Jonathan Turley: Dems guilty of "passivity, if not collusion" in failing to impeach Bush.

[Fridays Child]

Hear that Nancy?

[IndyOp]

1. On KO? (n/t)

[Fridays Child]

4. Yes.

[gullwing300]

2. Nancy and some 500 other congresscritters. And Obama too.

:grr:

[Phoebe Loosinhouse]

3. Ok where's the quote about for evil to rule, good people just do nothing.

Just as much damage gets caused in the end.

[Fridays Child]

6. Isn't that attributed to Edmund Burke?

[malaise]

43. Yes indeed but he was hardly a good man

"All that is necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing." He was defending the corrupt monarchy.

[VeraAgnes]

5. The truth hurts.

Even Obama is not interested in Impeachment..........and he is our Candidate!:spank: :wow:

[Supersedeas]

50. so does a Disaster called "off the table" excuse for leadership

[onenote]

60. the truth that hurts: the public isn't interested in impeachment

We've just completed more than six months of primary battles. Hundreds of opportunities for over a half dozen candidates to make impeachment an issue -- in speeches, interviews, debates, policy statements -- and yet only one candidate discussed it and that candidate was gone in a heartbeat, unable to draw any significant support.

Tells you something, doesn't it? That the public isn't interested in impeaching chimpy and gang, even if they think would be appropriate. THey aren't concerned about what has gone on in the past, they are interested in the executive and legislative branches dealing with the mess we are in now -- finding solutions to problems with health care, energy, the war. Worrying about gas prices, jobs, the environment.

Like it or not, impeachment, because it was placed in the hands of elected officials as a discretionary power, is inherently political. And the public isn't interested.

[Phoebe Loosinhouse]

7. In retrospect, isn't "passivity" equivalent to "collusion" ?

Don't we all face small tests in our everyday life? Both personally and professionally?

I like to think that I would have drawn the line at "war" and "torture".

[cyberpj]

13. The true meaning of appeasers - most Dems in this congress. nt

[slipslidingaway]

8. And Obama wants nothing to do with it :( n/t

[tridim]

11. He wants to investigate and prosecute after he's in office.

Not a bad idea IMO.

[cyberpj]

14. Never heard that before. Got a link? nt

[tridim]

17. Yep.

http://www.philly.com/philly/blogs/attytood/Barack_on_torture.html

[JerseygirlCT]

22. VERY good to hear.

And then, they couldn't pardon themselves, either.

Boy, would I love to see them behind bars.

[bdamomma]

32. I also have heard that, that they want to wait until they are out of office

then they will go after them, but you never know about BCF.

[gullwing300]

23. There is no suggestion of any investigation. In fact he specifically says several times

"...information that is ALREADY OUT THERE..." (my emphasis)

[skooooo]

24. Obama's job right now...

...is to win the Presidency. That's what I want him to do.

[gullwing300]

25. We are discussing what he might or might not do after being elected.

...

[skooooo]

26. Right..

And I don't think that's something he can talk about right now. So I wouldn't take any statements of his very seriously necessarily.

[gullwing300]

28. I run into people every day who don't take him seriously either.

It is one reason why he will have an enormously difficult time beating the GOP machine.

[skooooo]

30. oh ok....

whatever

:wtf:

[gullwing300]

33. What does that mean? Are you so confident that the mere suggestion that it will be a hard fight

is insulting to you? Good thing you're not BO's campaign manager.
:wtf: indeed...

[skooooo]

42. i was making a casual comment

Why pick a fight?? Jesus.

[gullwing300]

46. Sorry, no fight picked. If you look back, you will notice you addressed me first.

:hi:

[annabanana]

44. Well, thanks to Dennis.. ALL the information is

already out there

[cyberpj]

29. Thanks! That will come in handy when I talk to friends at work tomorrow! nt

[lonestarnot]

36. He wants not one of those evil fuckers to get off via a pardon,

but if we do it now, we can stall the conviction until the moving van is gone down the fucking hiway.

[nashville_brook]

39. thank you for the link!

[slipslidingaway]

45. Obama did not say prosecute, also this was a reply to a question

on the torture meetings that had just been revealed.

Here's another link with some additional thoughts on what is already known. Are these crimes or just bad policies.

:(

http://www.afterdowningstreet.org/node/33622


"...So, the question, as far as prosecution by the U.S. Justice Department goes, should Obama become president, will be whether Obama will approve of prosecuting Bush, Cheney, et alia. Some weeks back, around the time of the Pennsylvania primary, a Philadelphia News Reporter asked Senator Obama that question. Obama did not bring up the topic himself. The reporter raised it...

"Here's his answer, in its entirety:

"What I would want to do is to have my Justice Department and my Attorney General immediately review the information that's already there and to find out are there inquiries that need to be pursued. I can't prejudge that because we don't have access to all the material right now. I think that you are right, if crimes have been committed, they should be investigated. You're also right that I would not want my first term consumed by what was perceived on the part of Republicans as a partisan witch hunt because I think we've got too many problems we've got to solve. So this is an area where I would want to exercise judgment -- I would want to find out directly from my Attorney General -- having pursued, having looked at what's out there right now -- are there possibilities of genuine crimes as opposed to really bad policies. And I think it's important-- one of the things we've got to figure out in our political culture generally is distinguishing between really dumb policies and policies that rise to the level of criminal activity.

You know, I often get questions about impeachment at town hall meetings and I've said that is not something I think would be fruitful to pursue because I think that impeachment is something that should be reserved for exceptional circumstances. Now, if I found out that there were high officials who knowingly, consciously broke existing laws, engaged in coverups of those crimes with knowledge forefront, then I think a basic principle of our Constitution is nobody above the law -- and I think that's roughly how I would look at it.'"



Obama did not say he prefers prosecution to impeachment for political reasons. He said he's opposed to both because he doesn't know of any crimes having been committed, and he hasn't seen any exceptional circumstances, but that he's open to prosecution should he discover that crimes have been committed. We can leave to one side the fact that many impeachable offenses are not crimes, and the question of why Obama is waiting until 2009 to look into this seemingly important issue, as well as the question of what in the hell WOULD constitute exceptional circumstances. I want to focus on what Obama already knows, because we all know it, because it's public knowledge.

The current president has openly confessed to violating the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act, and with it the Fourth Amendment...


The president has developed a habit of asking his vice president's lawyer to draft things called "signing statements" after he signs bills into law. These statements openly announce the president's intention to violate certain sections of new laws, and they are all openly posted on the White House website. Twice in the past year the Government Accountability Office has reviewed sample collections of Bush signing statements, and each time found that in many cases, Bush has already violated the laws he announced he had the right to violate. The studies have listed which laws these are...


It is illegal for the president to misappropriate public funds or to violate the War Powers Resolution, both of which he did by secretly taking money from Afghanistan to begin the work of invading Iraq and to launch bombing raids before receiving congressional authorization. This is not disputed, and there is no question that Obama knows about it.

Federal laws and international treaties prohibit torture and cruel, inhuman, and degrading treatment, as well as secret detentions, denial of due process, and rendition to other nations for purposes of torturing. Torture has been advocated for by Bush and Cheney and their staffs, is documented by victims, witnesses, and public photographs, and recently by a public confession by the president. Torture was always illegal and has been repeatedly recriminalized under Bush and Cheney. Bush has reversed bans on torture with signing statements..."

[magellan]

53. Uh huh, always a political excuse at the ready

"You're also right that I would not want my first term consumed by what was perceived on the part of Republicans as a partisan witch hunt"

Who the fuck CARES if the Repubs think it's a partisan witch hunt? If they don't fucking understand the crimes committed by Bush** and Cheney and the need to prosecute then THEY'RE the ones being partisan, and need to put in their place.

That's it, Obama can kiss my vote good-bye. I won't validate this nonsense on the premise that it will "save us from the Repubs" when the Dems won't lift a finger to do the same.

[slipslidingaway]

54. Yes, all the excuses would make an interesting article...

I have serious concerns when he says "...I would want to find out directly from my Attorney General -- having pursued, having looked at what's out there right now -- are there possibilities of genuine crimes as opposed to really bad policies."

Jonathan Turley tonight

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2_EbzncOPuU

:(

[lovuian]

9. Its the Truth looking at Nancy and harry

this is a administration who has shown contempt for their subpoenas
Losing Iraq War

and with an approval rating in the 20%

what ELSE DO YOU FREAKIN NEED

[Brigid]

10. "History will be very severe . . ."

Wow. But I know how Bush really protected his criminal administration: He chose Dick Cheney as his vice president. Who would want him in the Oval Office? :scared: Maybe that's what was going through the minds of anyone in the House or in the Senate who might otherwise be inclined to at least consider supporting impeachment.

[cyberpj]

12. Also says nothing will happen at this time. I'm glad Kucinich got it on record though. History

will show most of our Dems as exactly what they are - cowards and appeasers.

Is there any way to take Nancy off the table next election?

[Smarmie Doofus]

15. A bit late in the game for that.

I understand that not to impeach arguably gives tacit approval to impeachable offenses that were committed and are being committed and that therefore we set a dangerous precedent by not instituting proceedings.

But Nancy and I would rather concentrate on getting them out *successfully* via the 2008 nat'l elections. Let's all agree: there is NO chance that Bush will successfully be impeached and convicted. By contrast, we have a *good* chance of defeating them at the polls and the fallout from an unsuccessful impeachment effort is impossible to predict.

Might backfire by creating sympathy for the impeachable one... which sympathy can follow his designee... McCain.

A year ago I would have said OK. Not now. We've got a pretty strong candidate heads-up against a walking train wreck. It's more important to get them OUT of there, seems to me... than embarking on a principled but doomed effort to impeach.

[SunDrop23]

16. Agree. They've all crapped the bed. What a letdown. (n/t)

[Phoebe Loosinhouse]

A passive, toothless, venal, lazy Congress

that even when passed into Democratic hands, made little or no effort to restore the Rule of Law (as in Congressional subpoenas) or do anything to correct the transgressions of the Bush administration. Too much trouble. "Distracting" don't cha know?

[Phoebe Loosinhouse]

21. I guess I must have really, really meant it!!!!! nt.

[Phoebe Loosinhouse]

18. A passive, toothless, venal, lazy Congress

that even when passed into Democratic hands, made little or no effort to restore the Rule of Law (as in Congressional subpoenas) or do anything to correct the transgressions of the Bush administration. Too much trouble. "Distracting" don't cha know?

[Lorien]

48. Or, as some of the experts on Bill Moyers worry, maybe they WANT a lawless

government. Easier to get away with things themselves then.

Something to think about.

[ray of light]

19. Excuse me...But Turley needs to hit the stick on HIS republicans!

Funny how we always blame the dems! We need to get the Republicans to IMPEACH becuase there are just not enough dems to push it all the way through. ALSO it has to pass the judiciary.

[nadinbrzezinski]

31. excuses have been many

and you just provided one more

In case yuo wonder WE HOLD those majorities

[ray of light]

40. we hold the majority in the Judiciary committee but we do not in the senate.

We need to MAKE the Republicans IMPEACH.

I didn't make an excuse. I simply said that as a Republican (Turley) insulting the Democrats, it's a little inconvenient for him to just blame the Dems.

Blame the Republicans and kick them in their.... GET THEM to stop their sh*t by reminding them that they will lose their cushy jobs if they keep tied to bush.

[nadinbrzezinski]

41. Refresher 101

the House Impeaches, by a simple majority. We HAVE that majority

The Senate convicts in a jury presided by in this case Roberts, and the conviction needs to happen on a supermajority

But we do have the numbers to IMPEACH... got it now?

What we may be having trouble is having the numbers to CONVICT... which is not a good argument anyway since those numbers didn't exist in '73 either... not until the Special Committee started exposing the crap done

Oh and Nixon was a boy scout compared to these guys

[KoKo]

47. We have a Majority in the HOUSE...the HOUSE CAN INVESTIGATE FOR IMPEACHMENT!

At this point we don't need the "Lieberman Senate" it's the "People's Business" and that was given in the Constitution to the US House of Representatives! IMPEACH...NANCY! Or, you will have blood on your hands and folks underwear hanging in your shrubbery for the rest of the life that's left you!

IMPEACH!

[JerseygirlCT]

20. It was good just to hear someone actually say that

loud and clear, not couched in careful language.

I still don't think a damn thing will happen now, but it was still good to hear.

[Phred42]

27. Agree with Turly

I've been saying this for 3 or 4 years now....

The Dems have been the Silent Partners of the Cons.

[bdamomma]

34. one question was Wexler on with Keith tonite?

cause I didn't see him.

[Swamp Rat]

35. Nancy fell down

Someone help her up.

[lonestarnot]

37. Well at the moment she's lick'n her own

ASS! Maybe she'll recover though. :toast:

[Swamp Rat]

38. YUCK!

:puke:

:D :hi: :loveya:

[lonestarnot]

58. mmmmmm. hungry! When we gonna eat!

[Wizard777]

49. I agree. Maybe we should just hold trials in Denver instead of a convention.

[orleans]

51. k&r. saw it.

i say it's collusion and shame the fuck on all of them!

[seemslikeadream]

52. collusion

[slipslidingaway]

55. Video link...'Democrats are tripping over the crimes when they

walk to their offices from the floor.'

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2_EbzncOPuU

[Fridays Child]

56. Thanks for posting the video link. Did you put it in Political Videos, too?

If not, I think you should. :hi:

[slipslidingaway]

57. YW and yes it is there as well, thank you for the heads up :)) n/t

[Clark2008]

59. I emailed Tenn. Rep. Steve Cohen to support

Dennis Kucinich's Articles of Impeachment using that full quote.

Cohen's not my representative in Tennessee, but mine is a Republican, so I have a better chance with Steve.

Although, since my Republican congresscritter DID vote AGAINST the war in Iraq, I may try him, afterall.

[slipslidingaway]

61. kick n/t