch economically, politically, and militarily. Even more disturbing, this administration has challenged the traditional balance of powers and has violated the constitution by ignoring treaties, inflicting cruel and unusual punishment, holding citizens without charges, and conducting unreasonable searches.
A bipartisan select committee with an equal number of Republicans and Democrats strikes me as a recipe for another whitewash. Maybe it is the best way to move forward, but I am skeptical that the Republicans will work cooperatively to compel the type of testimony that we need to establish the case for multiple articles of impeachment. And I have no doubt that impeachment is the only way forward with this administration. Conyers is correct that we can’t put the cart before the horse. First we win the midterms, then we investigate, then we build a case so unassailable that the public will demand removal from office. The GOP is terrified and they should be terrified. Will offering them a chance to sit in equal judgment on a select committee give them a chance to wiggle off the hook? Or is it the perfect way to ensure that an impeachment is seen as bipartisan and not some vendetta?
My instincts tell me that it would be a mistake to give Minority Leader Hastert the power to appoint members to a select committee in equal numbers to Speaker Pelosi. I’d much rather John Conyers just bulldoze it through his Judiciary Committee where he has the power to compel testimony. I do understand his desire to make any investigations appear to be bipartisan but sometimes it pays to use the power you have rather than immediately turn around and give it back to your opponents.
What say you?
