Wednesday, July 16, 2008

Impeachment: Surprise witness?

One of the nice things about my current alienation from the Democratic party is that I no longer have to defend Nancy Pelosi. She abstained from voting on the resolution to send the Kucinich impeachment measure to the Judiciary Committee for hearings. So did Committee Chairman John Conyers, oddly enough.

Nevertheless, the resolution passed and hearings will occur. And they will be televised.

Things now get verrrrry intriguing. Kucinich wants to present a surprise witness:
An unidentified government official of a U.S. ally wants to participate if and when Rep. Dennis J. Kucinich makes his case to impeach President Bush before the House Judiciary Committee, according to the Ohio Democrat.
No matter how the eventual hearing is framed, Kucinich said he would like to be joined at the witness table by a foreign official he would not name.

“I’ve been contacted by representatives of a U.S. ally who are seeking an opportunity to appear before the Judiciary Committee,” he said in an interview.

“Legislative leaders of a foreign capital” have a “new angle that I haven’t thought of before but is relevant,” he said. “This interest in whether we’ve been told the truth has extended to other countries.”

Kucinich would not provide further detail.
What the hell...? This is a most unusual development, one which the big blogs are oddly reticent to discuss. Which allied government are we talking about here? Britain? Israel? Turkey? France? Germany?

Does a fib to a foreigner count as an impeachable offense? I don't think so.

I don't think the yakker at the witness table will be Tony Blair (as some have suggested), since he is not a legislator. Besides, he was pretty much in on the scheme from the word Go. Then again, he did convert to Catholicism: A round of Confession followed by a stiff shot of Exomologesis may be just the tonic his soul needs.

Alas, it remains an open question as to whether Conyers will allow this testimony. His refusal to vote does not bode well.

For what it's worth: One theory holds that Conyers and Pelosi have avoided impeachment because Bush has threatened to launch an attack on Iran if he comes under fire from Congress. I don't believe in that scenario, but I thought I would mention the idea. What do you think?


Anonymous said...

I've thought that there might be a linkage between impeachment and attacking Iran that kept the Dem leadership opposed to impeachment, but I concluded that they just don't want it because it might cramp their style when they're running the government.

Anonymous said...

Within memory at this blog the threat to attack Iran if impeachment began has been mentioned, e.g., Nader read a letter about the 'theory' from a US Congressman of a New England state. The video clip is/was on YouTube:

"Ralph Nader: "Things Are a Lot Worse than We Thought!" (October 2007)

The old and only Conyers explanation was that there simply isn't enough time, remember? We remember soon after the 2006 Dem victories that he was let off from being charged with the same crap Cyril Wecht was indicted by the feds the previous February for doing - using his staff for babysitting errands. Siegelman was also a proof of concept. It's one explanation for his abstention also.

About the abstentions, if Pelosi was acting as Speaker, she couldn't vote except to create or break a tie (I don't know if she was Speaker or a Member for the vote). Conyers would abstain as the chairman of the committee of the question, though he's free to cast a vote; but it's best if he opens the hearings 'without prejudice'. Abstaining always is a vote for the majority anyway, allowing the motion to carry.

My guess is British, gleaned during pillow talk.


Anonymous said...

Since Conyers says the hearings will consider broad issues of outrage, rather than only address Kucinich's specific charge(s), it looks like the deck chairs on the chess board are being re-arranged. This time, Bush & Cheney are being blackmailed: (1) don't attack Iran and (2) don't fuck with the election.

Iran's 'missiles' are old, easily destroyed just before launch if the order to launch happens, and can barely reach Israel:

Everyone who wonders about the Bush/Cheney intentions should read Seymour Hersh's piece from a few weeks ago:


Anonymous said...

wow... this is some crazy stuff. I am really uncertain of what to think, but i can say that i am defintely interested!

Thanks for the info.

Texas Hill Country

Anonymous said...

"Foreign official", "representatives of a US ally", "legislative leaders of a foreign capital" - they mean three different things. I don't know whether Kucinich always talks like this, or whether this is deliberate.

If the country is Britain, the name that comes to mind is George Galloway. He loves the limelight in America (and I can't resist mentioning that he's got the same celebrity agent as Alastair Campbell). I hope it's not him; in my opinion he's an MI6 asset.

I strongly doubt it's anyone in Britain who's in the government or still pro it. It won't be Tony Blair - be serious! Nor David Miliband either (he's basically American, but the same goes for half the Brit cabinet).

Michael Meacher? OK, he's not an official, a representative, or a legislative leader...

Maybe someone from a less influential 'US ally' - Spain? Germany?

Won't be Israel.

Twilight said...

Thank you for this info, JC. I've added a link to it in my today's post, (which also mentioned Kucinich's latest attempt to be heard.)

One commenter mentioned George Galloway as the possible mystery witness - if only! Congress needs a few men like him to liven things up.

Anonymous said...

I'm sure you loathe Ann Coulter, but check her out on the subject of Nancy Pelosi.

Anonymous said...

Let the Hearings Begin!
Once the hearings start Bush would have too much social pressure riveted on him to think of initiating an attack. It would seal his coffin quicker and more completely than the hearings themselves..methinks

Anonymous said...

I've long thought the ones not being blackmailed had their families threatened. I watched an interview Pelosi gave after an extended mtg with GWB early on, and I would bet money I saw stark fear in her eyes and manner.

Anonymous said...

"Legislative leader" could mean the leader of a small band of like-minded members who are a minority in a larger legislative body...e.g. The Green Party in some nations.

It doesn't have to mean the overseas equivalent of Speaker of the House.