Pelosi IV with Jim Lehrer: "Waste of time" to impeach.

[crikkett]

Jim Lehrer on the News Hour today asked Pelosi if she saw any parallels between the Iraqi congress' vacation in August (which she had just finished criticizing). She said, surprising me, that no way did she see parallels because the House wouldn't go on vacation before *its* work was finished

"Before we leave here we'll have done everything we promised" (meaning her first 100 days' agenda would be complete)

"I'm very proud of what we've done in the first seven months," she said.

me to TV: Before her work was finished? What about impeachment? Will Jim dare ask?

It was the next question.

Pelosi answered that she thought Gonzales should resign. She wouldn't say that she thinks Gonzales should be impeached. She said that 'some people think it's a good use of Congress' time.'

... so clearly she isn't some people. She also repeated her line wrt GWB: "impeachment is off the table" ...because Congress has other things to do.

Q: why is the public so unhappy with congress
A: The polls aren't what they seem! Democrats are double-digit ahead of R's in all questions, she said. She hopes polls will rise when she sees what work Congress is doing.

Yada yada. No mention of stopping war.

Many appropriations bills she said, were veto-proof. She can't understand why the WH continues to threaten vetos, "it's a waste of time to threaten vetos that strike at the heart of issues that are at the heart of the American people."

---------------------------------
Waste of time, meet waste of life.
How many soldiers and Iraqis have died because impeachments are off the table? How much longer will the WH be allowed their maneuvers in the dark?

[MrMickeysMom]

1. I'm totally disgusted with this! eom

[aquart]

2. She's wrong.

[OzarkDem]

90. Dem leaders think they are complicit

its been pointed out that Dems know about Bush's illegal domestic spying programs because they provide the funding for them. They probably don't know the full extent of them, but Bush has probably convinced them they'll go down if he does. They know this tactic works, because they've been successfully using it to get Dems to approve the Iraq war and continue its funding.

Our Dem leaders in DC aren't the sharpest tools in the shed, so we have to convince them they stand to lose much more by slow walking these investigations, by dropping them or by keeping talking about no impeachment.

[mikelgb]

3. me voting in 06 was a waste of time apparently

expletive

[sakabatou]

4. ...

:nuke: :nuke: :nuke: :nuke: :nuke: :grr: :grr: :grr: :grr: :grr:

[Name removed]

5. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Amonester]

6. feeling like having been played and then...

let down

ignored

[rosesaylavee]

7. She's wrong.

I've been holding out hope that she really had some plan to ultimately impeach. I'm done with that.

We need another speaker.

[rjones2818]

8. Let's hope Conyers has more hutzpah than

Madame Speaker. She's clearly suspect now, although she's better than a Repug would be.

:grr:

[brentspeak]

9. Wait. Is Pelosi wrong to say that it's a waste of time to try to impeach

when there aren't enough votes to convict?

How is she wrong?

???

[Vincardog]

10. What is a waste of time is replying to "there aren't enough votes " posts

[Harper_is_Bush]

12. The poster asked a legitimate question. If you cannot answer, then don't n/t

[rudy23]

18. It's a waste of time trying to explain that the votes are taken AFTER the impeachment hearings

But that seems to be an irrelevant detail for the anti-impeachers

[Harper_is_Bush]

19. Don't be so dismissive and insulting. Nobody is an "anti-impeacher", people just

want to work with logic.

After almost 8 years of constant illogic, how about some logic?

Votes are taken AFTER impeachment hearings. And? The Dems will have the votes, ya figure?

[LittleClarkie]

32. Stating it in those terms reminds me of "Why do you hate the president?"

"Why do you hate impeachment?"

Logic, and maturity, and a serious approach that doesn't include stomping one's foot and saying "Now!"

[U4ikLefty]

67. So does labeling one petulant child. Pot meet kettle. n/t

[Voltaire]

35. We shall never know unless there are hearings

And for the UMPTEENTH time, the Constitution demands impeachment in this case. It makes no provision for WAITING FOR THE FUCKING VOTES!!!!

[MonkeyFunk]

36. No

the constitution doesn't mandate impeachment. it's an option.

We can have investigations now - in act, we ARE having them. They don't need to be impeachment hearings.

[Voltaire]

38. I do not understand the reticence

How many crimes have to happen before these people are impeached? How many must be killed? Must it ALWAYS wait for the right time, the right moment. Can it NOT be forced upon these vermin, preferably by the Congress, if not, by the PEOPLE to whom this government supposedly belongs? How we can even debate this at this late date is SICK! These people must be investigated, impeached and imprisoned. If ALL of those three do not happen this country will be doomed to suffer this bullshit again and again and again. I am one of the few on this board who proudly says that this country is crying out for REVOLUTION! By any means necessary REVOLUTION!!

But keep waiting for the votes if you like. I'm sure George and Dick and Karl don't mind at all.

[MonkeyFunk]

44. because without the votes

the pursuit is pointless. I don't know why people refuse to accept that.

And the notion that the votes will magically appear if they just impeach is unfounded.

[Voltaire]

46. Fine

Enjoy the dictatorship waiting for those magical votes.

If you find the spot in the Constitution that says that Congress shall impeach ONLY if they have the votes, I'll throw away my copy and buy the one you have.

Don't have the votes!!! They didn't have the votes against Nixon either. And he resigned in the end. But we musn't piss off Fox news or any other of the righties that drove us to this mess in the first place.

Its an Impeachment. We're gonna have to offend SOMEBODY!!!!

But I digress.....keep waiting on them votes.

[Yukari Yakumo]

69. And what do you plan to say when he's acquitted? {nt}

[MonkeyFunk]

73. You need to look at the Nixon timeframe again

by the the time the House considered articles of impeachment, half of his senior staff had already resigned, plead guilty, or been convicted in court.

The Senate had already held nationally-televised hearings on Watergate, showing conclusively Nixon's involvement.

The House didn't impeach first, then all that happened - all that happened, THEN the House impeached.

[lonestarnot]

51. We've had vestigation after vestigation, sick of vestigation, sick of stall with criminals in the W.

H. sick of it!

[A wise Man]

80. Thank you, Thank you, Thank you

[rudy23]

92. Sorry, I'm trying to reply with equal snark to the people that think we don't know that we don't

have the votes right now.

Think of all the evidence that would come to light in an impeachment trial. Those Repubs have elections to win, too, and once the public hears about what's REALLY been going on in the White House, there would be even more pressure to distance themselves from Bush.

I also don't think that it would hurt to lose the fight for impeachment. I still think we'd come out ahead, but that's me.

I'm not just stomping my foot and saying "NOW!"--I'm answering Pelosi and her ilk who say "NEVER".

[creeksneakers2]

59. Votes are counted before too

If you want to have hearings and wing the rest you have to have some idea why the hearings would change minds. Everything we know about Bush the public also knows already.

[lynnertic]

14. Pelosi's wrong. She should be trying to get the votes, telling us to do the same.

She should be telling us that there is enough evidence to convict, and that our Representatives will listen to us if enough of us demand justice.

That's why she's wrong. Pelosi is a skilled politician who knows how to leave people with hope, should she choose to craft her message that way.

Instead, what she said in that interview was designed to leave the people with no hope for impeachment.

She's making any potential votes disappear.

[Buck Rabbit]

48. You seem reasonable, can we talk about this?

When she speaks in public as a leader of the Democratic Caucus does she not have an obligation to put forward the goals decided by the majority of the Caucus?

If the majority of the caucus (and they discuss issues like this in private on a constant basis) is for Impeachment, but enough of the caucus opposes it enough that an impeachment proceeding would be a crushing defeat for the party and a vindication for Bush, shouldn't she keep impeachment off the table as a public party goal until the Majority Whip Jim Clyburn can do his job and secure enough votes?

Enforcing party loyalty once the majority makes a decision is the job of Clyburn, Emanuel, and Hoyer, the Whip, Caucus Chair and Majority Leader respectively.

There are 72 house members who belong to the New Democrat Caucus or the Blue Dogs, 20 of those are members of both. That is within one of the membership of the Progressive Caucus. If a large percentage of those bolt to the Republican side on an issue like they did the last war funding, and as they are threatening on wiretapping they form a large majority.

I think it is important for all people who insist on impeachment as a stand for the constitution to remember that a bi-partisan vote of the GOP and Conservative Dems against impeachment in a floor vote would be flaunted as an endorsement of the legality of Bush's and Gonzalles' dastardly interpretation of the law. A vindication of his legacy as President he does not deserve.

[lonestarnot]

52. No! Start the damn hearings!

[KharmaTrain]

72. One More Factor

Of any person who can "gain" from an impeachment it would be Pelosi. I remember a lot of Democrats complaining during the Clinton inquisition that the real goal was to get rid of both Clinton and Gore and Gingrich would have become President (this was before the Gnewster "retired"). The corporate media would also have a field day claiming that the Democrats were attempting to "overturn an election " and "overturn the will of the people".

Impeachment doesn't need Pelosi...Conyers has the power to move forward on this when he feels its warranted. Those who think votes will magically appear when the crimes are exposed are naive...look at how enabling they are about giving this regime carte blanche in Iraq without even an up or down vote. And an acquital of booosh would be like a vindication...is that what people really want? That's what would happen.

Cheers...

[LittleClarkie]

77. Well articulated. Thanks.

I agree with much of it.

[Cha]

60. Good points..

Wonder if she'll ever wake up one morning and say.."I shoulda went for it"?

[brentspeak]

65. There's no way the Republicans could be convinced to vote to convict

If you don't believe so, look at what's going on with Gonzo: he's got all but the word "Liar" tattooed onto his forehead, and not a single Republican senator will defend him. But the Democrats will be lucky if they can get even Arlen Specter to agree to have him impeached.

[Ghost in the Machine]

34. She's wrong because .....

1.) She is predicting the outcome of something before it's even had a chance to be digested and considered by the American Public. All she's doing is drilling it in to the minds of people that it's impossible to win. I think (hope) we have enough elected officials who value this Country over Party, and once some light is shined on the truth, only the complicit enablers would vote NOT to convict.

2.) What's a bigger waste of time is for Congress to keep passing bills that they KNOW are going to get vetoed. Where is that productive? Even if a resolution to end the war was to pass by a veto proof majority, it would just be rendered moot via signing statement if the chimperor didn't like what it said. Nothing substantial or productive is going to move forward or get done until the obstacle in the White House is removed.

This is just my honest, uneducated opinion. Der Chimpenfurher is going to do exactly WHAT he wants to, WHEN he wants to, and for no other reason than BECAUSE he wants to, until someone with some intestinal fortitude reigns him in and holds him accountable. I'm tired of waiting for that 'someone' to step up.

[A wise Man]

83. Plus there are so many things that this administration has

done that not only are impeachable but "TREASONOUS AS WELL". If congress would go back from the inauguration of this idiot to today with all the evidence compiled on what he's done and the idiot things he's said, take that information and bring it before the country in a hearing, the rethugs couldn't help but to jump ship because they would be labeled as their complicity on lack of oversight.

[Ghost in the Machine]

94. Ya know, this isn't the first time I've posted this part..

"2.) What's a bigger waste of time is for Congress to keep passing bills that they KNOW are going to get vetoed. Where is that productive? Even if a resolution to end the war was to pass by a veto proof majority, it would just be rendered moot via signing statement if the chimperor didn't like what it said. Nothing substantial or productive is going to move forward or get done until the obstacle in the White House is removed."

... and not one person yet, not even the anti impeachment crowd, has refuted this theory of mine...

Anyone??

[Marr]

61. There should be a button that automatically fills in the response to that line.

It's been posted about ten thousand times and in twenty thousand ways, but it just doesn't seem to stick.

[comtec]

84. I'd say lets start with Gonzo

THEN work our way towards cheney
She is right, impeaching bush is probably a waste of time, but mr. 9% CHENEY!!!!! that's gonna be fun and worth while im sure of it.

[DearAbby]

89. Pelosi has nothing to do with the Senate. who convicts

House impeaches, senate convicts.

[brentspeak]

91. Yes, I know that

But the point is, why bother going through a House impeachment when you already know Bush won't be convicted in the Senate? And impeaching Bush only leaves us with Cheney. So then we're back to square one.

[Harper_is_Bush]

11. It's no wonder Democrats have such a hard time winning

watching so many DU'ers engage in absolute condemnation/threats of non-support/regrets for past voting for their leadership over a SINGLE issue (impeachment) seems so self-defeating.

You condemn your party members and threaten to abandon your party so easily.

Argue for what you want, obviously, but if you're not getting it don't classify your vote in '06 as a "waste of time".

Or would you prefer a Republican controlled Senate?

[lonestarnot]

23. BULLSHIT! IMPEACHMENT ENCOMPASSES ALL OF THE ISSUES!

The serial killer issue, the theft issue(s) plural (votes, money, energy, time), the lying issue, the above the law issue, the persona non gratis issue, the FUCK YOU BUSHITLER, DICKWAD, GONZULU, RED ROVER ISSUES. ok? see now? got it?

[Harper_is_Bush]

28. I don't think you comprehended my post. n/t

[lonestarnot]

39. well?

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=389&topic_id=1499499&mesg_id=1500237

[rucky]

25. Any idea how many SINGLE issues that arguement's been made for?

[Harper_is_Bush]

29. what argument? n/t

[lonestarnot]

31. "Condemn your party members and threaten to abondon your party so easily," was alleged by you,

not me. I understood your post. I'm will not follow anyfuckingbody blindly. And on edit, even if I couldn't see.

[Harper_is_Bush]

68. don't recall alleging you of anything. So...uh...yeah.

Beyond that, nobody is telling anyone to follow anyone blindly. Blind rejection of people based upon a single issue is a little short-sighted though, don't you think?

[valerief]

13. Is she afraid of being anthraxed? Or is she one of them? nt

[lonestarnot]

22. Good fucking questions, both.

[nadinbrzezinski]

15. When they loose both house and senate

in 2008 perhaps the madamne speaker will realize just how wrong she has been

Not likely

[MonkeyFunk]

24. we're going to lose both houses in 2008?

nonsense.

You think people will vote against Dems for not impeaching? Let me get this straight...

people are so mad that we're not impeaching a Republican, that they're gonna vote for ... republicans?

[Phredicles]

40. They won't vote Rethug, but they may stay home.

And, while not voting seems wrong to me - and at this rate, how many more times will we have the opportunity? - the act of voting in today's political system sure as hell feels futile: The Democrats appear to stand for putting a smiley face on the evil the Rethugs carry out, but that's about the extent of it.

I've voted straight Democratic since 1984, but at this rate I will not promise to continue to do so in 2008. I won't vote Rethug, but if there's a Peace and Freedom or Socialist condidate on the ballot, they'll get a long, serious look from me.

[Amonester]

41. No. They'll stay home (which equates to...). Disgusted and Ignored.

They'll feel like: "Who cares what we think?" (yeah: what we think, say, write, call, beg to be listened to, etc.)

Besides, the way this dic-ktatorship is heading, there might not be any elections anymore. (only selections...)

[MonkeyFunk]

45. I don't think so

the people who insist on impeachment or they'll home are very few in number, and largely concentrated here on DU.

[Amonester]

47. Good luck. - eom

[MonkeyFunk]

49. It just makes no sense to me

that people who hate Bush so much they want him impeached won't bother to vote to prevent another Republican.

Honestly, I think it's just the petulant rantings of people who can't get what they want RIGHT NOW.

[Phredicles]

50. It's not that it's not happening "RIGHT NOW"; it looks like those who

claim to represent us are determined that it not happen at all. Really, how much more investigating needs to be done to know that there is a sufficient likelihood that Bush & Co. have committed impeachable offenses so that impeachment hearings are warranted? Do we need to investigate to determine whether the sky is, in fact, blue?

At what point may we conclude that Democrats have so abandoned their priciples, have so abased themeselves, and have so abandoned those they supposedly represent that they have done no more to earn our votes than the Rethugs they will not lift a finger to resist? In my opinion, we're close to that point if we haven't reached it already.

[Amonester]

58. Why would they go out to vote for... no change at all (or close to

no change, since the ones who ask for their votes tell them they will change things, but end up just going along. If that is not lying to their faces, then what is it?).

[LittleClarkie]

66. I'm lucky. I have people like Feingold to vote for.

Why would they go out and vote. Because no change on one issue does not equal no change at all. Because some people aren't one issue voters. Because there are state and local Dems to vote for too (we only need about 4 more to turn the State Assembly blue.)

Pelosi is not my Congresscritter. I'm stuck with Sensenbrenner, who will have to die in office or something for me to get rid of him. Meanwhile, I don't think your blanket statement is particularly true. You talk as if there are no individual Dems, only some mass with Pelosi's head on top.

There are indeed reasons to vote, and canvass, and phone bank.

But then, I'm a Democrat. And you?

[MonkeyFunk]

75. to stop four or eight more years of republicans

in the White House.

Anybody who sits out the next election because the Dems didnt' impeach is an idiot.

[LittleClarkie]

64. I think that's an over-statement. There are probably more,

and likely all over the internet.

But I'd agree that it's probably not enough to sway an election necessarily. Depends on how loyal a Dem voter we're talking about. Did some of these folks tend to vote Dem in the past, or Green, or not vote at all? Those at such a fever pitch as we often see here might not be that many in number.

[lonestarnot]

53. Hell no. NEVER! But not standing by, while being told impeachment is a waste of time either!

[ThomWV]

16. I Was Happy As Hell When She Became Speaker, Now She Disgusts Me

There is no bill before the Congress now that is more important than removing that lawless son of a bitch from office. They time they take back home could have been spent in her primary job, protecting the Constitution - something she is not doing now.

[Harper_is_Bush]

20. She "disgusts" you? See post #11. n/t

[ThomWV]

79. You really don't get it - do you.

I do not give a good god dam about the Congress passing laws and I do not give a good god dam about them funding a lawless Administration either. I do give a very good god dam about the Constitution - the basis of our Country - and as long as it is being defiled nothing else can lead to any good at all. IMPEACHMENT should be the ONLY thing Congress does until that son of a bitch is out of office.

[A wise Man]

86. THANK YOU, THANK YOU, THANK YOU

[porphyrian]

17. Yeah, fuck the Constitution! Fuck the precedent it sets!

Fuck the dead! It's a waste of time!

Hey Nancy, fuck you!

[mmonk]

21. nevermind.

That's all I have to say anymore.

[rudy23]

26. Madame Speaker, I'm sorry, but we can do better

I bet the same people who came up with "we can do better" are the same ones who think the American people might get upset to see a bunch of mean Democrats saying mean things about him all day. They treat us like we're six year olds.

After all, when has impeachment ever helped the Republicans win an upcoming election (besides every time)?

[lonestarnot]

27. Reminds me of pug behavior.

[bonito]

30. Interview link

http://www.pbs.org/newshour/bb/politics/july-dec07/pelosi_08-02.html

[RufusTFirefly]

33. Congress has two awesome responsibilities that dwarf all the others

1. The power to declare war.
2. The power to impeach.

Soooooo. Let's see. How are they doing?

[derby378]

37. I'm certainly not broken-hearted to see Cindy Sheehan challenge Pelosi in '08

My only regret is that Sheehan isn't doing it as a Democrat. She could have clobbered Pelosi in the primary. But since Cindy's running as an independent, Nancy probably doesn't have that much to worry about.

[WA98296]

42. Her "career" is more important then OUR Constitution, OUR Country. Shame.

[redacted]

43. PELOSI IS WRONG, WRONG, WRONG. GEEZ, SHE IS PATHETIC.

Had this computer not cost us $2 grand it might have a hole in the screen by now. I'm really pissed reading that.

[orleans]

54. nancy--get one:

[Canuckistanian]

55. A waste of whose time?

She was hired by the American people, wasn't she?

Who is she, deciding how her time should best be spent?

She may as well just close her constituency offices.

[B Calm]

56. She never had the right to say impeachment was off the table! Impeachment

is in the constitution!

[Amonester]

62. Then, it seems like she said the Constitution is off the table.

And it seems like it's exactly what is happening (since the cheneybu$che junta's selection).

No change in sight, only worsening.

[leftchick]

57. disgusting indeed!

she has totally gone to the dark side.

[Marr]

63. Sometimes I feel like we've gone to the World Series with the Bad News Bears.

She doesn't understand what Gonzalez' actual role is; that he's there because Bush *needs* him to obstruct justice, not because Bush is loyal to his pals.

She doesn't understand why the WH has been trying to pick a fight with the Congress on any issue they can. They want to set a Federalist Society precedent and feel that the courts are sufficiently rigged to do so.

She doesn't see that impeachment is Congress' *duty* in this situation, not a choice to be made with politics in mind. She doesn't get it that nothing can happen until *that* happens.

She just doesn't get it. Or maybe she does and just isn't on our team.

[noise]

74. It seems

Pelosi is either on board with Bush Co.'s fascist agenda or is acting under duress. IMO, there isn't a chance this is just a political calculation.

[provis99]

70. Isn't it obvious? Pelosi won't support impeachment under ANY circumstances

Frankly, I think Bush could go around the country strangling 70 year olds, and the Democratic leadership wouldn't impeach.

[wiggs]

71. If she doesn't want to impeach, why not use these bozos for maximum gain

in rhetoric? Why not say that the worst administration in history deserves impeachment, but the republicans continue to block oversight? Why not say you wish you could impeach, but they are throwing sand in the face of the American people by creating constitutional crises every week?

Instead of leaving the question open as to whether or not they deserve impeachment....talk about the serious outrages every day until the American people demand impeachment?

If you're not willing to impeach the top two in the WH, why not get tougher with subpoenas, contempt charges, and impeachment of lower officials they nearly everyone thinks is unfit?

Maybe it's just me and my glass of Shiraz, but it seems like there are much, much better ways to counteract a group of rogue officials in the executive branch than kid gloves.

[A wise Man]

88. My sentiments exactly , see post 83

[Yukari Yakumo]

76. WTF is with this same old shit again?

DU is meant to support Democrats and the Progressive agenda. So why is utter garbage like this allowed to fester and grow? This thread is nothing the same old smear against Pelosi and Democrats. And I'm so sick to death of the same old lies, half-truths, and things being taken way out of context. I would like to see the mods to do their goddamn job for once and relegate threads like this to the electric dustbin. Just look at this thread. How does this either support Democrats or the Progressive agenda? How is this not a smear against Democrats using some seriously faulty logic? It's crap like this is the reason many have exiled themselves to The Lounge.

[B Calm]

78. Tell Pelosi to stop taking the constitution off the table!

[bigtree]

81. It's a pipe dream that an impeachment would save lives in Iraq

The administration would likely ratchet up their militarism to distract from the proceeding.

And, she is presently working hard to advance legislation which would end the occupation.

[OzarkDem]

85. And the GOP is playing her

they're dragging out negotiations on a bill to get out of Iraq knowing she won't go after Bush and his cronies until its done.

[bigtree]

82. "No mention of stopping war"

bullshit.

JIM LEHRER: Do you still believe that it is the job of the House of Representatives to pass legislation that would set deadlines for troop withdrawals or troop deployments in Iraq?

REP. NANCY PELOSI: I absolutely do. And as I said in our last debate on the subject, or our most recent one, that this Congress will hold this administration accountable. We will take votes to pass judgment on the conduct of this war. And this dwell time at home is an important piece of legislation in that regard.

In terms of timetables, yes, I mean, that has passed in a bipartisan way in the House and in the Senate. The president vetoed it. He probably will see legislation of that kind soon.

JIM LEHRER: So you believe it's the legitimate role of the House of Representatives to set timetables for troop changes of any kind?

REP. NANCY PELOSI: I believe that it is the role of Congress to hold the administration accountable and have oversight over the conduct of war, and that includes how it is in the interest of our national security, how it makes the region more stable, and what that engagement is doing to undermine the strength of our military.

I believe that it is the role of Congress to act in our national security interest. How we deal with a redeployment out of Iraq has to be judged by what vision there is for a stability in the Middle East. This conduct of this war is not making that region more stable; it is not making America more secure; and it is undermining the strength of our military to protect our interests wherever they may be threatened.



And, I actually think she intended for her remarks on impeachment to reflect the fact that her statement about 'off the table' was in the past. She certainly left the door open for those who are pressing the case now to continue to gather support without any interference from her. She acknowledges the 'tide' of support in the country for an impeachment and let her comments about 'off the table' remain in the past tense.


REP. PELOSI: There are those who are introducing it. It's up to them to see what the prospects are for it. But as I have said with the President Bush, who there's a wide -- a big tide in the country for his impeachment, that it was off the table.

We had business to attend to regarding the health and education of our children, the economic security of their families, the national security of our country, the strength of our economy, and I wanted to focus on those issues.

[DearAbby]

87. It is never too late to defend the constitution

Either shit or get off the pot. allow others to use it. If you can't lead MOVE out of the way.

NO ONE...I dont care what fucking letter is behind their name, NO ONE has no right to this much power...NO ONE! Impeach them, it is the only way to save our country. Move out of the way, Ms Pelosi.

[BuyingThyme]

93. Go away, Nancy. You are destroying us.