53421627.

doc Page 1 of 4

January 29, 2008

Conyers Tells Rob Kall: Impeachment Not

Off the Table
A You Tube Video
By Rob Kall

At the invitation only Progressive media summit, held by Senate Democratic Steering
and Outreach Committee, Rob Kall interviewed John Conyers on impeachment. Uber
Blogger Matt Stoller video recorded most of the conversation and posted it to youtube,
commenting,
You get to see a fascinating and very human interaction between a highly
intelligent activist and a sitting Congressman with immense power who is
vaguely irritated at having to answer questions, but also intensely
interested in answering them.
Watch the video here at Matt Stoller's Openleft.com
Here's the transcript of the conversation. Matt Stoller transcribed the part he videotaped,
but I recorded the conversation from its start, so I"ve put them together and corrected a
few minor transcription errors. Please make sure to read my comments on the third
page-- my attempt to offer some additional context and a positive slant on Conyers
words. (The brown print is the part that was not on the video.)
Rob Kall: You know, you just gave the talking points that all the members
of congress use on why not to impeach-- that you want to stay focused on
work, but I talked to ELizabeth Holtzman about it, and she did it (she was
involved in the impeachment hearings of Richard Nixon.)
And she told me that it didn't hold up the congress at all. They had a room.
They held hearings. The way I see it, the way the congress has been
framing impeachment is the target of getting it to the senate and the
whole point of impeachment is that it's a tool that lets you get around
executive privilege. Right? YOu don't have the problem then (of Bush's
refusal to allow people to testify after being subpoenaed.)
John Conyers: Dear friend. We've got two impeachments, the first time in
American history. We gotta have two impeachments...
John Conyers: Two impeachments rather than one. They've either got to
be simultaneous or seriatic.
Rob Kall: Seriatic would be the way to do it. First Cheney, then Bush.
History teaches us, let's start with Gonzales. We went to Gonzales, and
he's gone. They went to Agnew, he left. Then they went to Nixon, and they
started doing hearings on him. It never went to a vote in the Senate. And I
don't think it ever would. All we need to do is get the hearings opened up
where they can't say 'sorry, executive privilege, then you've got the tools,
which is what Impeachment is, it's a tool.
53421627.doc Page 2 of 4

John Conyers: You know who's been in more impeachment hearings than
anybody in the House or Senate?
Rob Kall: You?
John Conyers: Right.
Rob Kall: And you wrote a book on impeaching Bush, too.
John Conyers: A couple, yes. Well then there must be some compelling
reason that I'm not doing it right now.
Rob Kall: Pelosi, Pelosi keeps coming to mind. (chuckling)
John Conyers: How could she stop, well, she could stop me because
actually it goes through a special committee on the House, but, Pelosi
can't stop me from anything, really.
Rob Kall: Yeah?
John Conyers: Yeah.
Rob Kall: So it's you stopping you, nobody else?
John Conyers: Well I don't know who's ever stopped me before, I don't
know why Pelosi's going to stop me now.
Rob Kall: You know people say it's too late, and it's not too late for Bush
to start another war, appoint another Supreme Court justice if something
happened, and here we are stuck with him taking care of what could be
the worst economic crisis in decades...
John Conyers: Let me just say this to you because there may be some
other people that want to talk to me. Let me tell you this. If we started an
impeachment hearing that didn't succeed, guess what would happen.
They would say that he's being demonized, that Conyers always, they
campaigned against the Democrats taking over last year, wait a minute,
they campaigned against the Democrats saying two things, Rangel will
raise taxes if the Democrats ran and Conyers would impeach Bush.
Now to come in on January 29th after having been impressed by your
logic, Rob, and saying we're going after both these guys at once and if it
doesn't, and I really smile at this one, and if it doesn't work at least you
did it and taught them a lesson.
Well they would take that and that would bleed right into the election of
2008 sure as we're standing here.
Rob Kall: You've got in your committee stuck there held back Dennis
Kucinich's bill.
John Conyers: So what?
Rob Kall: I asked Dennis about it and you know what he said, I asked him
about people not acting because they're afraid of the reaction of the
Republicans, and his reply was 'that's no way to run a democracy'.
John Conyers: Well I see Dennis Kucinich way more than you and I know
a lot about what he's doing and why he's doing it. I know about my dear
friend Bob Wexler from Florida and that's their right and that's their
authority, but I'm the chairman.
Rob Kall: Is there anything that could happen that would change your
mind?
53421627.doc Page 3 of 4

John Conyers: Sure. There are plenty of things that could happen. And
it's not off the table.
Rob Kall: It's not? That's good to hear.
John Conyers: Well that's why we're talking.
Rob Kall: Thank you.
Conyer's aide: Now the congressman has got to get back...
I must say that I have enormous respect for congressman Conyers. He didn't have to
have the conversation and, like Matt Stoller, said, he's intensely interested in this. He is
THE key factor in what could be a huge turning point in history. His refusal to proceed is
perplexing though. I don't buy the argument that the concern about the Republicans
attacking the action is holding HIM back. It might be enough to worry some the more
invertebrate members of congress, but not Conyers.
On the contrary, I believe that if spun intelligently, taking the approach could
dramatically help the Democrats in the 2008 elections. Conyers should take the position
that Bush and Cheney have forced the house judiciary committee to use impeachment
hearings as a last resort, because the whitehouse admin refused to obey, or allow
appointees to obey conventional congressional subpoenas. Executive privilege can not
be used in response to impeachment hearing subpoenas.
Perhaps my conversation with Conyers allowed him to tip off the whitehouse that there is
more at stake than just saying no to the subpoenas already issued to Harriet Meiers and
others. If so, I'm happy to be of help.
One thing seems clear. John Conyers is VERY aware of his place in history, the power we
wields. The response from Bush to the Meiers subpoena will come soon. These are
clearly very high stakes exchanges.
George Bush has been very concerned about his pathetic legacy, and it seems, he faces
going down rather ignominiously in history. But John Conyers turns 80 in May. My guess
he is contemplating how history regards him. There is still time to pursue the serial
impeachment of constitutional and war criminals Dick Cheney and George Bush. I'm
hoping that we will soon see that John Conyers has dotted his 'i''s and crossed his 't's to
his satisfaction, and, having gone through all the proper procedures, so history gives him
credit for giving Cheney and Bush a chance to work with the system and then giving
them enough rope to hang themselves.
I've written about this many times before. Investigations of Agnew led to his resignation.
Impeachment hearings of Nixon, which did not stop the work of congress, led to
disclosures, confessions and discoveries that led a group of Republican senators to take
"THE WALK" to the whitehouse, to inform Nixon that he must resign or face their
cooperation in his impeachment.
History will recapitulate this series of events. Cheney will be investigated, and in short
order, develop a "medical excuse" so he gets a note from the doctor that he needs to
resign. Bush will appoint a vice president who the Dems in congress can live with, one
who will not run for office-- probably a senior leader, like John Warner, James Baker, or
maybe Bush will take advantage of the opportunity to make a minor correction to his
legacy and appoint a black, woman or latino, or a native American (Senator Akaka has
introduced legislation that would give native, indigenous Hawaiians the same right as
Native American Indians. )
Then, hearings will continue against Bush. Just as history has taught us with the Agnew,
Nixon and Gonzales hearings, lower level appointees will testify, provide evidence, then
higher level appointees and ultimately, the ugly truth will lead to Mitch McConnell
53421627.doc Page 4 of 4

leading THE WALK to the whitehouse, informing Bush that the Republican party will be
demolished for decades if Bush does not resign.
Conyers told me that it would look pretty bad if the impeachment failed. Do YOU think he
will fail to come up with worse dirt than he and Patrick Leahy and Chuck Schumer came
up with, investigating Alberto Gonzales? Is Conyers being modest in expressing his
concern? I'm hoping we'll see more developments as drama unfolds around the Meiers
subpoena.
I had some trouble accessing the youtube vide on Matt Stoller's openleft.com, so I've
also embedded the video below. But please check out his commentary here
For over 1000 additional articles on impeachment, click on the tags in the tag cloud to
the right of the article.