John Conyers offers a disingenuous op-ed in today's Washington Post, in which he claims that he is in no rush to impeach the President. Remember this piece from the Post less than a year ago? John Conyers has already held his impeachment hearing. He says that the Downing Street Memo establishes "a prima facie case of going to war under false pretenses." He's also written:
The Report also concludes that these charges clearly rise to the level of impeachable conduct. However, because the Administration has failed to respond to requests for information about these charges, it is not yet possible to conclude that an impeachment inquiry or articles of impeachment are warranted.
So the President has engaged in impeachable conduct, but until he answers some questions, we can't tell if he should be impeached? What does that even mean?
Regardless, Conyers has made clear that he would love to impeach the President. Does that mean it will happen? No. There are sane Democrats in the House. It could be that enough would oppose the move to prevent it from occurring. But I think that's the only thing that would stop Conyers if he were to become Chairman.
Back to the top.