Jack Cafferty Speaks To Time Mag About Impeachment & Pelosi

[EV_Ares]

One new poll says that a majority of people favor impeachment for President Bush. Your reaction?

I'm not the least bit surprised. There's a case for taking a look at what the Administration may or may not have done that rises to level of high crimes and misdemeanors. Impeachment was put into the Constitution for a reason.

I think it was perhaps one of the most arrogant things I've ever seen in my life for Nancy Pelosi, on the day after Democrats won control of the House, to make this announcement as though this was Moses coming down with the tablets, that impeachment's been taken off the table. Well who the hell is she to take it off the table? It's part of the Constitution.

I think there is reason to suspect that things have been done that may not be kosher, and I think the government's responsibility is to determine that. That's part of why they're there. That's what Congress does. That's the checks and balances. So whether he deserves to be impeached or not, I guess we'll never know, because they're not going to bother to look at it.

Entire Interview @ the link below:

Link: http://www.time.com/time/nation/article/0,8599,1662283,00.html

[Bitwit1234]

1. Wonder if Stewart will ask Bill Clinton about impeachment

when he is on the Daily Show Thursday. Yaaaahooooo....not gonna miss that.

[orleans]

2. i didn't know this...(of course i didn't know any of this stuff about him)

"Has anything you've ever said on the air really gotten you in trouble?

"Once. I called Donald Rumsfeld a war criminal the night before the midterm election. The president of the network and the executive producer of the Situation Room and two or three other management gerbils assaulted me en masse, immediately as I got off of the air, saying, "You can't say that." Apparently, what happened was our correspondent at the Pentagon started getting these phone calls from people in the Pentagon, saying, "Cafferty just called Rumsfeld a war criminal." I had to go on the air and say, "You know, I've stepped over the line." That being said, I will go to my grave as Jack Cafferty, Private Citizen, believing that these people committed war crimes."

[ossman]

4. Cafferty... another douchebag that probably voted for Bush twice

And NOW he sees that everything is FUBAR? We kinda knew that in 2004 buddy. Ive got no sympathy for these idiots that voted twice for these people and are all shocked now.

Get off my TV screen.

[orleans]

6. it drives me up a wall, too, when they come out and "admit" a mistake

by voting/trusting bush.

welcome to du.

check this out--it's the second paragraph that just fucking kills me.
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=132&topic_id=3516100&mesg_id=3516100

[ClassWarrior]

8. Damn them all to hell for threatening our permanent minority status!!

:rofl:

NGU.

[orleans]

26. lol n/t

[TahitiNut]

15. Yeah. Times were so much better when less than 10% of us knew it!!

All these damned Johnny-come-latelies! Who do they think THEY are?? :silly:

[sandnsea]

17. and who conjure up outrage against Dems

to cover for their own stupidity.

[sandnsea]

3. She never had it on the table

Cafferty is either a fool or a liar.

Democrats did not run on impeachment. That has been invented right out of thin air and people better start asking who is manipulating them and why.

Here's just one instance, BEFORE the election.

http://www.rawstory.com/news/2006/Pelosi_Impeachment_off_table_1023.html

[KharmaTrain]

5. Coulda Fooled Me

For some all that matters is impeachment...like it's gonna make the world all better...a magic wand to wave away all the crimes.

You are correct...I never heard any candidate mention impeachment, yet run on it. People wanted a change in Congress to end this illegal war for profit and put the brakes on both this runaway regime and a corrupt Repugnican party. I strongly beleive that the Democrats didn't win last year as much as the Repugnicans lost.

But those who are jumping up and down for impeachment will have none of your "negativity"...they want ponies and political show trials that allow the real criminals to slip under the radar.

Cheers...

[Greyhound]

29. If we fail to address the crimes against humanity committed by this administration, the world will

view it as an endorsement of what they did. Is that the legacy, and more importantly, the environment that the next administration will have to work in?

You seem to be under the impression that starting a war of aggression against another sovereign nation that did nothing to us, under completely fabricated pretenses, is no big deal. That the wanton slaughter of over a million people in order to steal their natural resources is just another day at the office.

Well, let me assure you that the rest of the world does not share your cavalier attitude about such heinous actions and the next President will have to deal with them, and literally beg for their assistance, to try to ameliorate the effects of the appalling incompetence and corruption of the last 8 (by that time) years.

[KharmaTrain]

31. Projection Rating = 2

Nice attempt...please, you have no idea who I am, don't assume that I condone anything this regime has ever done...I don't and never will.

You want the crime addressed against humanity addressed? It sure isn't gonna be with some political dog and pony show that has no legal teeth. A conviction means nothing...no jail time or restitution to those who were the victims of this regime's arrogance and bloodlust. All impeachment says is "bad boy"...a conviction is what counts and then only as a platform for further actions...like a tribunal at the World Court...which is what I've long advocated.

Again, without a conviction, it's a VINDICATION...and a waste of time. Now if that's fine with you...knock yourself out...but I'd appreciate you not attempting to think you know who I am or what I feel. If anything, read back on my posts on this topic...there are plenty of them. I DO favor an impeachment...but only if it includes a conviction...and right now that's not gonna happen due to 17 Repugnican Senators who have and will continue to enable this regime.

[Greyhound]

34. This may come as a shock, but this isn't about you.

Your baseless, and inaccurate, assumption that impeachment is "some political dog and pony show" and is "a waste of time" shows just how little regard you have for, and understanding of, our Constitution.

The act of impeachment is the political equivalent of an indictment and conviction establishes guilt and carries the penalty of removal from office, hardly a slap on the wrist. The entire nightmare of this maladministration would go down as a crime perpetrated on us and the world by the guilty parties, and deflect the responsibility from the citizens. Their legacy will be one of shame and make them pariahs for the rest of their lives and eliminate the lifetime benefits and security force that they will receive without it. There will be no Presidential Library, no streets, federal buildings, parks, etc., named for them, and their supporters will bear the stigma, if not the jail terms, of perpetrating this nightmare.

Further, it would materially demonstrate that We the People do not approve of the crimes committed. A demonstration that will go a long way to re-establishing our reputation in the world community and helping the next President to gain the assistance we will desperately need over the next few years.

You state that you favor prosecution "with teeth", such as a tribunal at the world court. Well, it will never happen if they are allowed to leave office with their "honor" intact.

You state that you favor "impeachment...but only if it includes a conviction", but assure us, "that's not gonna happen due to 17 Repugnican Senators who have and will continue to enable this regime". Unlike you, I am not prescient, but do know that there are at least 17 "Repugnican Senators" that will want to be re-elected and after the evidence is laid out in a very public forum, a forum BTW that the media cannot ignore, against these miscreants and their obvious criminality is laid bare to the overwhelming majority of people, that currently are totally unaware of any of it, it will be impossible to hold onto their offices. So, unless you can furnish us with winning lottery numbers on a regular basis, I have to believe that you have no idea how a Senate trial will play out.

[never_get_over_it]

9. Can you read?

WHERE did Cafferty say the Dems ran on impeachment - the comment in question was that Nancy Pelosi has said that impeachment is off the table - is that a lie....or is Cafferty a fool or being manipulated into thinking Nancy said it - especialy since you so graciously provided a link to her exact statement

All the guy is saying is Nancy said it is off the table and that she HAS NO RIGHT to take it off the table because apparently Cafferty feels as I do that it is her Constitutional responsibility...

[sandnsea]

12. Can YOU read??

"on the day after Democrats won control of the House"

As if she renegged on a promise and betrayed the entire country. What bullshit. She had said that all along.

[never_get_over_it]

16. Yes I can read

and apparently you are reading too much into his statement - just because he said that is WHEN she said it - does NOT translate into the Dems ran on impeachment - and actually I think Cafferty is wrong Pelosi made the statement BEFORE the election because as you mentioned the repunks were trying to scare their voters by saying if you elect the Dems they will impeach him - but even though you're right about that - IT IS NOT the point Cafferty is making - he is making the point that Congress has a Constitutional RESPONSIBILITY to investigate and if necessary IMPEACH - and TRY the President - any President if there is reason to believe that he/she has committed treason, bribery, or other high crimes and misdemeanors

I just think you criticizing Cafferty for something he did not say....

[sandnsea]

18. oh, you actually think Cafferty is wrong

well, gee, that's what I said. He's wrong to say this all popped up after the election. It was said all along because nobody wanted to vote for an impeachment.

Now he pretends the second she was elected, she played some gigantic bait and switch.

If he thinks there should be an impeachment, perhaps he should start laying out the evidence. Oh yeah, he can't. Because he said himself, he gets in trouble for "going to far". But somehow, Congress is supposed to impeach when we can't get the media to report on one single hearing without the right wing spin on it.

A fool or a liar. Him and Dobbs both. You watch them back whatever Republican runs, doesn't matter. No matter what pile of shit this country is in, men like them will always put hating Dems ahead of intelligent reasoning.

[never_get_over_it]

19. OK now you're reading too much into what I wrote

I said he was wrong about WHEN as in the timing Nancy Pelosi made the statement - which is NOT what you have said all along - you are inferring from him saying the day after the election - that he is implying the Dems were running on impeachment. I'm saying if this was his true point (Dems running on impeachment - Nancy Pelosi bait and switch) why in the hell wouldn't he have said - Right after the Dems won the election by running on impeachment Nancy Pelosi comes out and says impeachment is off the table - BUT HE DID NOT SAY THAT - BECAUSE THAT IS NOT HIS POINT

His point is that the Congress (House of Representatives) HAS A GOD DAMN CONSTITUTIONAL RESPONSIBILITY TO INVESTIGATE and IMPEACH if there is reason to believe A PRESIDENT ANY PRESIDENT has committed treason, bribery, or other high crimes and misdemeanors.

You can twist Cafferty's words and misinterpret them anyway you want but you can not do that with mine. Nothing I wrote at all would show agreement with your main point that Cafferty was implying some kind of bait and switch or WHATEVER - his main point once again was that NANCY PELOSI HAS A CONSTITUTIONAL RESPONSIBILITY TO INVESTIGATE AND IF NECESSARY IMPEACH....

I don't give a rat's ass one way or the other about Cafferty - from your tone you seem to dislike him - and that sure is your right - all I'm saying is you are READING WAY TOO MUCH INTO WHAT HE SAID and accusing him of something that is not true....

[sandnsea]

21. it's clear to me

"I think it was perhaps one of the most arrogant things I've ever seen in my life for Nancy Pelosi, on the day after Democrats won control of the House, to make this announcement as though this was Moses coming down with the tablets, that impeachment's been taken off the table."

I'm sure he appeals to all the Dem haters, seeing as that's his only purpose. What a trick, going all the way from gung ho on the war to calling the bums war criminals - and blaming and hating Dems all along the way.

No I don't like him. He's a fool or a liar. Him and Dobbs both.

[AndyTiedye]

13. There Isn't Any Table. The Repiglickins are Still Making Congressional Democrats Eat Off the Floor

[Marr]

20. The Constitution put it on the table.

Pelosi apparently feels that she can simply remove Congressional duties for political convenience.

[sandnsea]

22. So Cafferty should make the case

If the media did, the public would demand impeachment. Oh right, Cafferty can't say that or he'll get fired.

But Pelosi is supposed to impeach, with the media toting every piece of white house trash along the way.

Just what Cafferty wants.

[Marr]

24. It's not a popularity contest-- it's a Congressional duty.

Still, the majority opinion is in favor of impeachment, if the polls I've read are accurate. But that really is irrelevant. The Congress' main duty is to provide oversight of the Executive Branch. That is one of their most basic functions; it's why we send our representatives to Washington, and Pelosi has asserted she will *not* do it.

[sandnsea]

27. it's political

If the public will isn't there, it won't get done. That's the way a democracy is supposed to work. Congress isn't supposed to be able to nitpick a President to death, the way they did Clinton. If the public will is there, the media is supposed to report it. If Cafferty wants impeachent, he needs to talk to the honchos at CNN and TimeWarner, not Nancy Pelosi.

[proud2BlibKansan]

35. But she has no right to ignore the constitution

I believe that was his point.

[never_get_over_it]

7. I think MANY MANY MANY

people should print this article - circle this part of it - write a comment and FAX it to her office - not email but honest to GOD FAX maybe if they get enough of those they might notice - not that it would change her mind but.....

Well who the hell is she to take it off the table? It's part of the Constitution. I think there is reason to suspect that things have been done that may not be kosher, and I think the government's responsibility is to determine that. That's part of why they're there. That's what Congress does. That's the checks and balances. So whether he deserves to be impeached or not, I guess we'll never know, because they're not going to bother to look at it.

[defendandprotect]

25. OK, I will + Agree Pelosi can't put it on the table or take it off -- it's the Constitution --!!!

[Zhade]

10. He's right, and she's a coward.

NT!

[Captain Hilts]

11. The % supporting impeachment is Kerry voters plus .5%. nt

[Larkspur]

14. Cafferty is right about this

By not pursuing impeachment Pelosi and Reid are setting the stage for future Presidents to commit crimes with impunity and are setting the stage for a President to become a dictator for life.

[defendandprotect]

23. Cafferty is good--!! Was he quite for a while? This is the old Cafferty ---

And I like the way he sums up the Pelosi arrogance -- is she going to do what Congress is supposed to do -- keep government in check -- protect the Constitution -- or not?

Love it!
Thanks, Jack --

[wordswinker]

28. It's a movement whose time has come

[Vidar]

30. Pelosi is our official party albatross.

[paulk]

32. what nonsense

my god....

the absolute garbage that gets posted on this website, day after day, is mindnumbing.

[Senator]

33. K&R&I(Impeach)

[Freddie Stubbs]

36. Pelosi did not take impeachment off of the table on the day after Democrats won control of the House

She did in May of 2006:

Democrats Won't Try To Impeach President

By Charles Babington
Washington Post Staff Writer
Friday, May 12, 2006; 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.

Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi (Calif.) told her caucus members during their weekly closed meeting Wednesday "that impeachment is off the table; she is not interested in pursuing it," spokesman Brendan Daly said.

more: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/05/11/AR2006051101950_pf.html