Pelosi Asks for Impeachable Offenses

[babylonsister]

Pelosi Asks for Impeachable Offenses
Submitted by matthewg on Thu, 2007-10-11 08:15. Discussion

by Phil Burk, 10/10/07

Pelosi continues to insist that "Impeachment is off the table". But in an October 10th interview with Ed Schultz, she said "if anyone knows of impeachable offenses that can pass the Congress, then please let me know". She then goes on to say that Bush has "taken us into a war under false pretense", and "gone outside the law in terms of the collection of information".

So she is obviously aware of the fact that Bush misled Congress and conducted illegal wiretaps in violation of the FISA law. But she is apparently unaware that these are impeachable offenses.

Let us look first at the issue of misleading us into war. This is clearly a "high crime" in the sense that only someone in high office could lead Congress into authorizing a war. The consequences of this war have been catastrophic, as we all know.

Is lying to Congress an impeachable offense? Let us consider the words of Founding Father and later Supreme Court Justice James Iredell at the North Carolina Constitutional Convention.

The topic was impeachable offenses:

"The President must certainly be punishable for giving false information to the Senate. He is to regulate all intercourse with foreign powers, and it is his duty to impart to the Senate every material intelligence he receives. If it should appear that he has not given them full information, but has concealed important intelligence which he ought to have communicated, and by that means induced them to enter into measures injurious to their country, and which they would not have consented to had the true state of things been disclosed to them,"

This perfectly describes how false information was provided to Congress by Bush and Cheney in order to convince them to approve the use of military force in Iraq.

Now let us consider the second crime, going "outside the law in terms of the collection of information". Pelosi was undoubtedly referring to Bush's admitted violation of the FISA law against warrantless wiretaps. Bush cannot argue that he simply needed to wiretap terror suspects because the FISA law allows him to do that at any time and then seek approval from the FISA court within 72 hours. There is concern that Bush was actually gathering information on American citizens who were not criminals or terror suspects.

more...

http://www.afterdowningstreet.org/?q=node/27619

[kurth]

1. HELLO!

"If anyone knows of impeachable offenses"?

[roguevalley]

120. how about her swearing to uphold the Constitution and not doing

it. Can we impeach her?

[Pacifist Patriot]

122. Well let's see. I can think of a housewife in NH and one in FL who knew of...

impeachable offenses in 2003. Give me a break!

[Occulus]

138. And if you look at this thread,

there seem to be a number of posters who come across as almost gleeful that nothing seems to be enough to make it happen.

Read downthread; there are several.

I wonder why that is? :think:

[dickbearton]

178. Why, because they are complicit Dinos ( Corrupt Republicans or Corrupt Republican Stooges).

Some Duers are as ignorant and stupid as the traitors and war
criminals that make up the Corrupt Republican Party.

[onenote]

2. can they "pass the congress"?

[papau]

28. I guess Pass the House is what she means-a reasonable move since not passing would be seen as OK'ing

n/t

[davekriss]

30. IMO you impeach anyway

Let the Republican hypocrites show themselves for all the country to see, voting no on impeachment meaning they approve of lying us into war, they approve of illegal wiretapping, they approve of illegal renditions and torture, they approve of an end to habeas corpus. Let the Democrats stand clearly opposed to these travesties of injustice and disrespect to the Constitution and American people. Perhaps in the end Bush remains a President, but he will in effect be tarred and feathered and rendered wholly ineffective for his remaining days.

It is unconscionable that the Democrats will not impeach.

[onenote]

62. it will never get to a vote impeaching

The first step would be a vote by the full House to authorize the Judiciary Committee to conduct an impeachment inquiry and report back on whether or not the House should adopt articles of impeachment. In the last two impeachment situations(Nixon and Clinton) this first step was taken with bi-partisan support. There is no sign of any repubs abandoning chimpy and, as a result, it is a virtual certainty that more than enough conservative/moderate/swing district Dems will not support a purely partisan vote on starting an impeachment inquiry.

[bonito]

201. NO, it goes to Committee first for investigations first

Let the light shine for everyone to see and than to the full House vote.

[aggiesal]

146. And so much more would come out ...

during the impeachment hearings. And King George can't use
executive privilege on any of they offenses, so he has to
produce all documents subpoenaed.

Maybe that's what Pelosi is afraid of. That so much more info
would come out, and could incriminate the Dems as well. Although
I don't see it.

[southerncrone]

179. Exactly.

Dems should DO WHAT THEY ARE BOUND TO DO....IMPEACH, then if Repukes don't go along, it's egg on THEIR face!

Unless this happens, Dems continue to be considered spineless by populous.

[lateo]

51. Yeah, that was a nice qualifier wasn't it?

Because she knows nothing will pass especially when the Democrats won't let it.

[GOTV]

84. If the gun is empty, why pull the trigger? n/t

[lateo]

111. In this case the gun has...

a 50000 round drum attached to it. This administration is guilty of so much it isn't even funny.

[GOTV]

119. Wrong, there are not enough votes, the gun is empty

There are not enough votes. Everyone who matters knows this. We can't even stop funding the war, we certainly cannot get the votes for impeachment.

Now back to the question at hand, the gun is empty, do you pull the trigger anyway?

[f the letter]

127. This argument is trouble.

Insufficient support in a spineless congress is not a reason to ignore a long list of impeachable crimes. i don't care about vote-counting or the republican base, or the 2008 election. Not compared with the damage done to our constitution and the damage we've done in several countries over his term.

If there's one thing left to us that matters it's the constitution, and in this case i say shoot the gun first and question its contents later. It's certainly better than handing the gun to the administration empty and laying face-down in the dirt.

[Zhade]

184. That argument is not just trouble - it's cowardice.

NT!

[GOTV]

205. Yes, you're right, I'm not brave enough to choose the solution that won't work...

... although some people mistake that for intelligence

[GOTV]

204. You don't care about the votes? Then you don't care about solving the problem....

.... because impeachment requires votes to work.

[FREEWILL56]

221. You will never get the votes if it's not on the floor agenda.

[intheflow]

140. Yes, you pull the trigger.

That way you can know if the action still works. No use having a gun filled with ammo if the gun itself is broken. In the case of Congress, it's called establishing precedent. Whether or not you have the votes is irrelevant--it's getting the issue on the record and out to a larger audience.

[GOTV]

203. This is no time for maintenance....

... is there a imminent problem or not. If you want to sit around checking your empty weapons, then I guess things aren't so bad.

If things are bad, and your guns are empty, you need a working solution now. Oil your guns tomorrow.

[FREEWILL56]

222. It's not?

Then why do they go for a vote concerning Iran then? It seems that was presented as an empty gun now wasn't it, but it's one that W would load? Even dems are voting for that dumb shit, but no we can't have the likes of W up for an impeachment because there's some pukes in congress. Seems to me it's being defeated before it's tried deliberately.

[Truth2Tell]

235. So you load the gun.

That's what the investigation phase does. And the political-public relations push that you engage simultaneously.

Then you count the votes. How can you count votes now swami? Magic powers?

[FREEWILL56]

238. So impeaching W is loading what gun for what?

Yes, they'll fight back and it's more than we are doing I think as it is not the dems doing the wrong in the first place, but in the second place we are by doing nothing. I don't give a damn if nobody is there to vote for it as it can be brought up again and again as it is not a trial. But not with you lame ass people as you do harm by protecting those doing wrong. There isn't any excuse. If you think it is all valid excuses, then what do you propose from here sherlock, let them go? It seems that's what you want.

[lateo]

143. Yes, so give up and fold without a fight.

Typical Democratic defeatist BULLSHIT.

[GOTV]

206. Yes, because obviously impeachment and giving up are the only possible choices....

... maybe you could give more thought to the problem.

[lateo]

213. Perhaps you should give some thought to this.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Non_sequitur_%28logic%29

[GOTV]

216. Avoidance? You really can't think of an option between immediate impeachment and giving up...

... can you?

[puebloknot]

164. I matter, and I don't know this. Impeachment is the moral, practical thing to do...

...regardless of outcome. It will get the crimes out in the open for the gullible public to see for themselves. Failure to impeach in the House will get Dems and Republicans both on record for a yea or nay with regard to complicity in this criminal administration. There's more than one way to win!

We *can* stop funding the war if the Dems would do their constitutional duty by refusing to let bills even take birth. That they are failing to do so is having a major negative impact on the Democratic base. There's an arrogant assumption that the next election will be a shew-in!

And you know what? Maybe it *will* be a shew-in, and maybe the fix is already in for Hillary. Greg Palast has said that is the case.

But what do any of us know in this most secretive administrative in our entire history.

Impeach! Cheney first, and then let the dominoes begin to tumble.

[GOTV]

208. You don't matter very much. You don't vote on impeachment

Those who do vote on impeachment know that we don't have the votes

"We *can* stop funding the war if..."

Yeah, IF blah blah blah. Well, fact is, it was tried and failed. Therefore we know impeachment will also fail.

I know, I know, impeachment won't fail "if". Well, you procure the "if" and then impeachment has a chance but none of the impeachment hawks were willing to do the work required to make impeachment work, they just stood around on progressive message boards demanding their reward without the work. Now it's probably too late.

[puebloknot]

234. Actually, I matter greatly because I am one small piece of the hologram...

...which makes up We the People. When I cease to matter, so does our democracy.

Your arguments against impeachment and funding the war are tired and untrue.

Nancy Pelosi could simply have failed to let a funding bill make it to the floor of the House. Impeachment hearings would have brought out evidence and would have forced people on both sides of the aisle to make a stand, even if impeachment "failed."

I do agree with you that now it's probably too late -- for a lot of things. But let's not give our spineless Dem "leadership" a pass on things they could have done.

[Zhade]

183. It's hard to stop the funding when the Dem leadership continues to bring funding bills to the floor.

Bills they could prevent coming to a vote.

The THREAT may be "empty" in your mind, but the very real fact of their crimes argues for loading, I think.

[GOTV]

210. Right. Then why do you think impeachment has a chance

"The THREAT may be "empty" in your mind, but the very real fact of their crimes argues for loading"

Then why are you not loading? Why are you here simply demanding the gun be fired? Why are you not out there working to change the public's view of impeachment so it would be politically possible?

[FREEWILL56]

192. So when lady liberty is being attacked and raped

you say because the wrongdoers possibly outnumber the police that she is to lay there and take it without any screaming, fighting, or objection. Would any of you tell your wife or girlfriend to do such a thing? What's wrong with the way people are thinking anymore as it amazes me that since this bozo took, by theft, the office of the presidency that rights, reason, compassion, and common sence is blurred to unrecognizability? That in and of itself says much.
Maybe somebody should pose this scenario to Pelosi and maybe it'll sink.

[GOTV]

211. Here's yet another peson who imagines only two options...

... yeah, lady liberty is being attacked and raped. I know your solution. You pull your empty gun and click away. And when she's dead you pat yourself on the back thinking "At least I DID something". All you did is stand around and watch a rape. And you couldn't be bothered to find a way to help her.

This is how it is with the impeachment hawks. Only one solution occurs to them and even when they're told it will not work due to lack of votes they just demand that it be done anyway.

You won't get your impeachment because there are not enough votes.

There are not enough votes because the public is not demanding impeachment in large numbers.

Instead of engaging the public, which is hard, we just post on progressive message boards and berate congress because that's easy.

Congress will not give you your impeachment because you will not give congress the public backup they need to succeed.

[f the letter]

214. i would like to be innocent enough to believe that

If only the reason that impeachment is 'off the table' was that the people didn't want it. It has nothing to do with popularity, it's simple corruption and weakness.

On the topic of the lady liberty rape thing, given that you believe firing the gun (impeachment) is equivalent to standing around watching it happen but feeling good about ourselves , do you have another idea on how to stop this rape? Or at least preventing it from happening again every time a spying, war funding, torture redefinition, etc vote comes up?

i ask this not to put you on the spot but i honestly haven't been able to think of a way to hold these people accountable and get our Constitution back. If there is another way i will gladly start throwing my ranting behind it.

[GOTV]

217. Yes, as I said in the previous post, the place to begin is with people in the street....

... not with people in Congress. They will not impeach because there is not enough votes to be successful. There is not enough votes because almost all polls show that only a minority of people want impeachment.

They should want impeachment but they don't. The media will not give them the rational for impeachment. We should be giving them the rational for impeachment. Instead we hound congresspeople and fill message boards - where everyone already agrees that the president should be removed anyway - with messages demanding "impeachment now".

It's like standing in front of an empty fridge and demanding "food now!" You won't get food from your fridge unless you go to the grocery store and buy it first and put the food in there. I've been around here for months reminding people they won't get food from their fridge unless they do the work to put food in their fridge first. And the most common response I get is "Fine, just give up and starve."

Well, yea, at least kicking your empty fridge and demanding "food now" IS doing SOMETHING but forgive me if I don't join in. Forgive me if I choose doing nothing over yelling "food now" at an empty fridge.

If every post and every call to congress became a letter to the editor and a call to talk radio we might have been effective. At least we'd be "doing something" that could succeed in removing the president. But that's a lot harder than rec'ing every "impeach now" post on DU.

Short of impeachment, there isn't anything Bush has done to our laws and our political structures than cannot be undone by subsequent legislation. What he's done to the supreme court by appointing wackos will take much longer to fix. What he's done to the families of people killed in his vanity war, well, that can't be undone - not even by impeachment.

That's what should have been the focus since the Dems took office. Get them the popular support they need to do what we want.

[FREEWILL56]

219. Sorry I dissagree that it's our fault.

The people do want this as far as I've heard and seen and is one of the reasons many dems got put into office including Pelosi. It is only the faults of those in government that the will of the people is not followed through upon, be they democratic or republicon. This crap that nothing can be done is just that, crap.
BTW your empty frig is normally your own fault for not putting the food in it, but when it is because some asshole in DC that is supposed to represent you is the one keeping your frig empty it is not your own fault.
You have missed the boat entirely on the point that if nobody tries it will never be done. Maybe you think it is ok to allow the raping of lady liberty because you think you can stand up to them later, but 1000 rapes later says that you are condoning the crime. It is not rape if you condone it by willingly participating and any woman would know that their life is in danger during a rape so you just lay there waiting for that one rape that they kill you. What a fool.

[WGS]

215. Then

why haven't the Dem's moved to impeach?

[GOTV]

83. No, they probably can't n/t

[porphyrian]

3. How many letters listing them all does she need? - n/t

[bdamomma]

27. let's send her a list to refresh her memory.

[cali]

4. That interview was just feeble

and disturbing.

[Baby Snooks]

39. And revealing...

The interview was just feeble and disturbing because Pelosi is just feeble and disturbing. She has become like the enabling wife of an alcoholic. Living in complete denial.

[ixion]

5. Nance, were you around when Clinton was prez?

I mean, I really hope you have the mental acumen to remember that Clinton was dragged through the mud for months on end because he told a small lie about consensual sex.

This was a lie about a personal matter, and he was impugned and impeached for it.

Bush, on the other hand, has broken just about every rule and constitutional Right on the books, and yet you're unaware of any impeachable offenses.

Wow! That's some opposition. :eyes:

[Fredda Weinberg]

9. You want to repeat someone else's mistake? This is not intelligence

The GOP has been losing support since they resorted to the impeachment canard - why squander this historic opportunity with cheap payback? Dems have a chance to lead responsibly ... why mock what is, after all, an honest answer - even if you have to be a lawyer to understand it properly.

Pelosi asked for genuine impeachable offenses. What this means, in the real, not just the juris world, is that if there is an alternative explanation for an act, the executive will be given the benefit of the doubt and wide latitude is afforded. So, everything we see as malice that can be ascribed to incompetence - will be an the charge will fall.

So, lacking something which benefits * exclusively (and this is where Bill was vulnerable), these bad acts (and they may in fact be) will not stand up to judicial review, even if they can be rammed through congress. At some point, John Roberts would don a Gilbert & Sullivan robe and the farce would be exposed.

Satisfying political theatre, but I don't think the public would be amused while our military is engaged.

[ixion]

23. Yes, the GOP pursuit of Clinton was idiocy... my point was a matter of scale

the fact is that REAL high-crimes and misdemeanors have been committed under the watch of this Administration. And not holding them to account is doing exactly what the GOP was doing with Clinton, but in the converse. The spectacle continues, and nothing gets done.

[Fredda Weinberg]

86. If you're not aware of the legal presumptions, I could understand

your enthusiasm. But unlike Bill's case, you'd have to prove a deliberate attempt to circumvent the law, like Nixon after the tape caught him arranging payoffs to the Watergate burglars. I remember the age and it wasn't popular at the time to point out that Nixon had ordered secret bombings of Cambodia ... it wasn't even an article of impeachment.

[dmr]

31. You cannot accuse any DUer of political payback. That's insulting.

I know of no one here, Fredda, who supports any payback, including ixion, who was only making an ironic point to a historical event in this country. I've been here since DU opened it's 'doors' and while we may have discussed what the GOP did to Clinton, I've never seen anyone seriously entertain a payback. The Republicans are a vindictive bunch, we are not. And, because they project what they are, they are the ones who would make that insulting statement. We are so wrapped up in the Bush* carnage that payback isn't even a part of our vocabulary.

Everyone here, sans the trolls, deeply cares about what Bush* has has done to their country. Not exploring the avenues of impeachment by this Congress is dereliction of their oath. If we need to remind them of their oath, then so be it.

The George W. Bush* Administration, after taking their oath of office to uphold and defend the U.S. Constitution has repeatedly lied, manipulated and demolished that Constitution for political, personal and monetary gain. The results are so disastrous, we may not survive.

But you already know that, yet you had to make sure to insult ixion.

:shrug:

[Fredda Weinberg]

40. Nonsense. We are responsible for moderating ourselves

for a reason. This issue is fueled by heartfelt convictions on both sides - you think I'm unaware of my own feelings?

But I'm promoting a centrist view because Dems have an historic opportunity to lead ... not just win an election. We can gain a meaningful mandate and shouldn't encourage those who preach divisiveness for any motivation - no matter how pure.

[defendandprotect]

151. Let's "lead" by following the Constitution ... and protecting it.... using impeachment ---

[ixion]

95. thanks, dmr... and you're very correct

:hi:

I don't support the idea of 'payback'. That's a karmic no-no.

I DO support holding criminal administrations to account, though.

[davekriss]

34. Impeachment is a political event,

The high crimes and misdemeanors do not have to hold up in criminal court.

Only your last sentence has merit to me. If the Democrats did move to impeach now, the rightwing, with the major media in their back pocket, would howl that at a time of "war" this is a traitorous event. The American atmosphere, as poisoned as it is now, would grow much, much worse. But this only proves to me how extremely dire things now are.

There is no easy way back to democracy and justice. But those of us hungry for justice tell ourselve there must be, there has to be. Nancy Pelosi should envision that alternate route, make it clear (lead) or give us impeachment.

[Fredda Weinberg]

38. Don't lecture the child of a holocaust survivor 'bout justice: ain't none

But we've done a better job than his generation when our own society was threatened.

and FYI, "Technically, impeachment is the Senate's quasi-criminal proceeding"

http://www.law.cornell.edu/background/impeach/impeach.htm

[davekriss]

44. Yes, a previous generation did a much better job...

...I believe we handed out hefty jail time and hung some at Nuremberg for some of the same crimes committed by this administration. Waging aggressive war being the centerpiece (despite the fact that it is in violation of Article 51, which is binding as law on the United States). Further, this aggressive war was disguised as pre-emptive (which is still a violation of Article 51) but is simply and obviously imperial in nature, giving Bush and Cheney even less moral ground to stand on.

BTW, that prefix "quasi" sides with my assertion that the evidence does not have to be "beyond a reasonable doubt", just (as with a civil proceeding) a "preponderance".

On Edit: Does the persistent juxtaposition of Al Qaeda, 9-11, and Iraq before the war when speaking publicly on the part of Bush, Cheney, Rice, and Rumsfeld, followed later, during the denouement, by clear statements by Bush that he never said Saddam was connected to 9-11, does that meet your criteria of intentionally misleading Congress and the American people? And doesn't "intentionally misleading" rise to the level of high crimes and misdemeanors? If so, there is plenty of video evidence available, so let's get impeachment proceedings started.

[Fredda Weinberg]

46. Whoah, imperialism is not the Nazi genocide machine

Take another look at "Judgment at Nuremberg" and come back to me with specifics on how the US has descended to that level of depravity. Show me the slave laborers like my father who watched men shot for collapsing. Where are the camps where the hundreds of thousands are held for final extermination?

You have no historical perspective and your legal analysis is laughable.

[davekriss]

49. 1 million civilian dead in Iraq

So, in your book, aggressive pre-emptive war leading to over 1 million dead and based on misleading public pronouncements is not grounds for impeachment nor judgments similar to Nuremberg? On edit, spraying tons of DU over Iraq, which will kill and deform for generations, this is not an act of genocide?

Legal analysis is not necessary; impeachment is a political event.

As an aside,

Fascism is not defined by the number of its victims, but by the way it kills them.
-- Sartre

[Fredda Weinberg]

64. Mistakes, however tragic are not high crimes or misdemeanors

Now, prove that * hasn't deluded himself ... or all you'll do is produce a GOP martyr.

[davekriss]

76. Not mistakes

"Misleading public pronouncements" are not mistakes, they were intentional tactics to manufacture consent for an illegal war.

[Fredda Weinberg]

78. But if there's doubt, we lose big

We can know we're right, but if we can't prove intent, the presumption goes to the officer, who legally gets the benefit of any doubt. Please consider this legal standard before advocating political action.

[davekriss]

87. Impeachment is political, not legal

Am I wrong on this point? In a judicial proceeding, the presumption goes to the officer (the policeman's word has more weight than mine when I tell the judge I wasn't speeding). But the Senate trial is not a judicial proceeding. The American precedents for impeachment seem to be that the officer somehow abused the office and breached the trust of the citizenry in a major way (the Clinton impeachment being an exception).

The American people expected Bush-Cheney to be telling the truth and not trying to mislead when they juxtaposed 9-11 with Saddam in the buildup to the war; the American people expected Bush-Cheney to uphold the Constitution which includes prohibition against unwarranted search and seizure; the American people expected Bush-Cheney to execute the laws passed by the legislative bodies and not rationalize them away or amend them at will via signing statements. I argue that Bush-Cheney have greatly surpassed the historical threshold for impeachment. They have severly abused their office and breached the trust of the American people.

Again, the Senate trial does not operate by the same rules that a criminal proceeding is subject to (am I wrong on this point?); in fact, a President could be impeached without ever violating a criminal statute. It is, again, a political proceeding, not a legal one. By leaving "high crimes and misdemeanors" undefined, our Founding Fathers left it to the political deliberations of the Senate and House to determine when to impeach and convict, not to judicial standards of evidence and to succinct violations of law.

[Fredda Weinberg]

96. I had a long discussion with my legal consultant

My brother doesn't send bills ... and had infinite patience as I pounded the table. Impeachment is a quasi-legal proceding and charges will have to overcome normal legal presumptions. It's infuriating, but once elected, an official gets all sorts of immunity and benefits of any doubt. You don't see that on normal crime shows, but that's why I needed specialized advice.

[ixion]

97. there is no doubt... there is ample documentation

it's simply that no one in a leadership position has the spine to move forward with it.

[Zhade]

186. Inform yourself, you're spreading the lie that it was a mistake.

The Office of Special Plans didn't fix intel "by mistake".

[Fredda Weinberg]

47. Saddam sealed his fate by paying the families of suicide bombers

Sorry, you don't have a political starter here.

[davekriss]

52. That;'s unfortunate

As I have the moral high ground here (over the Bush administration, not over you). I think therefore we have to work at it to change things. To MAKE it a starter.

[Fredda Weinberg]

63. I recognize that we're on the same side. My hero is headed to the

Middle East to document the carnage. She called me last night ... it may be the last time I speak to her, but as I reminded her, she's all about meaning.

She's also got a doc full of footage from Iraq vets against the war but says they're not ready to use it. Who am I to argue with an indy?

Pacifica network was launched for specifically the purpose you propose. When they needed it, I organized national fundraisers but they now have a sympathetic board of directors. However imperfect, they provide a vital source of information that now percolates to MSM.

So I'm sanguine because I've done what I can when I could. Feel free to contribute.

[FREEWILL56]

223. You should be ashamed to throw up about there

being no justice for the holocost be you a victim of it or not. Does it justify our doing nothing that could create more holocosts by throwing out our values now? The best thing back then would've been if enough had acted in such a manner that those powers would not have blossomed to the point of being able to do their attrocities. You are allowing them in your own way to blossom by inaction just as was the case in prenazi Germany, so do not lay guilt upon us for something you are doing in the condoning of inaction against wrongs we know are being committed. Lay that kind of guilt upon those that would perpetrate such evil deeds as bush and the rest of his cohorts now do. You want justice? The best you can attain would be in the preventing of anybody else having to experience that kind of injustice and sorry sitting there making excuses with your thumbs up your ass is condemming others to that same injustice.

[EstimatedProphet]

70. But the high crimes and misdemeanors do have to hold up in Congress

An impeachment proceeding is an argument. It doesn't have to be a legal argument to be an argument. If impeachment is tried without a solid argument, it will fail. It should fail too - this is a serious matter, and if people really want it they should work for it.

[Fredda Weinberg]

80. Children really want things ... adults should make rational decisions

and think one step ahead to consider consequences.

[EstimatedProphet]

90. Agreed.

[puebloknot]

170. Adults, in accordance with the Constitution of the United States of America...

...hold impeachment proceedings in order to make rational decisions about whether there is enough evidence to hand down a Bill of Impeachment and refer the matter to the Senate for trial.

"Want" is not the issue; following the rule of law is.

[JMDEM]

125. Cool picture!!!

It took me a couple of looks to understand what it was about!

But you know... pretty darned accurate -- and scary.

[defendandprotect]

152. You're making a fear-based argument . .... turn the TVs off and you also turn off their power -- !!

The Constitution provides even for impeachment and SUSPENSION when there is the SUSPICION of wrong-doing by the president . . . and also in conspiracy with the VP --

This is the most impeachable president in all our history -- !!!!

And from impeachment, we would be doing the world a favor to move Bush on to the Hague ---

[FREEWILL56]

224. Motion seconded.

[defendandprotect]

153. You're making a fear-based argument . .... turn the TVs off and you also turn off their power -- !!

The Constitution provides even for impeachment and SUSPENSION when there is the SUSPICION of wrong-doing by the president . . . and also in conspiracy with the VP --

This is the most impeachable president in all our history -- !!!!

And from impeachment, we would be doing the world a favor to move Bush on to the Hague ---

[davekriss]

60. See post #43 below

For a solid additional reason to impeach (beyond what I talk about in my subthread with you), see post #43.

On "the GOP has been losing support since they resorted to the impeachment canard". Really? They've held the Office of the President for 7 years, and held a majority of the Senate and House for much of those years (if it wasn't for Jeffords, it would be all of those years). The Democrats can sure use some of this loss of support, too!

Yes, the Republicans lost the House and Senate in 2006, but do you think that might be because of Bush's war and lack of WMD in Iraq? Perhaps torture, outing a CIA agent, illegally wiretapping U.S. citizens, lying about the costs of Medicare legislation, allowing people to starve and die of thirst after Katrina, and on and on -- these things might've contributes to eroding support? You don't claim that the Republican losses in 2006 had something to do with the unpopular impeachment in 1998, do you?

[Fredda Weinberg]

68. A trend is a trend.

you can look it up for yourself.

[davekriss]

77. I think the impeachment of Clinton...

...was a major part of a crass political strategy to win back the White House in 2000, and the Republicans were very successful (albeit they needed a ridiculously reasoned 5-4 Supreme Court decision to win it).

As for eroding Republican support: Didn't Clinton approach 70% approval in the polls when he was impeached? So what did it cost the Republicans? They won the Presidency. The held onto a majority in the Senate in 2000 albeit they lost 4 seats, and they lost only 2 seats of their House majority. Some erosion! What would happen if we impeached a President who holds a 29% approval rating even before outing the impeachable offenses on national TV? I don't think the Democrats would have much to worry about.

Note in 2002 the Republicans gained 2 seats in the Senate and 8 seats in the house; in 2004 they gained 4 seats in the Senate and 3 seats in the house. I just don't see any political damage to the Republicans as a result of impeaching Clinton. All I see is unethical success.

[Fredda Weinberg]

81. Unethical success? I can easily walk away from that

And 9/11 did affect us for a while, but a trend isn't necessarily a smooth line.

I hear your bitterness but ask that you accept the strategic logic of the Democratic leadership.

[davekriss]

92. I grant you this

It is probably too late now, in October 2007, to initiate impeachment proceedings, because (as someone else posts on this thread) it would weaken the 2008 campaign. If we were going to impeach, we should've started in January.

I am faithful to the Democratic Party in our duopoly, but only because we are a duopoly, and as with Nadar and 2000 the stakes are far too high to protest vote at this time.

But you're asking me to accept "strategic logic of the Democratic leadership" which has been woefully inadequate for a long time. We're long past time and need for a change in direction, i.e. we need a move back to the left and away from the center. Democrats have not been successful with their strategy of imitating "Republicans", which is what our leadership appears to be doing.

[Fredda Weinberg]

94. Agreed and in this case, Dems are not imitating Republicans

and have clearly outlined their reasons for adopting this tactic. It's not easy to swallow, but I can accept their logic.

[defendandprotect]

154. Bush didn't "win the White House" in 2000 --

This was a stolen election which required the additional assistance of corrupt government and five corrupt Supreme Court Justices ---

Additionally, the computer steals have been going on for more than 30 years ---
PLEASE read this . . .

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=389x2018859

[Ghost in the Machine]

74. "Cheap payback" & "Satisfying politcal theater"... What a tool!

I get so sick of reading these uninformed, ill founded comparisons to Clinton's impeachment. The reason it hurt the repugs is BECAUSE THE PUBLIC KNEW IT WAS A FARCE AND A WITCH HUNT. Get that through your head before you post any more dishonest BS 'opinions', okay?

You seem to think that the American public is as dumb as BushCo thinks we are. We KNOW high crimes have been committed. We KNOW Bush & Cheney both DESERVE to be impeached. The only thing that will hurt the Dems is NOT IMPEACHING. Mark my words and watch next November.

[ixion]

98. spot on, that... and I agree with your prediction

it's the reason Congress' approval rating is so low right now.

[davekriss]

104. Is it not a fundamental of political science...

...that unmet expectations breed revolution? I think the perception that the Democratic congress was unable to stop the war (and instead aided and abetted Bush with generous funding and FISA legislation), and they made no move to impeach Bush, could very well result in a "revolution" in 2008. It will imo cost them seats in the Senate and House, and very well could lose them the White House. The course charted by current Democratic leadership is the height of folly.

[FREEWILL56]

226. "Is it not a fundamental of political science...

...that unmet expectations breed revolution?"

Really? Every history book I've read says otherwise.
Now if the democratic party fails to follow the will of the people and we know the republicons are against the will of the people as their nature is one of selfishness, greed, and power, then that leaves one avenue for the people to change this doesn't it? Do not dismiss the winds blowing as much of our democratic leadership has.

[davekriss]

241. I left a word out, too

Isn't unmet rising expectations the breeding ground of revolution?

[FREEWILL56]

229. I apoligize as I misread you.

You said "is it" and my mistake was interpreting as it is. In rereading it I saw my mistake.

[zeemike]

124. I also agree with that n/t

[bluescribbler]

130. About judicial review

You wrote, "So, lacking something which benefits * exclusively (and this is where Bill was vulnerable), these bad acts (and they may in fact be) will not stand up to judicial review, even if they can be rammed through congress. At some point, John Roberts would don a Gilbert & Sullivan robe and the farce would be exposed."

There is no power of judicial review in the case of impeachemnt. Impeachment cannot be appealed. If the House impeaches and the Senate convicts, that is final. The Chief Justice presides, but has no power in the proceedings beyond recognizing witnesses and interpreting the rules of the proceedings.

[defendandprotect]

148. "Cheap payback" .. . ??? !!!!! "Bad Acts" . .. ??? !!!! The GOP made a mockery of impeachment ....

impeaching Clinton's penis.

Now, you want to suggest that what Bush has done in taking us into an ILLEGAL war is in any way less important?

Or wiretapping -- and, of course, we don't have a list of who the victims are, really. . . do we?

Signing statements -- more than 1,000 of them!!!
It is up to Congress to ensure that their legislation is carried out in the spirit and intent with which it was written.

Habeas Corpus --

and you're calling these "bad acts" -- !!!!

Let me assure you that the Founders would find INCOMPETENCE impeachment -- worthy . . .
and we have more than that in the bankrupting of the Treasury and the lack of effort to aid citizens suffeing Katrina -- to name just a few degrees of incompetence by this president and his administration.

Anyone want to mention the politicizing of the DOJ --???

If you're a Democrat, do me a favor and confine your advice to the Republicans --- !!!

[defendandprotect]

149. Are you saying that impeaching Clinton's penis was PAYBACK for the impeachment of NIxon????

Or do you only connect dots that work against impeachment --- ???

[Zhade]

185. Holding criminals accountable for their crimes is "cheap payback"?

In what demented world?

[GOTV]

85. ... that will pass congress...

She didn't say she didn't know of impeachable offenses, just that she knew of none that would pass congress.

[rateyes]

6. Unfrickingbelievable....

They CAN pass the fricking Congress. Start the hearings...they will be publicized on every channel in America...live hearings, and have the witnesses lay out the facts. The people will demand impeachment.

Hey Nancy, IF A BLOWJOB IS AN IMPEACHABLE OFFENSE THAT CAN PASS THE CONGRESS, THEN MISLEADING US INTO WAR, WARRANTLESS WIRETAPS, TORTURE OF PRISONERS, HOLDING PEOPLE WITHOUT GIVING THEM ACCESS TO LAWYERS AND WITHOUT BEING CHARGED, INTENTIONALLY OUTING A CIA OPERATIVE, THE LIST GOES ON FOREVER, ARE CERTAINLY IMPEACHABLE OFFENSES THAT CAN PASS THE CONGRESS.

Grow a damned spine, and be woman enough to do your job.

[GOTV]

88. Yeah, great, I'm sure corporate media will fairly cover the impeachment....

... of the corporate president. I'm sure a majority of voters will look up the congressional transcript to see exactly what the evidence is too.

Of all the impeachment fantasies, this recurring one seems the silliest to me: that somehow once hearings are held under an impeachment banner, news programs will start really reporting the facts and that voters will really become interested when regular hearings have not had that effect.

As if corporate news would not triple their efforts to turn public opinion back towards the president and away from the democrats.

Why, the news copy writes itself.

[defendandprotect]

150. Anyone see signs of MSM cracking . . . ?

[GOTV]

212. Apparently impeachment has magical powers to ....

... both transform the media into honest news agencies and make the public suddenly care about the crimes that have already been reported.

[defendandprotect]

220. No . . . Impeachment doesn't have "magical powers" ...but investigating crime ....

and facts from those investigations can put the MSM in a position where they have to report on it.

Also, impeachment forces the production of documents which are now not being produced.

Certainly the public cares about government corruption . . . and most of them are waiting for
the Democrats to do something about it -- !!!!

[GOTV]

225. We have investigated and the crimes have been reported ....

... in the twisted way the MSM reports political news - twisted towards corporate interests.

So you've already got that. It didn't help. Most people don't support impeachment as shown in most of the polls.

"Also, impeachment forces the production of documents which are now not being produced"

I don't think this is true. The administration need not cooperate in any way with the impeachment. After all what can you do to them? Subpoena?

[FREEWILL56]

230. What polls are you reading?

Produce them.

[defendandprotect]

242. I don't know what polls you're looking at, but since when is MSM asking about impeachment????

As far as I can see, Democrats are in favor of impeachment --

And re the investigations, we haven't had investigations for IMPEACHMENT . . .

I think there are huge questions about money -- maybe even being REBATED back to the GOP party from contractors--??? Who knows?

I would guess there is some avenue for all of this money to come back to GOP either for the party or to officials -- Hastert is rumored to have a suitcase full of cash from Turkey?

And, have we actually investigated Blackwater -- I think that's Liebermann's domain???

Additionally, the Constitution provides for acting on "suspicion" . . .
and even suspicion of conspiracy between President and VP . . .
and it provides for SUSPENSION of the presidency and presumably the VP ---

What we need are Democrats willing to act --
What these Democrats want, IMO, is what Nixon provided .... Smoking Guns . .. .
I don't blame them --
but I think we have lots of Bush guns lying around and we should see if they're loaded
or whether he'll shoot himself in the foot with one?

[Zhade]

187. How is that WORSE than your solution, which is to let murderous criminals get away with it?

NT!

[GOTV]

202. You have no idea what my solution is....

.... but I'm not going to squeeze the trigger of an empty gun and pretend that's doing something.

[groovedaddy]

7. What is in the articles of Impeachment introduced by Kucinich against Cheney?

And why did Kucinich choose to go after Cheney first?
The quest for the "imperial presidency" has been led by Cheney. He was around when Nixon went down. What cooked Nixon? Primarily, it was the recording of conversations authorized by Nixon and his stupidity in conversing about the coverup and recording said conversations.
I thought Cheney was aware enough to avoid similar mistakes, but maybe not. His note on the op-ed by
Joe Wilson should be considered as incriminating.
The "disappearance" of thousands of WhiteHouse emails, as well as the use of the RNC email accounts to circumvent detection and retention, reaks to high heaven. Clearly, there was evidence there that is being kept from scrutiny.

[babylonsister]

11. Full text of articles here:

http://www.scoop.co.nz/stories/HL0704/S00426.htm

[groovedaddy]

12. Thanks. Maybe many in Congress are affraid for their political lives

Impeachment might also shine a light on the Congressional role in authorizing the war. When they say: "they deceived us too," I have a difficult time believing that.
I heard Kucinich speak just weeks before the U.S. invaded Iraq and he was saying then all the pretexts for war were bogus. Kucinich knew the truth. Why didn't the other members of congress know? Maybe Pelosi, et al. don't want the fact that they played along for the sake of political expediency - affraid of being seen as "soft on terrorism," which seems to still motivate so many of the Congressional Dems.

[babylonsister]

14. I think the Dems are so focused on 08

that they're not looking at the forest for the trees. There's still lots of time for this monster of an admin to do so much more damage, and no one seems too concerned about that.
As for your question of going after Cheney first, he's the main monster, but I'm thinking Kucinich knows that if we bag one of these warmongers, they will all fall.

[defendandprotect]

155. Kucinich is right and we should follow his lead -- not Pelosi's .....

As far as I can see, the Democrats are doing NOTHING about computer voting --
we need paper and pens and human beings doing the counts ---

PLEASE NOTE ... the 2000 steal wasn't the beginning of the steals . . . it was just the noisest so far . . . PLEASE take a look at this thread ....
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=389x2018859

Computer theft of elections has been going on for more than 30 years -- !!!

[davekriss]

36. That is the real reason Pelosi won't impeach

A successful impeachment besmirches all too many complicit Democrats, too. Better to let sleeping dogs lie, eh Nancy?

[Oak2004]

117. That, I have suspected, is the REAL reason

If Bush was impeached over the war of aggression, and the matter was investigated, I think we'd learn that a lot of Democrats knew it was a pack of lies, were even briefed and told it was a pack of lies, and went ahead and voted for it knowing it was a pack of lies.

As long as there are Democrats who are equally guilty of waging a war of aggression, they won't touch the topic.

I for one have no problem packing up a few culpable Democrats and sending them off to a war crimes trial, if it comes to that. I believe in the rule of law, not the rule of party.

[puebloknot]

172. Yes. Maybe that is true. And I am forced to think about the troops...

...fighting in this illegal action in Iraq and the fear they live with for their actual lives. All because politicians are morally bankrupt.

[John Q. Citizen]

180. Pelosi voted against the IWR. In fact a large majority of Dems in the House, and something like

23 Dem Senators voted against the IWR.

[againes654]

110. You go after Cheney first

then bush. Then Pelosi would be President. If you go after bush first, then Cheney would be President, and we damn sure don't want that.

[atreides1]

8. Hey Nancy

Here's one example:

By Art. II Sec. 1 Cl. 8, the president must swear: "I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will faithfully execute the Office of President of the United States, and will to the best of my Ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States."

An official such as the president does not need to take a special oath to become subject to the penalties of perjury. He took an oath, by Art. II Sec. 1 Cl. 8, to "faithfully execute the Office of President of the United States" and to "preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States" to the best of his ability. While he holds that office, he is always under oath, and lying at any time constitutes perjury if it is not justified for national security.


I would say that Bush committed perjury by failing to live up to the obligations of his oath of office, which can be considered an impeachable offense.

On Edit:

It is evident that in the absence of a clear legal definition, determining what rises to "high crimes and misdemeanors" is an inherently political process, which means that it is up to Congress and what it thinks constitutes an impeachable offense.

So it's up to Nancy and her gang to decide, lacking any clear legal definition. It's too bad that the Democratic leadership in congress lacks the courage that just one man at the Alamo possessed. They knew they had no chance and they were given an option,
but they fought for what they believed in, it's unfortunate that the Dem leadership doesn't really believe in anything.

[GOTV]

89. Read her whole statement, she didn't just ask for offenses...

... I mean come on. It just looks silly to attack her without first understanding what she said.

[Coexist]

10. "here's a little red meat, peons... now GET OFF MY LAWN!"

[lynnertic]

42. bingo

yesterday I read a Pelosi quote that went something like,

"If these people were homeless and sleeping on my property they'd be arrested for loitering. But they wear an "impeach Bush" tshirt and it's called Free Speech"

Keep it up!!!! You guys are getting to her!!!!

[ixion]

101. yep, but it was "my sidewalk" instead of "my property"

the sidewalk being, in reality, not hers at all.

[EstimatedProphet]

13. So why don't one of you email her the impeachable offenses?

Feel free to list them here.

[babylonsister]

16. Are you serious? People have been protesting her for months, sending

her volumes of info on impeachment. She's ignoring everyone.

[EstimatedProphet]

18. See post #17

[GOTV]

91. As she said, she's waiting for the charge that will pass congress...

... she's ignoring those that present arguments that will not work.

[Freddie Stubbs]

15. "that can pass the Congress" is the operative phrase in her statement

[EstimatedProphet]

17. Exactly

And since my real point was too subtle to be understood (as I knew it would be) I'll elaborate:

Impeachment is going to require proof. Proof, if indeed it does exist, will come from investigations. We all know the Constitution has been shredded,but who did it? Was it Bush and Cheney directly? Prove it. Bush has the claim that he was given bad inteligence to get out of the Iraq war fiasco, and without specific sworn individuals that will claim that Bush/Cheney pushed the issue, the 'official' guilt falls on Tennet - and he's already been taken care of. Case closed. Same thing with the torture issue - all that was made 'officially' legal by gonzales, and he's gone too. Bush/Cheney at this point can claim that they didn't know the real ramifications of what was going on, and that they were misled by their advisors. That argument works. Reagan was never impeached specifically because he used it.

Quit putting the cart before the horse. Impeachment is going to REQUIRE proof that Bush/Cheney directly did things, and not that their advisors did things for them. Unless you happen to have a document that has Bush's name on it, stating that he intends to break the Constitution, you are going to have a hard time arguing before Congress that he did have those intentions, and not that one of his advisors did it in his name.

[babylonsister]

19. The Downing Street Minutes provide proof we were lied into

an illegal occupation-that's good enough for me, for starters.

http://www.downingstreetmemo.com/

[Freddie Stubbs]

20. Considering that this memo was made public over two years ago,

it would appear that this is not enough for Congress.

[babylonsister]

22. I honestly don't think enough attention has been paid to this, and

there is a real reason to wonder why. Granted, Dems were in the minority then, but that's no longer the case. I'd like to see someone do some real investigating, out in the open. But the Dems have their 08 agenda, and it seems nothing will deter them.

[John Q. Citizen]

181. Nothing is good enough for this congress. Period. bush could eat a baby live on tv and they

would shirk there responsibility.

So?

We already know that.

Nancy is just pulling the same crap she's been pulling for a long time now.

She's running out the clock. I know that. You know that.

[EstimatedProphet]

25. But that's not good enough for Congress.

[babylonsister]

29. I know Conyers had that meeting in the basement when Dems were

in the minority, but has anyone even investigated this since? It is proof, whether they address it or not. And again, why isn't anyone?

[EstimatedProphet]

53. Then that's where the real issue is, isn't it?

If you think that they should take a different tack in investigations, then by all means bring that up as often and as loudly as possible. But every day here people go off on why haven't Bush/Cheney been impeached yet, as if it were simply a matter of a yes/no vote with a 5 minute roll call. then they get mad when this is pointed out to them. That has about as much use as getting mad that the sky isn't red.

Impeachment isn't something that is a snap of the fingers, even if people want it to be. There's a reason there were a year's worth of investigations on Nixon - that's what established the case that it was indeed Nixon that was the end of the chain, and not, say, G. Gordon Liddy, who would then resign and Nixon stays untouched. Yet, people gripe about the investigations as if they are nothing, and then demand an impeachment proceeding that is guaranteed to fail by doing it their way because the real work won't ever be done to make it an effective case. If people don't want to do the work that it will take to make impeachment happen, then they don't deserve to have the impeachment happen.

[WillyT]

21. Please Watch The Video Here, And Then Get Back To Us !!!

Link: http://www.pbs.org/moyers/journal/07132007/profile.html

:shrug:

[EstimatedProphet]

26. The video's not going to change a thing

If they don't have documentation that Bush/Cheney were directly responsible for impeachable offenses, then they aren't going to impeach. If the video provides that evidence, I suggest you send Pelosi a copy. But investigations are the only thing that is likely to provide that evidence.

[WillyT]

156. Jesus Dude... It's The Impeachment That GETS You The Evidence !!!

All Impeachment is, is an indictment!

The House serves as a Grand Jury, it investigates\hears the alleged crimes, and then returns a decision on whether there is enough to go forward to trial on. Which is held in the Senate. Hell, the Senate might just let Bush off the hook, BUT SO FUCKING WHAT???

Simple Test: If this\these assholes are not worthy of Impeachment, I DEFY YOU to describe a situation that would warrant it, and, where you would still have the rights to declare it.

Exactly what do YOU believe Impeachment is for?

I'm beggin ya, what would Impeahment look like in your world???

:shrug:

[puebloknot]

165. I wonder how many people who read and post at DU understand that impeachment...

...is the evidence-gathering procedure that determines whether there is enough evidence of impeachable offenses to send to the Senate for a trial.

In California, for example, a preliminary hearing is held to determine if there is enough evidence to bind the defendant over for trial. Same idea for an impeachment. Hold a hearing, call witnesses, find out what went down.

Bill Clinton was *impeached* but a lot of people don't understand that he was acquitted at the Senate trial.

I grow so tired of hearing this horse-before-the-cart argument with regard to impeachment.

John Conyers has already compiled a list of impeachable offenses, down in the basement before November 2006, and he published those results. I continue to wonder what put the quash to his intention to hold impeachment hearings.

[Kolesar]

196. You have to have all your evidence in order or else pay the consequences of humiliation by rightwing

...politicians and media. Obviously, Pelosi does not have the stomach for that.

If only this was like drawing a sword and charging the line.

[puebloknot]

232. This argument has been made over and over.

Conyers has gathered a mountain of evidence, which could be presented formally in impeachment hearings, held to gather said evidence in a formal proceeding.

Not to go forward with impeachment is a humiliation of the highest order before the citizens of this country, and the citizens of the world.

One man's "humiliation" is another's mark of high honor. Dreyfuss was stripped of his rank in one of the world's greatest historical examples of public humiliation. He was later exonerated.

If the Dems don't find the stomach for *something* of consequence in fighting this rogue regime, they'll pay the price -- and so shall we all.

[WillyT]

162. And BTW... Did You Bother To Watch The Video ???

:shrug:

[alllyingwhores]

177. The ASSHOLE is on video tape admitting that he spied illegally without warrants!

That's pretty compelling evidence!

"Unless you happen to have a document that has Bush's name on it"--How about a thousand or so signing statements with...his f__king name on everyone of them--specifically stating how he will ignore any number of laws and the constitution.

Oh yeah...and what happened to phase 2 of the Iraq "intelligence failure" investigation?--the part where the Dems stormed out of Congress in protest of the Neofucks constantly delaying the part of the investigation that was supposed to look into how the Assemperor and company "manipulated" or LIED to everyone about WMDs, Al-Qaeda links, etc.

Oh, I'm sorry...phase 2 would not have been politically prudent...because?

[woodsprite]

24. Someone should send her a bumper sticker that says

Impeachable Offenses =
More than just a blow job.

[Spurt]

32. There you have her confession..

...that she can't do her job.

The crimes exist and she admits it. It is HER JOB to get stuff through congress. Do it lady - or take a hike.

That statement of hers is a blatant effort to deny her own constitutional duty to make it happen, or at least to make a sincere attempt to do so.

Is she incompetent, lazy, corrupt, blackmailed or stupid? Can't think of too many other choices as to why this thread is being debated while plenty of publicly documented crimes stand unchallenged.

[babylonsister]

35. Love that last para., Spurt!

:thumbsup:

[redqueen]

72. I'm betting blackmailed. Weapons-grade anthrax delivery, anyone? n/t

[OmmmSweetOmmm]

33. Ok...now I know for certain I live in a different Universe than Nancy. Is she

so morally corrupt she doesn't see it or does she think people are stupid?

[puebloknot]

173. Or is she delusional? In an interview a few days ago, she was once again...

...smiling her Ms. America smile and talking about breaking through the marble ceiling. She mentioned that we should all pray for peace. It was a pretty little interview -- a soundless, fury-less performance with exactly no substance.

Moral corruption might be a step up. That requires reasoned forethought.

[nikto]

176. It's starting to look like "Invasion Of The Body Snatchers"...

Maybe some alien pea-pod was hidden in her house,
and when she went to sleep, her soul was
destroyed, and her body taken over by whatever took
Dana Andrew's girlfriend's soul in that sci-fi classic.

Works for me.

Or, maybe it was similar to the phenomena that has already
spread among our Gop/rightwingers...


http://altair44.blogspot.com/

[FREEWILL56]

231. She can't think we're that stupid

for people were the ones that put her there for that reason among others.

[madrchsod]

37. this is what was needed for nixon to resign

"Unlike the tape recordings by earlier Presidents, his secret recordings of White House conversations were revealed and subpoenaed and showed details of his complicity in the cover-up. Nixon was named by the grand jury investigating Watergate as "an unindicted co-conspirator" in the Watergate scandal...

The gap, while not conclusive proof of wrong-doing on the part of the President, cast doubt on Nixon's claim that he was unaware of the cover-up at this stage. Although not discovered until several years after he had left office, transcripts of an earlier June 20, 1972 conversation between Nixon and White House Special Counsel Charles Colson clearly show Nixon's early involvement in obstructing justice in the Watergate investigation....

He lost support from some in his own party as well as much popular support after what became known as the Saturday Night Massacre of October 20, 1973, in which his demand that independent special prosecutor Archibald Cox be dismissed, was refused to be carried out by Attorney General Elliot Richardson and Deputy Attorney General William Ruckelshaus, who both resigned in protest. The then Solicitor General, the most senior officer remaining at the Department of Justice, Robert Bork, dismissed Cox.....

The House Judiciary Committee controlled by Democrats opened formal and public impeachment hearings against Nixon on May 9, 1974. Despite his efforts, one of the secret recordings, known as the "smoking gun" tape, was released on August 5, 1974, and revealed that Nixon authorized hush money to Watergate burglar E. Howard Hunt, and also revealed that Nixon ordered the CIA to tell the FBI to stop investigating certain topics because of "the Bay of Pigs thing." In light of his loss of political support and the near certainty of both his impeachment by the House of Representatives and his probable conviction by the Senate, he resigned on August 9, 1974, after addressing the nation on television the previous evening. He never admitted to criminal wrongdoing, although he later conceded errors of judgment."



this judicial committee has nothing that comes close to this standard. nor does the committee have the time to start proceedings. unless the democrats can find a smoking gun and enough republicans on the committee to force a vote in the house this issue is dead on arrival.

[groovedaddy]

41. As I said in a prior post on this thread

Cheney was around for all the Nixon stuff and should be aware of keeping such evidence out of the hands of Congress.
The missing WhiteHouse emails & the ones sent from RNC accounts are probably loaded with info and why they were "accidentally" destroyed.

However, this is one that's a kicker for me:
Bush, admitting in public twice, that he saw the first plane hit the WTC BEFORE entering the classroom on the morning of 9/11. NO ONE has ever asked him for an explanation of how he could have seen this. Smoking gun?

[EstimatedProphet]

55. No, that's not a smoking gun

So someone questions Bush about it. He says "I guess I misremembered." No one can show otherwise. Case closed.

[groovedaddy]

61. so If Nixon had maintained "I don't remember" that would have gotten him off?

The tapes did him in.
CNN aired Bush's comments saying he saw the first plane hit the WTC - so we do know that he said it, on two different occassions.

[EstimatedProphet]

65. No, because there was corroborating evidence that Nixon committed crimes

The tapes that did Nixon in were tapes of him actually having the conversations that led to the crimes being committed, not interviews of what he thought. the tapes were documentation of Nixon's plans to break the law.

Are you trying to claim that Bush is behind 9/11? That could be evidence that he was, yes - but if that's what your evidence is, it's not going to go very far. And if that's evidence that bush needs to be impeached, it will be laughed at out of hand.

Bush wsn't sworn in when he was on CNN, so whatever he says he can later claim was subject to interpretation at the time. Also, they were interviews about what he thought, not plans. He could just claim that he misremembered during the interviews, and no one could do a thing. If he were sworn in, in a courtroom, that wouldn't fly. If they were tapes of Bush planning to blow up the Twin Towers, they'd be evidence. As they are, they are nothing.

[groovedaddy]

100. I'm not saying he was behind it

but if you take what he is saying at face value, he was a witness to a crime which begs the question:
how was he able to see this on t.v.? If he did see it on t.v. before entering the classroom, given the timing, it had to have been a live feed (or close to it) indicating that someone had enough foreknowledge to capture the video and transmit it. That would not mean that Bush himself planned anything. He was saying what he saw (a plane hitting the tower)and then saying what he thought about seeing a plane hit the tower ("What a terrible pilot").
One has to think that his handlers would have pointed out the implications of his statements. But a month later he repeats it almost verbatim without ANYONE asking him to clarify, renounce, deny, say he "misremembered" or anything else.
I don't think he planned it but I don't think these pronouncements were accidents either. He knew what he was saying and intended the message to be heard by the American people.

[EstimatedProphet]

105. Certainly his statements are curious

And they point to something perhaps going on behind the curtain. They just don't prove it.

[groovedaddy]

106. And I'm not saying they do

but they're serious enough to warrant clarification.

[EstimatedProphet]

108. That I agree with

[defendandprotect]

157. The Anthrax attacks are also traceable to inside government . . ..

and, again, huge incompetence by the Bush administration ---
if not complicity.


Additionally, not quickly and strongly pursuing the military bribery scandals is shocking.
Obviously, that was Rummy and Cheney's forte -- renewing the Cold War and renewing the MIIC's
lease on draining the Treasury for "weapons."

And, Rummy and Cheney saw to it that the weapons were USED and RENEWED ---

[MiniMe]

57. Exactly. We have the perfect storm

They can't get the proof they need because of the secrecy of this administration. Unfortunately, after the last 2 SCOTUS nominations, the courts would most likely side with the administration and the urinary executive, and congress would lose more power than they already have.

We all know what they have done, but getting irrefutable proof is what is holding it up. For gods sake, they can't even get the repukes to vote to restore habeas corpus. And at this point in time, with a year left to the election, they don't have enough time. impeaching a President is not a quick process.

[FREEWILL56]

236. "For gods sake, they can't even get the repukes to vote to restore habeas corpus."

Because too many are not acting on it and are becoming complicit in the crimes by not pursuing them. I think everybody is forgetting that congress holds the majority of power and not king george and they can throw all of the smoke and mirrors they like as they are shirking their duty to start the impeachment process and this is not a trial as was said, but a gathering of evidence for such trial to take place. Even after they leave office due to time running out on their terms this can and should still be pursued in the interest of justice. The ending of a term in office does not let one off the hook as they get personnal protection from the secret service and retirements and so on for their service. If it is shown they have shirked that service they are and should be minimumly without benefits, but that isn't the point is it as justice needs served. Congress gave that power to him and can repeal it because they lack the courage themselves to handle the operations of government. That fear card was more for congress than us and anthrax was part of it.
repuke alert condition red.

[The Stranger]

69. The "smoking gun" is not on secret tapes -- it was broadcast by television to the entire world.

It is in his 2003 State of the Union speech. The evidence for impeachment is so voluminous, the difficulty in impeachment would not be having it, but deciding which of it to use and which to leave aside. This isn't a gumshoe novel. You don't need some hushed voice here. The evidence is right there in front of the entire fucking world for all to see. That is what is so extraordinary about this. The Emperor wears no clothes, and the people are screaming to their elected "leaders," who insist on not saying out loud, "The Emperor wears no clothes."

[EstimatedProphet]

93. Do you mean the 16 words?

Nope. That's never going to fly as evidence in an impeachment trial. Bush has already answered that. Tennet, who Bush claims was responsible for that statement, is gone. There is no way an impeachment hearing will be successful based on an issue that has already been dealt with. Unless you can prove conclusively to Congress that Bush/Cheney were behind the 16 words, and not Tennet, then Tennet is going to continue to take the blame.

[The Stranger]

103. 16 words? What? There are volumes of words that are evidence.

Of course Bush and his handlers will come up with a way to "answer" it and everything else. But that is why you investigate, hold hearings, and question people. What the fuck? You think they're going to come down and give you some tapes so you can impeach them?

As stated in the prior post, there is so much evidence warranting impeachment, it is difficult to know where to start. ONE place, however, would be his telling the world that Iraq had 50,000 tons of sarin, when, in fact, it had none. Not a drop. Not an ounce. Not a single fucking vial of it.

THEY ARE NOT GOING TO IMPEACH THEMSELVES, NOR ARE THEY GOING TO HAND OVER EVIDENCE. It takes investigation -- not covering for them and attacking those who are trying to preserve what is left of a Constitutional system.

[EstimatedProphet]

107. EXACTLY!

That's exactly what you do:

But that is why you investigate, hold hearings, and question people.

This is what I have been arguing about for months now. Without the investigations that show Bush/Cheney are directly behind what has been going on for the past 6 years, there is noting anyone can say otherwise when they claim it was an underling misleading them, and that underling has been fired.

However, the job we have before a successful impeachment can come about, is going through all that evidence and linking it to him. For example, that 50, 000 tons of Sarin you mentioned. Can you prove that Bush himself is behind that? Can you prove that he knew it wasn't there, and not that he wasn't misinformed by the CIA or his own intelligence people? It makes no difference what he said, if he can come along and claim that he was misinformed and was acting on what he thought was the best evidence available, and no one can prove otherwise.

There's a bunch of evidence that's out there. Very slowly and deliberately it is being whittled down. however slowly it's being addressed, the whittling-down process is necessary.

[The Stranger]

113. Take just that one example.

Press organizations have already conducted investigative reports showing that the rush to attack Iraq was based on intentionally fabricated false evidence. FRONTLINE has produced and broadcast numerous reports on this very issue. Again, Bush is not going to admit that he knew he was launching a war based on lies, but there is already enough information to show this. We cannot wait to whittle it down, whatever that means. We need to assemble it and act.

Instead, on yet another impeachable issue, the illegal wiretapping of Americans, or yet another impeachable issue, the torture of prisoners of war, years have gone by without the Democrats obtaining the documents they had subpoenaed, sometimes several times. Again, they are not going to provide the evidence to impeach them, but there is more than enough evidence there. They are not going to break down on the witness stand in a dramatic Perry Mason-esque collapse and admit their crimes. We must act with the mountains of evidence that is already available.

[EstimatedProphet]

114. And the mountains of evidence point to who?

Bush? Not without direct linking they don't. All the evidence points to the Bush ADMINISTRATION, not Bush himself. He can plausibly deny every single thing that comes up that doesn't directly have a link to him, just by saying that he was misinformed by his advisors. Then he just fires his 'responsible' advisor, the problem is solved, and impeachment is averted. That's why we need the investigations - to prove that he is behind it all, and not his advisors. Reagan got away with that crap. I don't want to see Bush get away with it too.

Now, as far as the subpoena'ed documents are concerned, I agree that this is serious and needs to be addressed. But I disagree that any of the things that have gone on since 2001 are directly linked enough to Bush that we can start an impeachment now with what we have.

[The Stranger]

116. To whom.

Yes, they point to Bush. Of course he is going to deny everything, but there is too much evidence that has accumulated to escape impeachment. You have to do what any prosecutor worth his weight in dogshit would do: You start at the bottom and get individuals under oath. Then you roll them over one by one, up each level of the "Administration" until you have him. You also get the rest of them on the way up. But you cannot wait for some magical personalized, signed and notarized admission to be issued by this criminal. You don't need this to impeach someone.

In addition to all of this, understand that impeachment has a political aspect to it. Even if you do not get Bush to break down like a cross-examination by Perry Mason, the political currents that are reaching a crescendo (i.e., the American people are extremely angry, and the Democratic Base is absolutely exploding), then the political aspect takes over and resignation becomes a possibility as he becomes more and more isolated.

[EstimatedProphet]

118. This is exactly what I have been arguing for for months

I'm not sure why exactly you think I'm claiming that they should have to reveal themselves by an admission. What I have been describing all along is what you are describing right now. We agree, dude. :) The only thing I disagree about is how much the evidence, as it stands now, clearly implicates Bush as the responsible party. Which is why I have calling for investigations all along.

Investigations will reveal, if it canbe revealed, that Bush/Cheney is behind the whole thing.

Investigations are what will also make it possible to get more than 67 votes in the Senate.

[Zhade]

188. Impeachment IS investigations. That's how they work.

NT!

[defendandprotect]

158. Exceedingly true --- !!!! I doubt our Founders intended us to keep a president in office . . .

who gave us an "ILLEGAL" war based on LIES . . .
and who is totally incompetent --

and who has bankrupted our Treasury -- !!!

Are we all insane ???

[dmr]

43. Turley on NSA Spying: “I don’t know of a more potential charge of impeachment”

I Googled Jonathan Turley, whom I have great respect.

This is from Crooks & Liars dated May 5, 2007:

George Washington University Constitutional law professor Jonathan Turley says that the latest NSA warrantless wiretapping revelations – wherein the administration knowingly broke the law and continued spying on American citizens after top DoJ officials refused to certify the legality of the program — make this a "clear impeachable offense."

"The problem comes down to the failure of Congress to deal with what is a very ugly and unfortunate fact. This would be a clear impeachable offense. I don't know of a more potential charge of impeachment within the modern presidency.

Also from Think Progress:

- snip -

...during a background discussion with reporters, senior Bush administration officials indicated that they would invoke executive privilege in order to deny the NSA documents to Congress, just as they did this morning concerning subpoenas related to the U.S. attorney scandal. “Our response to subpoenas will be the same as our response was before,” said an anonymous official.

- snip -

TURLEY: They could. I mean, they could do a kind of tai chi of litigation and just move incredibly slowly. This president doesn’t have long to go. But there is one thing that might concern them about the court, and that is, you know, for many years, since we first found out about this program, some of us have said that was a clearly criminal act that the president called for — that under federal law, it’s a federal crime to do what the president has ordered hundreds of people do. Now, if we’re right, not only did he order that crime, it would in fact be an impeachable offense. Now, both sides, both Democrats and Republicans, have avoided this sort of pig in the parlor. They don’t want to recognize that this president may have ordered criminal offenses, but they now may be on the road to do that, because the way Congress can get around the executive privilege in court is to say we are investigating a potential crime. And if they do it here, that crime was ordered by no one other than the George Bush.

More at link above ...

I also found Impeachment Primers at this website: Guide to Impeachment and Censure Materials Online

[babylonsister]

48. Thank you! for finding those quotes! I also have great respect for

Turley. And yes, I'm aware of his involvement in the impeachment of Clinton, but this is a whole different kettle of fish.

[MiniMe]

59. "Potential charge of impeachment"

Prove it, that is the whole problem.

Who has he spied on? Oh, you don't know, but you know he is doing it.

* ordered it. Says who? Give a witness that saw him order it or saw it on a written document, or has that document in their posession.

It really sucks, but they have covered their tracks pretty well legally.

The only thing that has potential is the refusal to turn over documents.And of course, what are the documents they refuse to turn over? The documents that would prove that they did something that was impeachable. Actually, they have refused everything, just so they wouldn't discriminate between what is important and what isn't.

Have I told you lately how much I hate this administration?

[EstimatedProphet]

66. Exactly

Without a cler indication that this has come from Bush or Cheney himself, they can with probably minimal difficulty pin it on Ashcroft and Gonzales, both of them gone. And the kicker is - if this does get forced before there's a case built, then when they do pin it on the fall guys it will establish permanently that they are innocent.

[Fredda Weinberg]

67. I'm amazed that Turley sold you a bill of goods. Have you forgotten

where he was during Bill's ordeal?

Getting back to the specifics ... the Justice Department is certainly facing a rough patch, but * can honestly swear that his intentions were to protect the nation and he relied on legal advice.

I recognize that the country is increasingly skeptical of the questionably legitimate regime, but charge will be a hard one to stick and *'s defenders will have a field day.

Now, can you ignore the veronica?

[Done]

45. We should apologize to Hitler.

Hitler invaded another country, and we bombed the shit out of Germany. We sent hundreds of thousands of men with rifles into Germany and they killed everybody who resisted them. Our actions even led to the death of Hitler.

Turns out, illegally invading another country is not a big deal after all.

Do I really need to put a sarcasm thing here?

[Michael101]

132. Russians defeated the Germans. We came in so late just to claim victory.

[FREEWILL56]

239. That wasn't illegal

We were attacked by Japan and we declared war on Japan for doing so. In turn Italy and Germany had declared war upon us for our declaration on Japan. Illegal is when you trump up false reasons to invade a country and no declaration of war was being made. You are defending bush's decisions and don't belong here and this has zero to do with pelosi not doing her job.

[The Stranger]

50. Traitorous.

[lonestarnot]

54. Oh please. She will not read them if they were printed in gold letters.

[T.Ruth2power]

56. So

you have to assume from this she is incopmetent or being coy.

Then again it's possible that all of this is a dream state or never-never land.

So much for the anti-war agenda. Impeachment is just a pesky Constitutional issue anyway. Where's The Table Nancy? Have you seen The Table?

[leftofthedial]

58. her only job as Speaker is to lie, handwave, obfuscate and dance naked on tables if necessary

to run out the clock until the 2008 election without actually doing anything that some sick RW fuck might use to attack any Democrat (other than Dennis Kucinich)

She's doing a great job.

[ecstatic]

71. The only conclusion I can draw is that she doesn't value Iraqi and/or troops' lives

She then goes on to say that Bush has "taken us into a war under false pretense", and "gone outside the law in terms of the collection of information".

Has she read the reports outlining the estimated deaths? How can she not see that as impeachable, even criminal?

[robinlynne]

73. She needs to get an amazon account pronto!

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

75. Mmm.

The "playing dumb" maneuver.

Well, I guess it worked for Bush all these years.

[proud2BlibKansan]

79. Nancy, talk to Kucinich

and get a clue.

[LeftCoast]

82. Wow. Surprising. More anti-Democratic spin

Color me shocked.

:sarcasm:

[EFerrari]

102. It's not undemocratic to call party leaders on their bs.

Do you work in Nancy's office or something? If you do, I'm sorry because it's going to get worse in there before it gets better.

[puebloknot]

168. Is it "Democratic" to enable criminals? "J'accuse" is the duty of every elec ted official...

...when they have any reason to suspect malfeasance on the part of the administration.

We could start with the question of torture!

[Cha]

99. Sounds like Nancy is calling

out for someone..anyone, to do her job for her.

[dmr]

109. This is a great discussion thread,

sans the bellicose, that is.

The question seems to be: how can we outsmart them?

This admin has made mistakes. How can we find those undotted I's and uncrossed T's? There has to be someone, somewhere who might be able to provide documentation. Though it may be dangerous for them to come forward. Who knows, maybe they have and it's in a case the DOJ is sitting on, yet cannot be discussed by the whistleblower.

Until this is seriously explored I refuse to acquiesce. When good people do nothing, history tends to repeat itself, only in worse form. From Watergate, we went on as if nothing happened for the sake of healing - except the wound festered. Now we have cancer.

[BuyingThyme]

112. I did an investigation on this some time back:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=364&topic_id=3071745

[DemoTex]

115. Nancy, reach into this grab-bag for starters:

http://www.netrootsmass.net/Hugh/Bush_list.html

[haele]

121. Impeach Cheney first - but Nancy, we still have to make the effort!

Pelosi knows she's in a horrible position no matter what - and I personally think that she's intentionally trying to deny the uphill battle she really has to fight vis a vis reining in the Administration and focus on "what the Congress can accomplish" to try and salvage some vestige of pride. Yup, she's taking the easy way out and hoping for the best, just like my teenager.

Consider her position - If the slowly moving wheels of the House and Senate don't manage to get rid of Cheney and we go ahead and impeach the Shrub, removing him forcefully from office on verified criminal charges (assuming that there's enough of a sense of honor and justice on the side of the Republicans and what's sitting on the Supreme Court), we end up with pResident Dick and him out in the open pulling the strings scares me more than the Shrub standing in front of him.
Dickie is the type that will declare Martial Law and suspend elections on the slightest trumped up excuse; he's far more of a Psychopath than the Sociopath that the attention-deficit Shrub is - history shows us Dickie doesn't let go of power unless it's pried from his fingers, unlike Shrub who will happily walk away from the job because he gets bored and petulant when things get tough and he has to actually think about solutions.

If she did somehow manage to get them both out at around the same time, before a "VP" could be appointed to replace Cheney, she as the new President - and every Democrat who voted for impeachment - gets torn apart as a political profiteer in the elections, whether it be for re-election to the House and Senate or for the office of the President.

If she and other Democrats aren't willing to deal with the mudslinging after impeachment from the fanatical, hate-filled 28%ers, war profiteers and neo-cons, they won't act. And that's were we stand. She and the Democratic leadership aren't willing to deal, through fear or through ambition. They're running out the clock, hoping to hold on to whatever gains they think they have now. However, (and I really hate sports analogies, but it's obvious that's how political wonks think nowadays) the "lead" against a new Republican takeover isn't as great in reality as the Democrats like to think it is. The 'Pubbies have denial and fanaticism on their side, and one should never underestimate the kick that a good, rabid rush can give a team when it's only a few points behind.

Hey Nancy - The elephant is still breathing down the donkey's neck, even though "the ball's currently in our court". It's not a sure thing to depend on the media and the population to be able to handle reality when they make their judgment calls. You still have to make offensive plays as well as defensive.

Haele
(even spell-check can't catch the problem if you don't spell it even close to what you want it to be...)

[JMDEM]

123. Ya gotta be kidding me...

Duh... which way did they go boss, which way did they go?

I tought I taw a putty tat.

[Reader Rabbit]

126. Is this a trick question?

When I send her my list, she returns a reply that says, "Psych!", right?

[Prophet 451]

128. Dear Lord...

Ms. Pelosi, level with us, please. We want to like you, love you even but you have to be honest. You were lobotomised late last year, weren't you?

[AntiFascist]

129. "Passing Congress" is half the battle...

impeachable offenses also have to be acknowledged and exposed by the media. If they could hammer on the offenses as much as they hammer on Britney's ability to be a mother, maybe more people would get the point and push their congresspeople.

[Disturbed]

133. The Dems have succeeded in running down the clock.

There will be no Impeachment of anyone. It's time to stand up to the Repugs on other issues, such
as the US Occupation of Iraq, The losing War On Afghanistan, No War On Iran, Spying without Warrants, Stem Cell Research, Health care, The DOJ issues & Subpoenas of those that have reused to testify, Fair & honest Electoral System etc.

[AntiFascist]

137. First we need to stand up to the centrist Democrats....

on "No War on Iran", and the "US Occupation of Iraq".

[Michael101]

131. What a Stupid Bitch.Only someone as dumb as her would cheer for Hillary Clinton

Can someone tell me why this dumb woman was chosen as the majority house leader. What the hell is she good for. We need to vote her out next year 2009.

[rodeodance]

134. get out all the investigations done by Conyers for a start.

[puebloknot]

171. Yes! And for a finish! nt

[BeatleBoot]

135. THAT WOULD PASS CONGRESS ????????

I can't think of one.

[TheUniverse]

136. I see at least 15 impeachable offences here...

http://www.netrootsmass.net/Hugh/Bush_list.html

[DRoseDARs]

139. "Impeachment is off the table" but I didn't say aything about under it...

Our ace-in-the-hole, so to speak: Have a quiet informal investigation first while trying to conduct other critical business and then we'll have a leg up on impeaching both the President and VP quickly in a full Congressional investigation.

Could this be what Pelosi is thinking? If so, it has already been done. Congressman Kucinich would be a good place to start for information.

[calteacherguy]

141. Impeachment would be pointless at this point. We win by winning the election.

Pelosi is not going to be President. We don't have the votes.

[FunMe]

142. No credibility ... :puke:

Nancy has NO credibility. She has no business being the Democratic "leader" in Congress. She should resign and let someone else who represents true Democratic values.

It must be her botox or something, but she is in total denial about bush and his CRIMINAL activities.

Just like a mother who will not believe her daughter is being raped by the father. She'll say the daughter is the crazy one and go one ENABLING this horrible behavior. Later during the years she finally beleives her when it is way too late and the damage is done.

That's Pelosi for you. She like the other bush Democrats (e.g. RALPH EMANUEL from Illinois) is part of the problem just like Prez.
Pelos needs to go away! :puke:

[aggiesal]

144. There is concern that Bush was actually gathering information on ...

... American citizens who were not criminals or terror suspects.

Rocky Mountain News reports today (10/11/07) that former Qwest CEO Joe Nacchio planned to demonstrate at trial that he had a meeting on Feb. 27, 2001, at NSA headquarters at Fort Meade, Md., to discuss a $100 million project. According to the documents, another topic also was discussed at that meeting, one with which Nacchio refused to comply.

http://www.rockymountainnews.com/drmn/tech/article/0,2777,DRMN_23910_5719566,00.html

This shows that this administration had approached Qwest only 1 month after entering office, and that they intended to spy on US citizens. A full 6 months before 9/11.

In this case 2 + 2 does equal 4

[deacon]

145. She's hopeless. She should just resign. n/t

[humbled_opinion]

147. Nancy its time for you to get off the table... Hey that dollar is for beer... n/t

[Danger Mouse]

159. oh whatever nancy.

coward.

[sampsonblk]

160. Nancy, do your fucking job or resign!

[Bethany Rockafella]

161. She's not so tough. n/t

[knight_of_the_star]

163. I think what she's saying is

We all KNOW he's done stuff that is horribly illegal and strikes at the core of American principles but has he done anything we can PROVE that he's done.

[upi402]

166. MAYBE SOMEBODY SUCKED THE CHIMP'S DICK?????

:argh: :argh: :argh: :argh: :wtf: :mad:

[NoGodsNoMasters]

167. I would LOVE impeachment, but...

I think it's a little more complex. I've no doubt the case for war with Iraq was manufactured, but this is a lot like prosecuting insider trading, you know the fuckers are guilty but it's damn near impossible to get them on it. Pelosi would have to PROVE what Bush & Co KNEW and WHEN they knew it, moreover, she would have to subpeona these people and get document from THEM. I can see her point, it's a tough issue, if it were just on moral criteria he'd be gone already, but the law is very nebulous in this area, it'd be very tough I would think, to prove this case.

[WillyT]

169. Nancy ??? - That Question Is Impeachably Offensive In Its Own Right !!!

Remember...

Article II

Section 4. The President, Vice President and all civil officers of the United States, shall be removed from office on impeachment for, and conviction of, treason, bribery, or other high crimes and misdemeanors.

Just sayin.

:shrug:

[EVDebs]

174. Nixon was charged with 'endeavoring to misuse the CIA'

Nixon's July 1974 Impeachment charges
http://watergate.info/impeachment/impeachment-articles.shtml

It lists 9 charges in Article 1 alone, but #6

" endeavouring to misuse the Central Intelligence Agency, an agency of the United States "

is identical to the WMD vs. Office of Special Plans fabrications.

Habeus Corpus is a thing of the past.

What more do you need ? The Constitution is now defaced with blacked out areas.

[Imagevision]

175. When Pelosi starts asking me how to do *HER* job it's time for her to get the boot!!!

"she said "if anyone knows of impeachable offenses that can pass the Congress, then please let me know"

Pelosi's performance should be evaluated and personally I believe she should be replaced ASAP!

[Kolesar]

197. Just think, we could have had Harold Ford !

[Zhade]

182. If anyone knows...? She can't be serious.

ARE YOU FUCKING BLIND, Pelosi?

They ADMITTED the wiretapping was "extra-legal" - THAT'S IMPEACHABLE, YOU FOOL!

Stunned. Just... stunned. How can she possibly think we're that stupid?

IF????????????????????

[sce56]

189. All she just has to do is just look at the articles Kucinich has put forward in HR 333

[Dr Fate]

190. She was bluffing. Forget it- these party leaders could never pull it off.

They would cave and the GOP/media would best them- and make them look like idiots- and they know it.

If we had some DEMS with the work ethic to confront Bush controlling things instead of these "centrists", that would be one thing...

Nancy has to pretend that lying us into a war is just fine- in order to keep the "centrists" from having to stick their necks out.

[mistertrickster]

191. Firing prosecutors because they wouldn't break the law for Bush is also clearly a "high crime." nt

[obxhead]

193. .......

I didn't even need to read this post.....


....... What a let down she has been.

[whistle]

194. Nancy Pelosi is all three monkeys

[rpannier]

195. I think the operative part of her sentence is/was..."that can pass congress..."

It doesn't excuse some of the stupid things she's done for the past few months. But, she's probably right.
I'm one who'd rather go under fighting then stand to the rear and hope something comes up. She is the hopeful person.

[bigscott]

198. Pelosi is a fucking idiot

and a WAR enabler. She MUST be the biggest disappointment ever for the dems -

[liberal hypnotist]

199. There is a lot of $$$ and power during "war time."

Nancy lied and soldiers died. Could it be for money and influence? What would John Murtha done?

[Just-plain-Kathy]

200. Put impeachment on the table and serve it up!!!

Bush/Cheney lied to start a war that makes both their friends and ex-employers very rich. ...War profiteering HAS to be an impeachable offense.

:argh:

[SHRED]

207. Was ever her right to take impeachment "off the table"?

That is the question.

[orleans]

209. she's an asshole. i've got the bush aversion for pelosi too. n/t

[LWolf]

218. Perhaps she should actually read H.Res. 333. n/t

[Megahurtz]

227. Holy Crap!

:eyes:

:banghead:

[Yukari Yakumo]

228. And just what do we charge him with?

Lying? Hah. Every politician lies. The difference between Bill and Chimpy is that Bill lied while under oath to tell the truth, a.k.a. perjury.

As for every other claim, show us evidence that directly implicates Chimpy. Until then, you got nothing. And the odds anyone will find evidence that directly implicates Chimpy is almost zero percent. He's so thoroughly insulated himself it's virtually impossible to peg anything on him.

Pelosi essentially told the impeachment hawks to put up or shut up. Pelosi's gambit here is for them to look utterly ridiculous, to which she easily succeeded. Impeachment hawks have nothing but hot air and wild fantasies.

Don't like what I'm saying? Tough shit. But that's the reality of the situation. It may not seem fair, but guess what, life ain't fair. Get used to it.

[Marr]

233. She wants us to list the crimes in case she hasn't immunized the Bush Admin from one of them.

[timtom]

237. In the words of Bugs Bunny...

What a maroon!

Bought and paid for.
Bought and paid for.

[FREEWILL56]

240. I know where Nancy can find the impeachable offenses.

She just needs to look in the same place bush said the wmds are at. Keep looking and you'll find them. What's that? You only found a stain on your dress. Impeach them both.