Has John Conyers, not to mention members of his family, earned the benefit of the doubt with their years of honest service? Should we just assume there’s a reasonable explanation for this? I didn’t think so:

DETROIT (WJBK) – The son of Rep. John Conyers, D-Mich., says items were stolen out of the government vehicle he was driving last Wednesday in downtown Detroit, FOX 2′s Simon Shaykhet reports.

John Conyers III, 20, told police two Apple MacBooks, valued at $1,100 apiece, and more than $27,000 worth of concert tickets to the Fillmore were stolen out of a burgundy 2010 Cadillac Escalade registered to the 14th Congressional District.
[...]
Shaykhet says the incident brings into question why the son of a congressman was driving a registered government vehicle.

“I don’t know of a single person in congress in the 16 years I was there who had to put vehicle titles in the name of the government,” former U.S. Rep. Joe Knollenberg tells FOX 2.

According to the U.S. General Services Administration Web site , if an employee allows an unauthorized person to use a government vehicle, that employee could be suspended or fired.

“I would tell you that they better use this (vehicle) just for the purpose of what they had been required to do,” said Knollenberg. “Not to get into the hands of a relative or a friend or whatever.”

Move along, nothing to see here!

At least the Playboys weren’t stolen. Whew! That was a close call.

Today, Rep. Conyers apologized for the absolutely, positively one-time-only incident:

Democratic Congressman John Conyers says he’s learned that his son inappropriately used a government vehicle in Detroit and plans to reimburse the Treasury for any non-official use.

The House Judiciary Committee chairman says in a statement Tuesday the vehicle was used during the Thanksgiving holiday. The 81-year-old congressman apologized and says he’ll make sure it won’t happen again.

It’s bad enough that John Conyers gets to tool around in a $75,000 vehicle on the taxpayers’ dime, let alone his son. Maybe Junior just got used to driving the thing when dad had his license suspended.

As of Tuesday afternoon, there’s no word of what was on the computers that were stolen (the info will probably be a part of the next round of Wikileaks), why Conyers had $27,000 worth of concert tickets in his car, or who they belonged to. Maybe Conyers is just a really big Joe Satriani fan.

**Written by Doug Powers

Twitter @ThePowersThatBe

St. Cindy Sheehan and her unhinged minions will descend on Arlington National Cemetery Monday morning for an impeachment parade that will end at John Conyers’ office doorstep. Similar protests are taking place in the offices of Rep. Howard Berman in California and Rep. Pete Visclosky in Indiana, and at Rep. Conyers’ district offices in Detroit, among others. This is no fringe movement. The nutroots machine has kicked into high gear. Far Lefty Bill Moyers joined the bandwagon with a one-hour PBS special on impeachment last week. Jimmy Breslin banged the impeachment drum in his Newsday column today. Sen. Russ Feingold is crusading for censure.

West Hollywood’s city council passed an impeachment resolution last week–”the 80th city or township in the nation to pass such a declaration, following similar actions in Michigan, Ohio and Vermont as well as six cities in Northern California, including Arcada and Eureka.” Telluride, Colorado approved one last week as well. There is an active ImpeachPAC and there is now something called a “National Impeachment Center” in L.A. And Conyers, via Weasel Zippers, says he just needs to gather three more congressional members and then he’ll move to impeach.

An After Downing Street blogger exults:

House Judiciary Committee Chairman John Conyers has said that if three more Congress Members get behind impeachment he will start the impeachment proceedings.

I was a guest today on Bree Walker’s radio show. She’s the progressive radio host from California who purchased Cindy Sheehan’s land from her in Crawford, Texas.

Bree attended an event on Friday in San Diego at which Congressman Conyers spoke about impeachment. Her report was extremely interesting. I had already heard reports that Conyers had said: “What are we waiting for? Let’s take these two guys out!” But, of course, what we’re waiting for is John Conyers. Is he ready to act? It was hard to tell from that comment. In January, Conyers spoke at a huge rally on the National Mall and declared “We can fire them!” but later explained that what he meant was that we could wait for two years and Bush and Cheney’s terms would end. Was this week’s remark just more empty rhetoric?

It appears to be more than that. Bree Walker told me, on the air, that Conyers said that all he needs is three more Congress Members backing impeachment, and he’ll move on it, even without Pelosi. I asked whether that meant specifically moving from 14 cosponsors of H Res 333 to 17, or adding 3 to the larger number of Congress Members who have spoken favorably of impeachment but not all signed onto bills. Bree said she didn’t know and that Conyers had declined to take any questions.

Either way, this target of three more members seems perfectly doable. It’s safe to assume, I think, that we’re talking about impeaching Cheney first. But, even if Conyers is talking about Bush, the target is perfectly achievable.

Cindy Sheehan is going to make sure Conyers keeps his word. Her followers have pledged to park themselves at his office until he makes his impeachment plans official. Meanwhile, the moonbats are touting a possible congressional campaign announcement from Sheehan. More from After Downing Street:

Cindy Sheehan to Lead March for Impeachment, Arlington to Capitol Hill, July 23rd

Congressional Campaign Announcement Possible

WHAT: March from Arlington National Cemetery to the Capitol Hill Office of Congressman John Conyers to ask him to begin impeachment proceedings against Vice President Dick Cheney or President George W. Bush or both. Participants hope to meet with Congressman Conyers and receive his assurance that impeachment proceedings will begin at once in the House Judiciary Committee, which he chairs. Many of those participating have committed to only leave if Conyers agrees to begin impeachment or they are arrested.

Speaker Nancy Pelosi has been the driving force against impeachment in Congress. If there is no agreement to begin impeachment proceedings by Monday, Sheehan will announce her candidacy challenging Pelosi for election in California’s 8th Congressional District.

WHO: Cindy Sheehan, mother of Casey Sheehan, KIA in Iraq 2004, founder of Gold Star Families for Peace and of the Camp Casey Peace Institute; Ray McGovern, 27-year veteran of the CIA and cofounder of Veteran Intelligence Professionals for Sanity; Rev. Lennox Yearwood, President of the Hip Hop Caucus; Ann Wright, retired U.S. Army Colonel and diplomat who resigned in protest the day the U.S. invaded Iraq; Debra Sweet, national coordinator of the World Can’t Wait; Dave Lindorff, author of “The Case for Impeachment,” David Swanson, cofounder of AfterDowningStreet.org; Jodie Evans and Medea Benjamin, both cofounders of Code Pink; Kevin Zeese, director of Democracy Rising; Tina Richards, military mother and creator of GrassRootsAmerica4Us; and many many others.

WHEN AND WHERE:

10:00 a.m. gathering outside the Arlington National Cemetery metro stop. Cindy Sheehan will make remarks.
10:30 a.m. beginning march to Capitol Hill, to 2426 Rayburn House Office Building, office of Chairman John Conyers.
12:00 p.m. noon – approximate arrival time.

“We have the deepest respect for Chairman John Conyers,” Sheehan said, “and I’m glad he’s the one who will lead the impeachment hearings. But time is wasting and people are dying every day that he holds off. The majority of Americans want Dick Cheney impeached. We are bringing that message to the chairman of the judiciary committee of our house of representatives. It is our house, the house of American citizens, and any representatives currently serving there who disagree should be challenged in the next election.”

Freepers plan to be at Arlington to counter-protest. But what about the Republican Party? The BDS-ers are not going away. They’ve been emboldened by the White House’s reticence. And the Beltway Republicans’ idiotic dissing of its own base has weakened its ability to unite the Right when the president needs a strong defense. The GOP needs to do more than just remind Americans of Nancy Pelosi’s 60 Minutes pledge (“Impeachment is off the table…it’s a pledge. Of course it is. It is a waste of time…”). It needs to launch an aggressive counter-attack exposing the shadow party behind the Democrat Party.

Look at these people. Look. At. Them:

These people mean business. They’re organized, energized, and relentless. They have substantial public support, funding, and legal/academic infrastructure. Does the GOP plan to rely on Nancy Pelosi to fend these impeachment hounds off? If so, they vastly underestimate the nutroots’ zeal–and Pelosi’s fecklessness.

Update 7/9 10:42am: The latest volley in the battle over executive privilege…

President Bush invoked executive privilege Monday to deny requests by Congress for testimony from two former aides in connection with the firings of federal prosecutors. The White House, however, did offer again to make former counsel Harriet Miers and one-time political director Sara Taylor available for private, off-the-record interviews.

In a letter to the heads of the House and Senate Judiciary panels, White House counsel Fred Fielding insisted that Bush was acting in good faith and refused lawmakers’ demand that the president explain the basis for invoking the privilege. The latest move in the separation of powers fight between the legislative and executive branches came as members of Congress began returning from their Fourth of July recess. An atmosphere of high tension accompanied the resumption of work as a fight also loomed there between majority Democrats and some key Republicans and Bush over his Iraq war policy.

In his letter regarding subpoenas the Judiciary panels issued, Fielding said, “The president feels compelled to assert executive privilege with respect to the testimony sought from Sara M. Taylor and Harriet E. Miers.” “You may be assured that the president’s assertion here comports with prior practices in similar contexts, and that it has been appropriately documented,” the letter said.

Fielding was responding to a 10 a.m. EDT deadline set by the Democratic chairmen, Sen. Patrick Leahy of Vermont and Rep. John Conyers of Michigan, for the White House to explain [its] privilege claim, prove that the president personally invoked it and provide logs of which documents were being withheld. As expected, Fielding refused to comply.

Update 7/9 9:34am: Congress returns, ready to battle Bush

Update: Cindy Sheehan returns: “Cindy Sheehan, the soldier’s mother who galvanized the anti-war movement, said Sunday that she plans to run against House Speaker Nancy Pelosi unless she introduces articles of impeachment against President Bush in the next two weeks.”

***

First, a flashback. Remember this headline:

Democrats Won’t Try To Impeach President
By Charles Babington
Washington Post Staff Writer
Friday, May 12, 2006; Page A06

Seeking to choke off a Republican rallying cry, the House’s top Democrat has told colleagues that the party will not seek to impeach President Bush even if it gains control of the House in November’s elections, her office said last night.

And remember this one:

A Democrat-controlled House wouldn’t impeach, Pelosi says

House Democratic leader Nancy Pelosi of San Francisco has told her caucus that the idea of impeaching President Bush isn’t in the cards if the party takes over the House in November’s elections.

Pelosi, who Republicans have charged intends to lead an impeachment effort, dismissed the idea when she spoke Wednesday morning at a closed-door caucus of the House’s 201 Democrats. Pelosi also restated her opposition to the idea of censuring Bush over his decision to invade Iraq in March 2003.

“We want oversight and checks and balances,” Pelosi spokesman Brendan Daly said she told the caucus. “That certainly isn’t being done in this Congress (under Republican control). Impeachment was never her interest.”

Promises, promises. Let’s fast-forward:

MoveOn Puts Impeachment Back on the Table
Poll: Impeachment talk gains steam after Libby move
Blacked Out by the Corporate Media, Impeachment Advances
US Rep. Johnson Joins 10 Others on Cheney Impeachment Bill

Impeachment pied piper John Conyers, enraged by President Bush’s commutation of Scooter Libby’s prison sentence, will hold hearings next week to examine presidential pardons. (He’s come along way from those make-believe hearings in 2005.) Make no mistake: Conyer’s tilling the political soil for his impeachment drive:

“Yes, we’re going to review all of them, including Clinton’s, Bush one, Bush two, we’ll go back as far as they want,” Rep. John Conyers, D-Mich., said in an exclusive interview with FOX News Radio. Conyers added that the Nixon pardon would also be covered in the review.

“We’ll be doing the research. We won’t need to review each and every one of them but the whole idea is to examine to what use this part of our criminal law is being put and whether it’s being used adequately or are there other changes necessary,” he said.

Conyers said he doesn’t think President Bush acted outside his constitutional authority in commuting Libby’s 2 1/2-year prison sentence, but he questions the use of that authority.

Those who can, govern. Those who can’t, “question authority.” If there was any doubt before, there is no more doubt now: The nutroots Congress is ascendant. Nancy Pelosi’s true colors will show.

The New York Post editorial board weighs in on the imperial John Conyers this morning–excoriating the House Ethics Committee for giving him a pass on his unethical use and abuse of staffers:

Conyers, by the way, is no congressional novice. He’s been a member of the House for no less than 42 years.

But as long as he follows some new procedures, the Ethics Committee declared, “This matter will remain closed and the committee will take no further action on it.”

Including making public whether or not the allegations against Conyers are true.

That’s a pretty astonishing way to dispose of accusations about practices that labeled “unethical, if not criminal” by one of Conyers’ own chiefs of staff – who then resigned, saying she “could not tolerate [them] any longer.”

And the fact that the committee’s Republicans went along with it speaks volumes as to why the GOP is now in the minority – not to mention the extent of the unseemly mutual back-scratching that permeates Capitol Hill.

Nancy Pelosi and the Democrats promised to do something about ethics once they took control of Congress.

Here’s a very good place to start – by finding someone else to head the Judiciary Committee.

The Washington Times reports:

“It’s a slap on the wrist, but the fact that they did anything is a big deal for [the ethics committee],” said Melanie Sloan, executive director of Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington.

She did not expect the committee to be any tougher under Democratic control. “It is always hard for the party in power to deal with congressional corruption,” she said.

Last month, the ethics committee decided not to take action against Rep. Jim McDermott, despite finding that the Washington Democrat broke ethics rules in 1997 by giving reporters illegally taped telephone calls involving House leaders.

A Republican lawmaker familiar with both cases said Democrats on the committee blocked punitive action against their colleagues.

“It certainly brings into question the Democrats being strong on ethics,” said the lawmaker, who did not want to be identified discussing ethics cases. “In this case [against Mr. Conyers], they are clearly not willing to sanction their own Democratic members.”

And Republicans are going along.

***

Related: Conyers’ staff and missing turkeys

Previous:

Crooked John Conyers
Dirty Democrat Files: Jim McDermott found guilty of ethics violations
Foiled again!
King John Conyers
The Alan Mollohan case
Dirty Harry Reid: Then and now

Here’s a great way to ring another new year of the culture of corruption in Washington.

Jason Smith notes: Incoming Judiciary Committee Chair Admits Breaking Ethics Rules

Here’s the buried-for-the-holidays statement on the House Ethics Committee website:

December 29, 2006

Statement of Chairman Doc Hastings and Ranking Minority Member Howard L. Berman Regarding Representative John Conyers

The Chairman and Ranking Minority Member, pursuant to Committee Rule 18(a), initiated an informal inquiry in December 2003 into reports that members of the congressional staff of Representative John Conyers had performed campaign activity on official time and in some instances using official resources, and that some staff members may have been compelled to do campaign work or personal work for Representative Conyers. The assertions in the reports, if true, could implicate a number of laws and House rules applicable to Members, including: House Rule 23, clause 1 (requiring the conduct of a Member or employee to reflect creditably on the House of representatives); House Rule 23, clause 8 (requiring that congressional staff perform official duties commensurate with compensation); 31 U.S.C. § 1301(a) and corresponding regulations of the Committee on House Administration (providing that official funds may be used only for the purposes appropriated); and 18 U.S.C § 606 (prohibiting adverse personnel action or intimidation to secure a “contribution of money or other valuable thing” including services, for a political purpose).

Committee Rule 18(a) permits the Committee, in the absence of a filed complaint, to consider “any information in its possession indicating that a Member, officer, or employee may have committed a violation of the Code of Official Conduct or any law, rule, regulation, or other standard of conduct . . . .” The Chairman and Ranking Minority Member may jointly gather additional information concerning such a potential violation unless and until an investigative subcommittee is established.

During the course of their inquiry, the Chairman and Ranking Member asked for and received information, including documents, from several sources, including Representative Conyers. Committee staff also interviewed witnesses regarding the allegations.

In the course of providing information to the Committee, Representative Conyers acknowledged what he characterized as a “lack of clarity” in his communications with staff members regarding their official duties and responsibilities, and accepted responsibility for his actions. Representative Conyers also provided the Committee with documents indicating that he had begun taking steps to provide clearer guidance to staff regarding the requirement that campaign work and official work be separate.

After reviewing the information gathered during the inquiry, and in light of Representative Conyers’ cooperation with the inquiry, we have concluded that this matter should be resolved through the issuance of this public statement and the agreement by Representative Conyers to take a number of additional, significant steps to ensure that his office complies with all rules and standards regarding campaign and personal work by congressional staff.

Representative Conyers has agreed to the following conditions:

1. Prohibiting his personal congressional staff (other than his Chief of Staff) from performing any campaign-related work, including work done on a voluntary basis, during the 110th Congress, unless the staff member takes a paid position on his campaign while on leave without pay status and obtains prior written approval from the Committee.

2. Informing staff members in writing of the prohibition set forth above against the voluntary performance of campaign work.

3. Distributing a memorandum to each member of his personal congressional staff which clearly sets forth all House rules concerning (1) the performance of campaign and other non-official work by congressional staff members and (2) the prohibition against the performance of any campaign-related work being conducted in either his congressional or district offices. Additionally, this memorandum will explicitly state that the performance of campaign or other non-official work by staff members may not be required as a condition of their employment.

4. Directing that meetings of his personal congressional staff be held annually in which the House rules concerning staff participation in campaign activities are discussed and explained. In addition, a description of these rules will be made a part of the orientation for all new staff employees.

5. Continuing to maintain the detailed time-keeping system initiated by Rep. Conyers during the course of the Committee’s inquiry.

6. Requiring that all members of his congressional staff attend a briefing conducted by Committee counsel on the application of, and compliance with, applicable House rules concerning the performance of campaign and other non-official work by congressional staff members.

Provided that the above requirements are complied with, this matter will remain closed, and the Committee will take no further action on it.

Translation: Conyers is a slimeball, but he cooperated with us, so we’ll issue this public statement we hope no one will see and trust him to “monitor” his staff so all that bad stuff doesn’t happen again under his vigilant watch.

Business. As. Usual.

The back story: As The Hill newspaper reported last spring, “two former Conyers’ aides alleged that he repeatedly violated House ethics rules by requiring aides to work on local and state campaigns, and babysit and chauffeur his children. Deanna Maher, a former deputy chief of staff in the Detroit office, and Sydney Rooks, a former legal counsel in his district office, shared numerous letters, memos, e-mails, handwritten notes and expense reports with The Hill. They also sent the same materials to the House ethics panel, the FBI and the U.S. attorney’s office.”

As the Washington Times recounted, Maher also alleged that the congressman allowed a former top aide convicted of fraud to obtain a fake passport through the office, and then fled to Ghana.

The aide was eventually recaptured and extradited to the United States. She also alleges that Mr. Conyers used his staff to work on the campaigns of friends and relatives, including his wife’s, without taking leave. In 1998, she says, Mr. Conyers ordered her to live in his Detroit home for six weeks taking care of his children while his wife attended law classes. In a Dec. 22, 2004, letter obtained by the Hill, Miss Maher said Conyers staffer Melody Light “conducts her law practice (charging legal fees) out of the congressional office… She has in effect hung out her shingle on [Conyers'] office door.” Says Miss Maher in a Jan. 13 letter to the House ethics panel: “I could not tolerate any longer being involved with continual unethical, if not criminal, practices which were accepted as ‘business as usual’. ” She quit in May.

More here.

Conyers will remain chairman of the Judiciary Committee in Nancy Pelosi’s “most honest, most open, and most ethical Congress in history.”

But the groundwork is being laid. Former Brooklyn Rep. Liz Holtzman is hawking a book outlining how to impeach President Bush:

In her book, Holtzman and co-writer Cynthia Cooper lay out four other issues on which they believe Bush could be impeached: lying about weapons of mass destruction to justify invading Iraq, allowing the torture of prisoners, leaking classified information and botching the federal response to Hurricane Katrina.

“I thought that when we voted to impeach Richard Nixon, this would send a very strong message to future Presidents – do not put yourself above the rule of law,” said Holtzman, a Democrat. “That message was not heard by President Bush.”

A Republican National Committee spokesman panned the book on behalf of the White House.

“Clearly, Ms. Holtzman is a hyperpartisan interested in getting her name in the newspaper,” said the spokesman, Danny Diaz. “Unfortunately, she represents a party that is more focused on leveling political attacks than supporting measures that protect the American people.”

Now, she is taking to the airwaves and to the road to muster up moonbat support for an impeachment drive. Reader Richard Davis e-mails that Holtzman is convening an impeachment town hall in Philadelphia this weekend.

Nov. 11
National Constitution Center
Kirby Auditorium
1 PM

If you’re in the Philly area, go check it out. It’s open to the public.

Holtzman:

“Impeachment has to have the support of the American people,” she said.

They aren’t wasting any time trying to build it.

Ed Koch adds further warning:

Some congressional leaders will push for President Bush’s impeachment now that the Democrats have taken control of the House and possibly the Senate, former New York Mayor Ed Koch predicts.

“I expect that [Rep. John] Conyers as chairman [of the House Judiciary Committee], now with great freedom, will do anything he can to commence such impeachment or investigatory activity, and we’ll see whether Pelosi will prevent it,” Koch says.

A former aide to Rep. John Conyers Jr. (D-Mich.) has renewed a complaint to the House’s ethics committee alleging that the congressman compelled his staff to work in election campaigns and to do personal errands for him.

Deanna Maher, a former deputy chief of staff in one of Conyers’s Michigan offices, reminded the committee of her allegations, originally filed two years ago, in a January letter and asserted the lawmaker’s actions had violated House rules. She said that she and other employees were required to work on local and state campaigns and baby-sit for Conyers’s children, among other chores. The Hill newspaper and the Detroit Free Press first reported the allegations.

Hat tip: Tim Chapman