53408539.

doc Page 1 of 9

March 22, 2008

The Democratic Majority: Enabling a

Rogue Presidency and Stonewalling
the American People
By Cheryl Biren-Wright

Lawless. Imperial. Rogue.

These labels have been attached to the Bush administration for the last three Take
Back America (TBA) conferences. The annual conference hosted by the Campaign for
America’s Future, does a bang up job each year highlighting the dark deeds of
President Bush and Vice President Cheney. And, what better man for the job than
House Judiciary Chair John Conyers. Turns out, the better man for the job may be the
pre-House Judiciary Chair John Conyers.
TBA 2006: Challenging Lawlessness
In June 2006, Congressman Conyers was on fire at the TBA session "Challenging a
Lawless President." Still in the House minority, the great congressman from Michigan
was hot on the trail of a lawless President Bush and his unbridled sidekick, Vice
President Cheney.
Six months earlier, the congressman issued a report declaring, "We have found that
there is substantial evidence the president, the vice-president and other high ranking
members of the Bush administration misled Congress and the American people
regarding the decision to go to war in Iraq; misstated and manipulated intelligence
information regarding the justification for such war; countenanced torture and cruel,
inhuman and degrading treatment in Iraq; and permitted inappropriate retaliation
against critics of their administration."
Just before the conference, Representative Nancy Pelosi fearful of emboldening the
Republicans during a critical election season, declared impeachment to be "off the
table." But when Representative Conyers approached the podium, he brought the
TBA participants to their feet as he announced his next course of action. In brief, he
introduced a resolution (H. Res. 635) that would create a select committee with
subpoena authority to investigate the misconduct of the Bush administration with
regard to the Iraq war and report on possible impeachable offenses.
Inspired and hopeful, progressives hit the streets to help the Democrats take back
the House and restore order in the government.
By August, Mr. Conyers had released the final version of the "Constitution in Crisis."
He described the report as "some 350 pages in length and is supported by more than
1,400 footnotes, compiles the accumulated evidence that the Bush administration
has thumbed its nose at our nation’s laws, and the Constitution itself. Approximately
26 laws and regulations may have been violated by this administration’s conduct."
53408539.doc Page 2 of 9

Certainly enough to begin impeachment hearings when one considers President

Nixon’s were prompted by a simple burglary.
Mr. Conyers went on to say that "The administration also appears to have used the
war on terror as an excuse to eviscerate the basic protections afforded to us in the
Constitution. There have been warrantless wiretaps of law-abiding Americans, in
clear contravention of federal law, not to mention the creation of a huge unchecked
database on the phone records of innocent Americans."
He lamented that "All the while, the Republican Congress sits idly by. Rather than
performing its constitutional duty as a coequal branch. It has chosen to stymie any
and all efforts at oversight. After six long years of deception, attacks and yes,
outright lies, I am convinced the American people have had enough."
Indeed the American people had had enough and three months later they handed the
Democrats both the House and the Senate.
TBA 2007: Curbing Imperialism
Fast forward to June 2007, when the Take Back America crowd descended once again
on the Washington Hilton. This time Congressman Conyers was to discuss "Curbing
an Imperial Presidency." Senior staff member to John Conyers, Burt Wides, delivered
a prepared speech while the congressman tended to business on the Hill.
"Since the last election we have begun to shrink Bush’s imperial presidency," Wides
read. In what manner the "imperial presidency" was shrinking remained unclear.
"President Bush has subverted the checks and balances that are the cornerstone of
our freedoms. In most instances, the Republican Congress just went along with those
abuses. The founding fathers must be spinning in their graves, not merely at Bush’s
blatant erosion of their system, but also and perhaps more at Congress’ supine
failure to protect the Constitution. Now that Democrats control Congress, we have a
very clear and heavy responsibility to take back the Constitution."
It wasn’t enough that the American people elected a Democratic majority that
promised to rein in Bush and Cheney and hold them accountable. They were now
charged with a new task. These efforts, according to Conyers, would only succeed
with support of citizen groups committed to the Constitution. These groups had
already been popping up across the country for years. Many were part of a broad
coalition that makes up the organization AfterDowningStreet.org.
AfterDowningStreet, led by activist David Swanson, sprang to life in May 2005 to
pressure both Congress and the media to investigate whether President Bush had
committed impeachable offenses. The coalition borrowed its name from the
incriminating Downing Street Memos that emerged in May and June of 2005.
Despite the subject matter, impeachment was never offered as a viable solution to
"curbing the imperial presidency" by the TBA panelists. It was, however, on the minds
of the audience and questions on impeachment dominated the Q&A session.
After all questions on impeachment were shot down by the panelists, Bob Fertik of
Democrats.com addressed the panel. To a cheering audience, Fertik asserted "I think
you’re completely misreading the politics in the country. All of the polls report that
the majority of Americans support impeachment hearings, a solid majority of
Americans and it’s not even being discussed. The American people were way ahead
of Congress on Iraq and the American people are way ahead of Congress on
impeachment. It’s just time to stop with the ridiculous excuses. The American people
know the only way to hold Bush accountable is through impeachment."
Grassroots Action
53408539.doc Page 3 of 9

Determined to restore the Constitution and rule of law, groups made up of ordinary
citizens, veterans, and constitutional experts forged ahead on their own. John
Conyers had called for this and the people responded. Five weeks later, on July 23, an
impeachment petition containing more than one million signatures was delivered
directly to the congressman. When he told the participants that there were "not
enough votes for" impeachment, a peaceful sit-in was held in his office. The group
was promptly arrested and hauled off to be processed.
The following month, Congressman Conyers traveled to Newark, New Jersey to
promote his national health care bill, H.R. 676 at the People’s March for Peace,
Equality, Jobs and Justice. He found himself facing a diverse crowd of a few thousand
calling for impeachment. The article, Dancing With Conyers, describes what
happened next.
"In what has become routine now, Conyers fed into the momentum asking ‘What
should we do?’ ‘Impeach!’ cried the crowd. ‘What should we do?’ ‘Impeach’ and so it
was repeated. The congressman went on to declare that we needed to bring back
Rumsfeld and put him on trial and the big question was to decide who ought to go
first.‘Cheney!’ shouted the crowd enthusiastically."
To settle the crowd, Conyers offered to meet with activists afterwards. Leaders from
the New Jersey Impeach Groups asked the congressman to initiate impeachment
hearings. They were told to "work hard" and get one representative from New Jersey
to sign onto Representative Kucinich’s resolution (H. Res. 333) to impeach Vice
President Cheney. They explained that Congressman Donald Payne, who was on his
way to the rally, had signed on a few weeks earlier.
The chair of the House Judiciary Committee grew solemn telling the group the risk of
failing was too great. It was too risky to use powers granted by the Constitution to
remove a few rogue leaders regardless of the consequences of not removing them.
This type of exchange was becoming familiar to activists. A few weeks earlier at a
meeting with progressive democrats in San Diego, Conyers told the group to get just
three more members of Congress to back impeachment. At the time, there were 14
sponsors. Since the offer, 13 more members of Congress cosponsored H. Res. 333
with no movement within the House Judiciary Committee.
During the summer of 2007, Congressman Conyers crisscrossed the country. At
every turn he was met with citizens who implored him to move on impeachment. In
response, he coined a new phrase. At an August 28 town hall meeting in his home
district in Michigan, constituents clamored for impeachment. Conyers announced,
"Nancy Pelosi has impeachment 'off the table,' but that's off her table, it is not off
John Conyers' table." The crowd erupted in applause.The same day in a telephone
interview, the congressman discussed impeachment with journalist Amy Goodman.
From the Democracy Now website:
‘"I’ve got the constitution in one hand and a calculator in the other," House Judiciary
Chair John Conyers (D–MI) said today on Democracy Now! when asked about the
possibility of impeachment. Conyers said hearings could "make the record clear that
there has been a great deal of violation of the sworn oath of office, abuses of power…
but there isn’t the time for it.’ He also said he doesn’t think there are enough votes in
the House and Senate to support impeachment.’
Clearly, rogue administrations aren’t the only ones adept at stonewalling.
Failed Strategies
Members of Congress have inexplicably chosen not to harness their duly granted
powers to take on a criminal administration. Instead, they cling to previously failed
efforts.
53408539.doc Page 4 of 9

The Letters
A very small sampling finds letters about "fixed" intelligence, letters spanning two
years from John Conyers to Fred Fielding requesting information and documents
concerning warrantless wiretapping, and a letter from John Conyers to President Bush
requesting the release of the Hadley memo related to claims of uranium from Africa
and the "16 words."
There were several letters regarding the president’s signing statements including one
from Senator Dick Durbin requesting confirmation from President Bush that he would
indeed enforce legislation that was just enacted. Two years ago, Senator Leahy sent
a letter to the president urging him to "cease and desist" from his unconstitutional
use of presidential signing statements. GOP Senator Susan Collins sent President
Bush a letter about opening letters.
The chair of the House Oversight Committee, Henry Waxman, sent letters to Fred
Fielding on the mystery of the missing White House e-mails. Recently, there was a
letter to Attorney General Michael Mukasey from 46 House Democrats asking how he
will ensure the President follows Congress’ ban on permanent bases in Iraq. Congress
is now relegated to asking an uncooperative Attorney General to make sure the
President takes care that the laws be faithfully executed.
The Subpoenas
When a few years of polite inquiries fail to produce results, Congress moves onto
subpoenas. When used within the context of a healthy government, subpoenas prove
to be quite effective. Why Democrats think that an overreaching, unaccountable
administration would readily respond or cooperate fully is mind boggling.
Last April, House Democrats issued five subpoenas in a single morning related to the
U.S. attorney firings, the use of RNC email accounts, and the claim that Iraq sought
uranium from Niger for a nuclear weapons program. According to the Washington
Post, "The White House signaled that it will continue to resist efforts to secure
testimony from Rice, Rove and other aides." Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice
stated that she was "not inclined" to appear. To date, none of these issues have been
resolved to the satisfaction of the House Democrats.
Contempt
In February, eight months after issuing subpoenas to Harriet Miers and Josh Bolten,
the House moved to initiate civil contempt proceedings. John Bresnahan of
Politico.com reported, "Pelosi noted that Conyers had sent nine different letters to
current White House Counsel Fred Fielding seeking a compromise that would allow
Bolten and Miers to appear, but Fielding refused to allow either aide, or former White
House Deputy Chief of Staff Karl Rove, to testify in public or under oath."
Two weeks later, the Attorney General wrote a letter to Pelosi stating he would not
refer congressional contempt citations to a grand jury or take any other action on the
matter.
The Lawsuits
When all else fails, take ‘em to court. In 2006, John Conyers announced he was
"Taking the President to Court." After a battle over a Republican budget bill, the
president despite being warned by Democrats, signed a Senate version that
Democrats claimed had not been passed by the House. The purpose of the lawsuit?
To seek confirmation from the court that a bill not passed by the House and Senate is
not a law. The lawsuit never made it to court. Perhaps he never sung along with
School House Rock.
53408539.doc Page 5 of 9

House Speaker Nancy Pelosi announced last May that she would sue the President if
he attached a signing statement to Congress’s Iraq funding bill. Of course, a simple
and effective solution would be for the House Speaker to turn to Article II, Section 3
of the U.S. Constitution then quickly drop down to Section 4. [Note: There is no clause
about the 2008 elections, time left or predetermining votes.]
This month after Mukasey refused to enforce Congressional subpoenas, House
Democrats filed a lawsuit against White House chief of staff Joshua Bolten and former
White House counsel Harriet Miers. And thus, the cycle continues.
New Legislation
In response to the Bush administration’s assertion that it did not require
congressional approval for establishing any long-term security agreement with Iraq,
the Congressional Progressive Caucus announced they were introducing new
legislation to combat the situation. The legislation seeks to "reassert the
constitutional powers of Congress in the shaping and conduct of U.S. foreign policy."
A move like this is not without inherent risk. If the legislation fails to pass, it can
serve to bolster the administration’s arguments. If it does pass, we’re right back to
the signing statement which is what brought this whole issue out in the open in the
first place. If Congress starts making a habit of creating new legislation to reinforce
already established laws the country is headed down another dangerous path.
With a Heavy Heart
Whether a principled response to the administration’s lack of cooperation with
Congress or a growing concern that a Democratic President might be equally
uncooperative, Representative Dana Rohrabacher (R-CA), railed against the Bush
administration last month. Rohrabacher whose aggressive support of rendition and
lack of compassion for Iraqi refugees has upset many, has spoken out strongly
against the administration for its "contemptuous disregard for Congress."
In a lengthy speech the Republican member of the House Foreign Affairs Committee
said, I have come to the sad conclusion that this administration has intentionally
obstructed Congress' rightful and constitutional duties." Rohrabacher offers "When I
hear my friends on the other side of the aisle accusing this administration of
stonewalling, of coverups, or thwarting investigations, I sadly must concur with
them." He concludes, "We should not be setting precedents that the President of the
United States has the lion’s share of the power in this great democracy of ours." Are
you listening, Nancy?
The Pelosi Factor
"I have said it before and I will say it again: Impeachment is off the table."
When all efforts to effect checks and balances are thwarted and there is no other
recourse to restore order in an administration gone wild, taking impeachment "off the
table" really boils down to a matter of obstruction of justice. This begs the question
why would the House Speaker obstruct justice?
Rarely discussed in the corporate media since initial reports is the fact that two of the
most abhorrent impeachable offenses in the eyes of the American people were
disclosed to Nancy Pelosi several years before they went public.
As the Washington Post reported late last year, in September 2002, along with three
other members of Congress, Nancy Pelosi was briefed on "overseas detention sites
and the harsh techniques interrogators had devised to try to make their prisoners
talk. Among the techniques described, said two officials present, was water
boarding." The Washington Post reported that Pelosi did not raise any objections at
the time.
53408539.doc Page 6 of 9

In a 2006 oped, Nancy Pelosi remarked that the president’s admission that he
authorized the electronic surveillance on Americans is a "wake-up call for intensive
congressional oversight of intelligence activities." With no expression of
constitutional responsibility, she acknowledges that she, herself, had been informed
of the president’s authorization. She went on to excuse herself by stating "But when
the administration notifies Congress in this manner, it is not seeking approval."
Former CIA analyst, Ray McGovern, raises another unsettling question. According to
the former head of Qwest Communications, the NSA sought assistance with
surveillance in February 2001, challenging the repeated claim that 9/11 "changed
everything." The question then, is "What Did Pelosi Know about NSA, and When Did
She Know It?"
An Impeachment Groundswell
Despite the lack of cooperation from the Congress, the movement to impeach
continues to gain traction in communities throughout the country.
According to AfterDowningStreet.org, impeachment resolutions have passed in
Vermont’s state legislature (introduced in 11 other states), 26 statewide and national
political committees, 19 state legislative districts, 91 cities, towns and counties, 54
local political groups/parties/jurisdictions, and several unions, seven ACLU chapters,
with dozens more pending or in the works. Organizations well versed in constitutional
law like the National Lawyers Guild and the Center for Constitutional Rights have also
called for impeachment.
In addition, indictment resolutions against the president and vice president have
been introduced in three jurisdictions including Kennebunkport, Maine, summer home
of the Bush family. In Brattleboro, Vermont, the votes were cast and the president
and vice President may be wise not to tread on that town any time soon.
These actions stand in stark contrast with John Conyers’ assertion in his prepared
speech at last year’s Take Back America conference that "Too many Americans,
however, feel that Bush’s assault on civil liberties are not really their concern."
Congressional Rebuffs
Refusal by many members of Congress to support impeachment has little to do with
whether or not they believe serious offenses have been committed as evidenced by
letters to constituents.
Steve Rothman (D-NJ) is "outraged" over the president’s "overreaching intelligence
gathering measures" and for "misleading the American people about the basis for
going to war in Iraq." He’s just not sure there is enough evidence. Perhaps John
Conyers can lend him a copy of the "Constitution in Crisis."
Representative Joe Sestak (D-PA) wrote "we have witnessed our government ignore
the freedoms established in the Constitution on countless occasions and flaunted
national security as justification." While Sestak lays out numerous "egregious" abuses
that "strike at the heart of our democracy," he contends that congressional oversight
will do the trick. One after another, members of Congress outline assaults on the
Constitution by the president and vice president, but choose to ride out the next 10
months with little regard to the consequences.
Jerrold Nadler, chair of the Subcommittee on the Constitution has, in essence, altered
the Constitution by ruling out impeachment as a viable tool for this and future
administrations. By doing so, he opens the door to certain abuse of power.
Impeachment, he says, "Doesn’t work. It doesn’t work because essentially the
framers of the Constitution did not foresee political parties." It’s a wonder George
53408539.doc Page 7 of 9

Mason, himself, hasn’t risen up to demand that Nadler step down from his
chairmanship.
"No point," said Mason, "is of more importance than that the right of impeachment
should be continued."Upholding the Oath
Conservative Bruce Fein, a constitutional lawyer who served as associate deputy
attorney general under President Ronald Reagan had a message for the Democratic
leadership in a radio interview with Rob Kall of OpEdNews.com.
"It is quite clear," Fein remarked, "that they will not move because they think
collectively that it will not be advantageous politically for the Democratic Party. I
have retorted, you have taken an oath to support and defend the Constitution of the
United States which includes the impeachment clause."
His voice rising, he stressed "That’s the only oath that you have taken. You have
taken not an oath to support the Democratic Party. You’ve not taken an oath to
support your political ambitions. The only unflagging obligation that you have is to
defend and protect the Constitution of the United States. You are violating your oath
when the reason for not going forward is not because they are not impeachable
offenses, but you make a political calculation that it wouldn’t be healthy for your
party - even if it would be healthy for the government of the United States and for
the American people."
When Kall commented that some worried that impeachment proceedings would hurt
the candidates, Fein was even more blunt than before. "I think that is nauseating.
When you think about all the risks that the founding fathers took, death, their
fortunes, [ . . . ] and these people say ‘yea there are impeachable offenses, but if we
have to choose between the Constitution which so many have died to preserve and
our party’s gains at the next election so let’s throw the Constitution out the window’ -
that is nauseating. That kind of attitude would have left us a colony of Great Britain
and it’s not American."
Congressional Courage
There are members of Congress who are undeterred by the Democratic leadership
stance. In April 2007, Representative Dennis Kucinich introduced House Resolution
333 that, if passed, would impeach Vice President Dick Cheney. Each time an old
offense was exposed or a new one committed, representatives would add their
support.
In November 2007, when public pressure failed to move the resolution out of the
House Judiciary where it languished, Kucinich introduced a privileged resolution to
force a vote. After an afternoon of partisan politicking, the resolution landed back in
the House Judiciary Committee with a new title, H. Res. 799. To date, there are 27
sponsors of H. Res. 799. Six of the 27 also serve on the House Judiciary Committee.
Moved by pressure from his constituents and a strong allegiance to the Constitution,
Representative Robert Wexler (D-FL) rose up to lead the charge for impeachment
hearings. In December, he authored an oped "A Case for Hearings" along with Luis
Gutierrez (D-IL) and Tammy Baldwin (D-WI) also members of the House Judiciary
Committee.
In addition, he setup the website WexlerWantsHearings.com where he asked the
public to lend their support. His long-term goal was 50,000 online signatures. Within
the first 24 hours, 30,000 Americans had added their names. Currently, there are
more than 233,000 supporters.Wexler, along with 19 House members - five on the
House Judiciary Committee - have written to chairman John Conyers urging support
for impeachment hearings. In a New Year’s Eve post, The Nation named Robert
Wexler, "The Most Valuable Congressman" stating, "If he keeps this up in 2008,
53408539.doc Page 8 of 9

Wexler could yet force the House to be what the founders intended: a check and
balance on executive lawlessness."
TBA 2008: The Republic Against the Rogue Presidency
Based on the reports from last week’s Take Back America conference, it appears that
John Conyers has turned back the clock two years. It’s all about winning the
elections.
One blogger writes that the reason Conyers gave for not pursuing impeachment now
is that "it would jeopardize the chance of a young, excellent man running for the
White House," referring to Senator Barack Obama. Sam Stein reports that "Conyers
offered a strong suggestion that he intends to consider legal action against Bush and
Company once they leave office." Stein quotes Conyers as saying "We can win this
thing and go get these guys after [they leave office]."
Conyers, like Senator Joe Biden (D-DE), offered that if Bush attacks Iran he should be
impeached. It is disturbing to watch seasoned leaders, who have already witnessed
this president wage a war on a country preemptively and on false pretenses, decide
to "wait and see" rather than preventing more carngage by removing the rogue
president for crimes already committed.
Activist David Swanson pulls no punches, "The congress that we elected in 2006 to
end the occupation and hold Bush and Cheney accountable immediately decided to
pretend to attempt to do its job for two years in hopes of winning more seats in 2008
by opposing the occupation and Bush and Cheney."
"That this would mean hundreds of thousands of unnecessary deaths, two years off
the clock on global warming, our nation and others in ever greater danger of attack,
and the continued erosion of our rights - these things didn't faze Reid or Pelosi,"
charged the activist. "The pretenses they've put up have included hearings, letters,
subpoenas, contempt citations, and bills recriminalizing already illegal and
unconstitutional actions. They've also pretended to try to pass all sorts of other
legislation, such as a children's health care bill, knowing full well that they would be
vetoed or signing statemented. It's a two-year election campaign at taxpayer
expense."
Regarding impeachment and the elections, Swanson contends "Forcing John McCain
to choose between the Constitution and the least popular president and vice
president ever would be a gold mine immediately apparent to any entity capable of
playing offense. The Democratic Party only plays defense."
Conyers and Nixon
Congressman Conyers might well be served, and the nation in turn, by recalling his
1974 article published in The Black Scholar entitled "Why Nixon Should Have Been
Impeached."
The 45-year-old Conyers wrote, "In calling him to account, we also reestablish the
proper parameters of presidential conduct. It is essential, therefore, that the record
of our inquiry be complete so that no future president may infer that we have
implicitly sanctioned what we have not explicitly condemned."
He closed by remarking, "Impeachment is difficult and it is painful, but the courage to
do what must be done is the price of remaining free."
"When once a republic is corrupted, there is no possibility of remedying any of the
growing evils but by removing the corruption and restoring its lost principles; every
other correction is either useless or a new evil." Thomas Jefferson
Authors Bio:
53408539.doc Page 9 of 9

Cheryl Biren-Wright is an advocate for clean government and civil liberties. She
serves on the Progressive Democrats of America S. Jersey Chapter as Chair of the
Impeachment Issue Organizing Team and is a Co-Leader of the NJ Impeach Groups
and founder of the Strike08.com campaign. She also works to end the war in Iraq and
prevent one with Iran. Incensed with the actions - make that inaction - of the
Democratic Congress, she considers herself a dissident democrat.