The Conyers Recommendations - A Summation of the House Report

[FireShadow]

The contrast with the Bush Department of Justice could not be starker. In this Administration, too many Department leaders abandoned that proud tradition of independence and integrity, and made decisions based on political objectives rather than the facts and the law. Young political operatives were given control over the most sensitive operations of the Department, and federally protected, non-partisan law enforcement positions were used to provide political patronage. The Civil Rights Division was twisted to obtain partisan electoral advantage, rather than protect the most vulnerable among us from discrimination.

Seems (to me) that Conyers was part of those who made decisions based on politics rather than the facts and the law when they all refused to investigate and impeach...I have seen it written (and can't seem to find it now that I am looking for it.) that one of the reasons they would not impeach was to protect themselves getting elected again so as to acquire a democratic majority...but probably the real reason was as Laura says in her article "Reining in the Imperial Presidency: The Conyers Report and What YOU Can Do With It" (http://www.sott.net/articles/show/182098-Reining-In-The-Imperial-Presidency-The-Conyers-Report-and-What-YOU-Can-Do-With-It-):

What we see actually happening is that senior Democrats are definitely shy of a full-scale investigation, whether by a "truth commission" or a special prosecutor, into possible crimes committed under Dubya. The Repugnicans are, of course, adamantly against any inquiry. One wonders just how much stuff Dubya has on them as a result of his Illegal Wiretapping?

And there is this:

The administration's stonewalling, and the lack of oversight by Congress, have left us to guess whether we are dealing with isolated wrongdoing, or mistakes, or something worse. In my view, the American people deserve answers, not guesses. I have proposed that we obtain these answers in a responsible and bipartisan manner. 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.

Seems rather convenient to have had this event right before the Bush Administration. It was put to good use as an excuse to not impeach Bushie and Cronies..."We don't want to be like them, now do we?"

It seems to me that there were a lot of people pushing for impeachment (as evidenced by all the activity on the internet). And then, so many went and voted for Obama because of hope for change. It seems that "the people" wanted the Bushies OUT.

As for chances of getting re-elected: If elections were real, doing what the people elected you for would be what would insure your re-election...

By the way Laura, I love the article "Reining in the Imperial Presidency: The Conyers Report and What YOU Can Do With It" (http://www.sott.net/articles/show/182098-Reining-In-The-Imperial-Presidency-The-Conyers-Report-and-What-YOU-Can-Do-With-It-) - well written and very timely.

 

[Laura]

The main problem I see with Conyers is that he obviously isn't aware of pathology in politics. Reading the report gives one the impression that the people behind it are normal, have something of a conscience, can tell right from wrong and are appalled by the wrong, but really don't see any further or deeper than that. If you read the report and get to the part about Ashcroft being in the hospital and how the gang came to try to force a signature from him, it gives the whole drama of the Bush gang an interesting perspective. I imagine that some of the people that were involved in all that mess really felt like they had woken up in a nightmare and didn't have any language to describe what they were witnessing and experiencing!

I know how hard it was for me to come to a reasonable resolution in my own mind about pathological people. It's just brainwashed into us from birth that "all men are created equal" and we just have to talk and negotiate and find the common ground or the "truth is somewhere in the middle" and so on. The reality of human-looking predators is just SO FAR out there! I think that many of us here even forget how far out there it is because we have been looking at it with our eyes open, without flinching (much) for years now. We forget that there are still millions and millions of people for whom this is shocking and unbelievable.

If you think about it, it only takes a few psychopaths in carefully selected positions in religion, government and academia to twist the understanding of an entire cultural milieu. That is exactly what has been done!


Added later: I just noticed a couple paragraphs in this article: Bush's Torture Policies: Were Democrats Complicit?

... a majority of Democrats have remained collectively silent on whether the disclosures warrant a full-scale criminal investigation.

[...]

With the exception of two Democrats, not a single lawmaker called for an investigation on the scale of what has been proposed by Pelosi.

Rep. Jerrold Nadler, D-NY, has called on Attorney General Eric Holder to appoint a special prosecutor to launch a criminal inquiry.

"The congressman has been in contact with the Attorney General's office regarding his concerns on a number of critical issues, including the need for an independent counsel to investigate, and where appropriate, to prosecute those responsible for the illegal torture of detainees," said Ilan Kayatsky, a spokesman for Nadler, in an interview Friday.

"He believes that, thanks to this administration's commitment to greater transparency, the Attorney General's forthright statement that waterboarding is torture, and the admission by Vice President Cheney that he authorized waterboarding, there can no longer be any question that there must be an investigation into precisely what happened and who is responsible, and to hold those responsible accountable. The Congressman fully intends to keep pressing for the appointment of an independent counsel."

John Conyers, the chairman of the House Judiciary Committee, said Friday he does not understand "statements by the President and the Attorney General yesterday on the issue of potential prosecutions to address the senior officials and government attorneys who crafted and approved these programs."

"Further, yesterday's statements did not address the legality of any conduct that exceeded even the minimal boundaries established by the [Office of Legal Counsel] memos, or any interrogations that occurred before legal guidance was provided," Conyers said. "We must have a full investigation of the circumstances under which these torture methods were created, approved, and implemented, preferably by an independent commission as I previously proposed."

"And if our leaders are found to have violated the strict laws against torture, either by ordering these techniques without proper legal authority or by knowingly crafting legal fictions to justify the torture, they should be criminally prosecuted. It is simply obvious that, if there is no accountability when wrongdoing is exposed, future violations will not be deterred."

But Conyers, who as recently as last month called for the appointment of a special prosecutor to investigate torture, has not followed through as he did in June 2008 with a formal request to the attorney general.

So, the fact that Conyers is not following through is curious.

Those who read the Conyers report will find Nadler playing a starring role in some of the testimony segments.

 

[NormaRegula]

...Reading the report gives one the impression that the people behind it are normal, have something of a conscience, can tell right from wrong and are appalled by the wrong, but really don't see any further or deeper than that.

Therein lies a great deal of frustration and sadness. Making others...especially those with a conscience who are known and have influential positions...fully aware of the powerful psychopaths in our midst is difficult, and there is always the chance that one is violating another's free will by explaining the dynamics of pathology.

Perhaps I'm wrong in my thinking this. Yet past experiences have taught me to tread carefully even when someone I am talking with literally cries out: "What's wrong with this world?" When I mention some tenants from "Political Ponerology", some have recoiled in horror, some have refused to believe that their particular brand of belief system (be it political, religious, social, or work-related) could ever harbor devious pathologicals in their midst...and more than one person has cut our conversation short.

Do things have to get so bad here on the BBM before normal people finally get it...or will it be too late by then to DO much in the way of exposing, and then refusing to play the pathological game?

So, the fact that Conyers is not following through is curious.

Well, it wouldn't be the first time a politician produced a devastating report...and then went suddenly quiet. Could be he has been threatened, blackmailed, or maybe he's decided to give up the fight because not enough people are behind him to follow through.

 

[FireShadow]

I downloaded the report and have begun reading it.

I must admit that I had not thought of this (I was so focused on impeachment being necessary...ahhhh, subjectivity!):

The simple fact is, despite the efforts of impeachment advocates, the support and votes
have not been there, and could not reasonably be expected to materialize. It takes 218 votes in
the House and 67 votes in the Senate to impeach and remove a president from office. The
resolution I offered three years ago to simply investigate whether an impeachment inquiry was
warranted garnered only 38 cosponsors in the House, and the Democratic Leader of the Senate
labeled it “ridiculous.” Impeachment resolutions against Vice President Cheney and President
Bush offered by my friend and colleague Dennis Kucinich only garnered 27 and 11 House
cosponsors, respectively.
Impeachment, if done right, also takes time. When I became Chairman of the House
Judiciary Committee in January of 2007, after twelve years of Republican rule, we had to start
much of our oversight from scratch, and against an Administration more dedicated to secrecy and
obfuscation than any in our history. Unlike the Nixon impeachment, we did not have the benefit
of the bipartisan Ervin Committee or a fearless special prosecutor such as Archibald Cox or Leon
Jaworski to help lay the groundwork needed to remove a president or vice president from office.
During the failed impeachment of President Bill Clinton, many of us derided House
Republicans for, in the words of Senator Bob Kerrey, “sloppily” conducting the inquiry. Without
calling a single fact witness, the Republicans essentially rubber-stamped the work of Independent
Counsel Ken Starr and forwarded his allegations on to defeat in the Senate. Many advocates
would have had me do the same to this President based on newspaper and magazine articles. But
that course would have cheapened the impeachment process itself – and would not have led to
success.
The final plea was: “Why not try? What do you have to lose?” Impeachments, however,
both successful and unsuccessful, have precedential consequences – they set standards for future
presidential behavior. The House Judiciary Committee’s rejection of an article of impeachment
against President Nixon for failing to file tax returns, for example, was used as precedent in
acquitting President Clinton for impeachment based on personal misdeeds.
While some of the difficulty in garnering support for impeachment results from fatigue
over the recent and unjustified impeachment of President Clinton, and concern about routinizing
what should be an extraordinary constitutional event – whatever the reason, an impeachment vote
in the House was certain to fail. What, then, would be the precedent set by a House vote against
the impeachment of President Bush or Vice President Cheney for deceiving our nation into war,
allowing torture, engaging in warrantless domestic surveillance, and retaliating against those who
attempted to reveal the truth about these acts? In my view, a failed impeachment – by an almost
certainly lopsided vote – would have grossly lowered the bar for presidential behavior and caused
great damage to our Constitution. More immediately, a failure to impeach President Bush and
Vice President Cheney would have been trumpeted by their allies as a vindication for them and
for their overreaching policies.

So, I think maybe Laura is right. Conyers just does not recognize psychopathy. Whether he is in ignorance or denial, I don't know. The lack of support and votes are apparently the result of ponerization and his point about a failed impeachment effort does have some merit. His hands are nicely tied.

 

[Smallwood]

The reality of human-looking predators is just SO FAR out there! I think that many of us here even forget how far out there it is because we have been looking at it with our eyes open, without flinching (much) for years now. We forget that there are still millions and millions of people for whom this is shocking and unbelievable.

Yet past experiences have taught me to tread carefully even when someone I am talking with literally cries out: "What's wrong with this world?" When I mention some tenants from "Political Ponerology", some have recoiled in horror, some have refused to believe that their particular brand of belief system (be it political, religious, social, or work-related) could ever harbor devious pathologicals in their midst...and more than one person has cut our conversation short.

Tell me about it! My brother is a very bright (even if largely uneducated) person who can see governmental machinations in countries near and far away for what they mostly are, but the area of the "soul" is sacrosanct to him. "Soul" meaning to him that all men are essentially the same, with capability to choose morally between good and evil. He is a secular person too with appreciation for science so this strikes to me as especially odd. He has several friends that based on his descriptions are definitely psychopathic and I've tried to suggest that it would be healthy to recognize some people for what they are: manipulators with no conscience. He still thinks that such things are science-fiction! It is just one area that he is blind to. And I can accept that. It is a bitter reality for anyone to face but it is a reality that will be faced one way or another, depending on ones outlook on life. I can tell from his that if he came to the realization of the psychopathic aspects of our reality, it would probably have a negative effect on him. I only hope I haven't forced these ideas on him too much already. My interactions with him have pretty much convinced me that "STS vehicle doesn't learn to be STO by determining the needs of another" and how important it is to converse with people at the level me and they both can understand. To do otherwise leads to confusion, and confusion is bad.

On the other hand, in cases where knowledge on pathology would help imminently, it seems very grim too as you describe NR. It is grim to see manipulated nature of the gun-wielding patriots. Equipped with just summary understanding of COINTELPRO, psychopathy and history those people would have all that was needed to realize that emperor has no clothes. Yet, their egos are too pampered and established for them to see/understand those realities. I think a major lesson is about to be learned there.

An idle observation based on some personal experience and some mental conjecture: It is a palpable feeling knowing SOME of these things to be the simple and honest TRUTH, and realizing the length one must go to actually describe their processes. I find that I simply lack the words. That said... people do not line up to me to explain the world to them either. And I don't blame them, that is better left for people more capable.

But, on the subject of the thread, "The Conyers Report", it seems definitely interesting. I need to devote a couple of afternoons to it and a hot drink (preferably hot cocoa but need to check "Diet and Health" for it). I hope as many as possible read Laura's article on it and understand the weight of things mentioned within it. It will be a sad day for all (well, except of course for the psychos in power) if and when the U.S. public (or any other public) en masse embrace the frenzy and insanity in the form of violent resistance.

 

[RyanX]

http://www.sott.net/articles/show/187936-Congressman-Conyers-wife-pleads-guilty-to-conspiracy

Congressman Conyers' wife pleads guilty to conspiracy

Detroit City Council President Pro Tem Monica Conyers, the wife of powerful House Judiciary Committee Chairman John Conyers, D-Mich., pleaded guilty this morning to conspiring to commit bribery and is free on personal bond.

U.S. District Judge Avern Cohn said, "The defendant now stands convicted."

The one count of conspiring to commit bribery is punishable by up to five years in prison.

No sentencing date has been set.

The federal plea document released Friday cites two instances in late 2007, in the days surrounding the approval of a sludge-hauling contact with Synagro Technologies when Conyers accepted cash bribes from a Synagro consultant. The sludge contract was rescinded in January.

Conyers appeared before Cohn to answer charges in connection with the wide-ranging probe of wrongdoing at Detroit city hall.

She has long been under suspicion in the Synagro Technologies bribery probe, not least because she had been a vocal opponent of the contract before suddenly switching her sentiments. She became the deciding voice in the city council's 5-4 vote to approve the sludge-hauling deal in November 2007.

The document does not cite the specific amount of the bribes, but previous court documents have said that Conyers, identified by the feds as Council Member A, took at least two bribes of $3,000 each, among other bribes. In both cases cited in the court documents today, Conyers was handed the cash in an envelope by a individual representing Rayford Jackson, a Detroit businessman doing work for Synagro who pleaded guilty to bribery earlier this month.

"This is not the beginning and it is certainly not the end, folks," FBI Special Agent in Charge Andy Arena said at a news conference this morning.

Arena said the message to corrupt public officials is, "We're coming after you."

...

I'm not sure how relevant this is. I don't want to pretend to see a conspiracy where none exists, but this seems awfully suspicious. Not in the sense that there is a bribery conspiracy as implicated in the report, but a conspiracy to silence dissent (aka - her husband) in an indirect manner. I should add, I have not read the Conyers report in full, only Laura's synopsis at this point.

Really though, when you consider that bribery is the modus operandi of the US political system, this charge seems a bit obvious or perhaps intentional - like she was singled out. Maybe her husband's report twisted a few nerves in the upper echelons of power?

fwiw.

Ryan