Pelosi: “I have said it before and I will say it again: Impeachment is off the table.”

[seafan]

The Heart of Queens

Can Nancy Pelosi single-handedly take impeachment off the table?

By Bruce Fein
Aug. 21, 2007

House Speaker Nancy Pelosi is proving to be the surprise O. Henry ending to last November's elections. The American voters gave Democrats clear control of Congress, rebuked President George W. Bush, and voiced an unequivocal public craving to trade in customary narrow-minded politics for something more inspiring. Yet motivated by partisan concerns over the 2008 elections, the new speaker is following President Bush around like a sheep while he solidifies an imperial presidency and diminishes the Congress into irrelevancy.

.....

The prevailing barometer of acute public dissatisfaction with the White House surpasses the corresponding disaffection with President Richard M. Nixon when the Senate Watergate hearings began in May 1973. And Mr. Nixon had recently trounced Sen. George McGovern in the 1972 elections, winning 49 states.

The prospect of an impeachment inquiry by the House judiciary committee would concentrate the minds of the president and vice president wonderfully on obeying rather than sabotaging the Constitution. But Speaker Pelosi has at least figuratively joined hands with the White House in opposition. Emulating the Queen of Hearts in Alice in Wonderland, she has threatened the removal of Michigan Rep. John Conyers from his chairmanship of the House judiciary committee if an impeachment inquiry were even opened, according to reliable congressional chatter.

With more than four decades of service in the House, Chairman Conyers is a veteran of constitutional battles between the branches. The speaker, in contrast, is a novice on such matters. Unlike Conyers, she never experienced the Nixon impeachment travails that sobered and toughened the chairman against executive abuses and secrecy. If she had, she never would have emboldened President Bush and Vice President Cheney to intensify their assaults on congressional power by pronouncing that "impeachment is off the table."

Incredulously:


November 8, 2006, NY Times

House Democratic Leader Nancy Pelosi promised Wednesday that when her party takes over, the new majority will not attempt to remove President Bush from office, despite earlier pledges to the contrary from others in the caucus.

“I have said it before and I will say it again: Impeachment is off the table,” Pelosi, D-Calif., said during a news conference.

Pelosi also said Democrats, despite complaining about years of unfair treatment by the majority GOP, “are not about getting even” with Republicans.

.....

No, Ms. Pelosi; removal of a criminal executive and his vice president supersedes your woefully shallow reasoning.



More from Fein:

Not surprisingly, after receiving that reassurance that there would be no consequences for their misconduct, the White House swiftly choked off the authority of Congress to expose executive lawlessness or maladministration by instructing current or former White House officials, including Karl Rove, Harriet Miers, and Joshua Bolton, to refuse to appear for testimony. And despite the recent enactment of the Protect America Act of 2007—which amended the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act of 1978 for the ninth time since 9/11 to suit the administration's fancy—President Bush continues to claim constitutional authority to ignore the law at will and in secret.

It would be one thing if the speaker had been able to articulate statesmanlike reasons to balk at impeaching the president or vice president for their multiple constitutional sins. Impeachment is, to be sure, fraught with prudential considerations. A president who confesses constitutional error or wrongdoing and pledges to turn a new leaf may be forgiven. The confession would derail a legal precedent that would lie around like a loaded weapon for successors in the White House to justify constitutional misbehavior.

Speaker Pelosi's argument against impeachment is not high-minded, however. It is the fortunes of the Democratic Party, not the fate of the Constitution and the strength of democracy, that animate her decision. She opines that Democrats would risk losing control of Congress and the occupancy of the White House in 2008 if impeachment efforts moved forward. Many Democrats dispute that opinion. They maintain that citizens voted for authentic change last November and will revolt if Democrats ape President Bush and maneuver for partisan advantage while the Constitution burns. If an impeachment inquiry is blocked by Pelosi, and the White House is left undisturbed in its constitutional usurpations and celebration of perpetual war, voters may turn against Democrats for their political spinelessness.

The speaker should not be permitted to frustrate the will of 434 co-equal members who collectively represent the entire nation and who are inspired by loftier motives when the Constitution and the relevance of Congress lie in the balance. Just as President Bush should not be a king, Speaker Pelosi should not be our queen. If she possessed a crumb of decency or respect for democracy, she would permit a "free" vote in the House to decide on an impeachment inquiry without any obligation to support her lead. It is certainly customary in parliamentary systems like Great Britain or Canada for party leaders to permit free votes on matters of conscience, like the death penalty or abortion. Deciding on whether to enforce the Constitution through impeachment is just as much a matter of moral scruple.

Speaker Pelosi is no constitutional expert. Neither is she an impeachment expert. She is no expert in discerning how President Bush and Vice President Cheney are slashing away at the sinews of Congress. Why should her voice be the final word on impeachment when it runs against the grain of the American people and the House of Representatives? Checks and balances and protections against government abuses are too important to be left to an imperious amateur with a Bush-like mental worldview. If House Democrats have any constitutional honor and dedication to the nation, they will force Speaker Pelosi out if she neglects to turn a new leaf with alacrity.

[robinlynne]

1. It is ON our table! SO fold your table up.

[Individualist]

3. ...and go home!

[King Coal]

153. Go home is right. By definition, impeachment can never be off the table. F-word city bingo!

[Kolesar]

29. Could use two hundred representatives to back her up, instead of just two

[calimary]

61. Damn Fricking Straight.

Nancy, if you are not part of the solution, you are part of the problem.

Actually, you ARE the problem.

[CODemocrat]

89. Yes...

it's odd?

[blondie58]

94. Yeah- what gave her the final say?

and welcome to DU, CODemocrat! I'm in your neck of the woods.

[calimary]

149. Welcome to DU!

Glad you're here. Now get to work!

[The Backlash Cometh]

87. When is her term up?

[SnowCritter]

101. Members of the House of Representatives

are all elected to two year terms. They all stand for election (or re-election) at the same time.

[The Backlash Cometh]

102. It just feels like she's been in there for more than two years.

[Ken Burch]

116. Unfortunately, she was just renominated last week.

N/t.

[The Backlash Cometh]

118. Damn. They distracted us with the Democratic primary.

Clever girl.

[Kierkegaard]

2. Sorry, Nan.

Not your call!

[crickets]

4. Thank you.

The speaker should not be permitted to frustrate the will of 434 co-equal members who collectively represent the entire nation and who are inspired by loftier motives when the Constitution and the relevance of Congress lie in the balance.

[jgraz]

5. It has nothing to do with shallow reasoning and everything to do with avoiding prison

Given Nancy's complicity in torture and wiretapping, she and Chimpy can share a cell.

[nadinbrzezinski]

7. DING, DING, DING

and as far as I am concerned, every body who is part of it should share a cell block

[sansatman]

48. Dems are complicit and they will not impeach...again

I posted this in another thread, but it works even better here.

"But for the reasons set forth above (and a full case would fill many volumes), the Democrats are not going to impeach any of these criminals, barring events entirely unforeseeable at present. And they will not for one overwhelmingly significant and determinative reason: always with regard to the underlying principles, and frequently with regard to the specifics, the Democrats are implicated in every single crime with which they would charge the members of the administration. The Republicans' crimes are their crimes." Arthur Silber


http://powerofnarrative.blogspot.com/2007/12/supporters...

:shrug:

[crickets]

72. You got that right.

Political parties be damned, war crimes are war crimes. I do not want the Dem who would agree to allow torture. I do not want the Dem who knuckles under to unconstitutional "gag orders" that serve no national security purpose but merely hide the war crime. I do not want the Dem who not only refuses to condemn illegal wire taps but gives amnesty to the telecoms responsible as well as the government officials who ordered it. I do not want the Dem fool who knuckles under to whatever blackmailable material, petty or no, gained through illegal and unconstitutional wiretaps that should have been condemned from day one, damn the consequences. I do not want the Dem so worried about keeping her seat of power that she ignores the thousands dead in an illegal war and throws the rest of us under the oncoming train.

Dennis Kucinich and the handful who have joined him can't be the only ones in the House with hands clean enough to stand up and do their duty. The oath to defend the Constitution isn't just pretty, ceremonial words. Those words mean something. There have to be more who could actually weather the storm and make it through the hearings intact if they would just STAND UP.

[blondie58]

98. yeah, and we need to reinstate the crime for

profiting from the war again. Too many of these bozos are getting rich off of this war. That is just not right.

[crickets]

162. Agreed. Dianne Feinstein is shameless and should have been kicked to the curb long ago. -nt

[Joe Chi Minh]

100. ....and by the same token, might not her obstructionism here see her impeached

as well? As well as any criminal prosecutions. It would also evince an unambiguously bipartisan political intent.

[Prophet 451]

151. Cam she be impeached?

I'm a Brit and this is one area I'm unclear on. Is there provision for impeaching her?

[jgraz]

164. No. You cannot impeach a member of Congress.

They can be expelled by a 2/3ds vote of the House, but that's very, very rare.

[stillrockin]

110. Plain and simple.

[Name removed]

6. Deleted message

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

[Sequoia]

8. "I've said it once and I'll say it again...

I do not like green eggs and ham. But I do love Georgie and I will never, ever, ever, make him sad or cry by being a mean ole Speaker of the House and let them mad Dems impeach by little itty bitty cutie pie George!"

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

9. I've said it before, I'll say it again.

Pelosi's a disgrace to the party and the country.

[Blue_In_AK]

10. I'm so disappointed in Nancy.

I really thought she'd be better than this.

[snappyturtle]

12. Me too. n/t

[papapi]

33. Same here

[lisainmilo]

81. Me too!

:(

[Radio_Lady]

140. Our sentiments exactly. Sign the petition to replace her for the purpose of pursuing impeachment.

Perma link to discussion: http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=389x3439479


Unbelievable.

First day of her term. "Impeachment is not on the table."

What a stupid woman. We can still remember how shocked we were when she made that statement.

Audio Al and Radio Lady

[LiberalEsto]

11. IMPEACH NANCY

and elect someone speaker who will put impeaching ON the table and keep it there.

[Disturbed]

16. Nancy refuses to even start Impeachment Inquiries of her

"lovely" George. Is it really her decision to make?

[solara]

23. It is not Pelosi's decision to make ( shame on her!)

babylonsister (1000+ posts) Wed Jun-11-08 03:12 PM
Original message
Impeachment: We Have What Conyers Needs!

Impeachment: We Have What Conyers Needs!
by Freiheit
Tue Jun 10, 2008 at 10:51:18 AM PDT


House Judiciary Chair and Daily Kos contributor John Conyers has asked for a new tack on impeachment - a better way to challenge the party Leadership that has been obstructing him. And we've got it!

The 35 Articles of Impeachment raised yesterday include at least two that implicate leaders in Congress as apparent accessories to Bush's high crimes and misdemeanors. Specifically, the bipartisan Congressional "Gang of Eight" was secretly tipped off about warrantless NSA surveillance and torture (Articles #24 and #18) years before the New York Times and Washington Post revealed them to the public. Those reports have never been disputed.

Under the House Ethics Rules, Nancy Pelosi and other witnesses (who may be accessories) are required to recuse themselves from participation to avoid any appearance of a conflict of interest. They are interested parties who can not in good faith move to keep impeachment off the table.

This gives John Conyers - who was not in the secret meetings - a historically strong hand to disregard the party leader's "keep it off the table" and instead insure that justice is done.

All Conyers has to do is publicly state Pelosi's conflict - which should be obvious to anyone with legal training anyway. Note that Pelosi's compliance with torture revelations was not revealed publicly until December 2007, and impeachment was only filed yesterday. If Conyers acts now he will not be obstructing or derelict in his duty.

more...

http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2008/6/10/123917/099



INVESTIGATE IMPEACH INDICT INCARCERATE :patriot:

[Stardust]

103. Don't depend on Conyers. He is as spineless as Pelosi. nt

[solara]

128. Yeah. You may well be right.. but I am ever hopeful

:hi:



INVESTIGATE IMPEACH INDICT INCARCERATE :patriot:

[totodeinhere]

146. Would even Conyers, whom I admire, have the balls to take on Pelosi in this way?

[helderheid]

13. You work for US , Nancy and the majority of Americans want IMPEACHMENT ON THE TABLE!

[bdamomma]

54. maybe we should all wear guy fawkes masks

[DUlover2909]

83. I'd like to see a poll of people indicating that they want impeachment.

Not doubting you, but I would like to see that poll.

[elizfeelinggreat]

90. here you go

Do you believe President Bush's actions justify impeachment? * 703546 responses

Yes, between the secret spying, the deceptions leading to war and more, there is plenty to justify putting him on trial.
89%

No, like any president, he has made a few missteps, but nothing approaching "high crimes and misdemeanors."
4.2%

No, the man has done absolutely nothing wrong. Impeachment would just be a political lynching.
4.6%


I don't know.
2%

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/10562904/

[Echo In Light]

91. Our "representative" govt serve vested interests, not We The People

Shame on you, Nancy.

[babsbunny]

14. Why does she HATE America?

She WILL be sorry!

[LSparkle]

15. OFF WITH HER HEAD! TAKE AWAY HER GAVEL!

She needs to be removed for dereliction of duty.

[bobbolink]

17. Which is why just electing a (fill in the blank... woman, black, etc) ISN"T THE ANSWER!

We need to stop this voting on the basis gender, ethnicity, etc., and vote ISSUES.

Wadda concept....

[tomp]

129. Exactly! nt

[Spiffarino]

18. So we need another Democrat - a real Democrat - to fill her seat

Here's a good place to start:

http://www.shirley08.com/

[jeff30997]

19. Here's what they're saying in that pic:

Nancy:

-Did you wrote my check?

-Yeah o'course a did.A even signed it and all, y'know.

-And this time you have written the correct name ?

-Yeah,yeah I did.A wrote "Pay to the order of Fancy Pilosity 2 Brazilian Dollars" Yep.

[pollo poco]

154. Good girls always work hard to make Daddy happy

Did you see how happy she was when Bush smiled at her?

Nancy is so much better than all of us unreasonable, naughty girls.

Good girl Nancy. Don't worry- we won't mistake you for one of those mean, ambitious, castrating, women who wants to be president.

Wanting to be president isn't very nice for a girl. Mean boys will call you such nasty names on MSNBC.

You always make Daddy very happy when you sit down and wait your turn.

[jaysunb]

20. Can you say, " complicity ? "

:evilfrown:

[underseasurveyor]

21. oh.. she so needs to go

D
O
W
N
with the rest of *co!

[Initech]

22. Then if we cannot proceed with removing these assholes from power, we must start with Pelosi first.

[Disturbed]

25. What is Pelosi's lame excuse for not starting Impeachment

Inquiry of Cheney?

[tom_paine]

24. She is so horrible, such a toady. Were a majority of people ever cursed with

such a spineless leadership?

Yes, Germany 1933 and the German Social Democrats. Nancy wouild be quite at home with them.

[ColbertWatcher]

26. Of course she has to SAY that...

...if she didn't say impeachment is off the table, people would accuse her of trying to install herself as president.

Come on...

[cascadiance]

46. End the frickin' nightmare! Get her out of there!

[ColbertWatcher]

49. ?

[chknltl]

56. And that is worse than being accused of criminal complicity how?

:popcorn:

[ColbertWatcher]

60. ?

[chknltl]

68. OK, let me clarify:

"Of course she has to SAY that...
...if she didn't say impeachment is off the table, people would accuse her of trying to install herself as president." (That'd be your words)

"And that is worse than being accused of criminal complicity how?" (That'd be my question to your words)

I'll try again:
How is being accused of wanting to use impeachment as a means to seek the Presidency worse than being accused of being complicit with the crimes of the President and withholding impeachment for that reason?

Do you really not see what I have asked? She is being accused of one thing which is quite bad for her and our nation and yet you point out that she risked being accused of seeking to further her own career through opportunism. (My words not yours but this is what I gather from your words...please help out if I err in the interpretation and forgive my misinterpretation if indeed I have done this.)

The accusation of such opportunism isn't a nice thing to be saddled with, I'll grant you that, but how is that a worse place to be in than where she is now? Many folks right now are accusing her of complicity in bush's very crimes and this is the reason she has taken impeachment off the table! This accusation about her currently seems far worse than any accusations of opportunism imo., but perhaps you can shed some light where she chose the better path.

This doesn't even include the salient fact that IF Rep. Pelosi had placed impeachment on the table, (not her job but she could have openly aided in the process), and faced such accusations of opportunism, the electorate would be currently cheering her on as the House would be currently working to impeach the crooks! Wouldn't you rather be among those here who were cheering on our Representatives as they fought back against this evil regime and exercised their constitutionally granted powers to investigate and prosecute the criminals within the bush regime? Why would it be so bad, all things considered if we had interim President Pelosi right now or soon? Do you really think the accusation that she got the job of POTUS due to 'opportunism' so terrible all things considered?

ON EDIT: I saw in a different thread where you support impeachment. This was unclear to me prior to posting this. My apologies...it appears I misread your words. (Doesn't excuse me for the misjudgement though.)

[ColbertWatcher]

75. I don't think any accusation has merit, actually...

...but this is politics, isn't it?

I seriously doubt that Pelosi has done anything secretive and illegal, but it's the common, knee-jerk reaction to suspect a conspiracy.

Oh, well, I give it a few days and it will blow over.

BTW: I started a poll asking how people will convince the stupider half of the country to support impeachment.

Let's see how that works out.

As far as the misunderstanding; it's just a misunderstanding, no bad feelings.

[chknltl]

76. Cool, thanks

I've noticed and agreed with many of the other posts you have written... I should have thought things out better. Thanks for being understanding.

[ColbertWatcher]

79. My e-skin is pretty thick.

I'm almost suspicious when someone doesn't insult me.

LOL! Just kidding.

Pelosi's a shrewd politician and has to know that anything Congress does will take lots of members and lots of time.

I know she didn't say "impeachment is off the table" for some easily discovered reason like "she's with them!"

Politics is like chess and she couldn't have gotten to the position of Speaker if she relied only on beginner moves.

[sui generis]

133. sometimes in a chess game the bold move has its own subtlety

And sometimes subtlety is lost in a miasma of predictive strategery.

Pelosi is supposed to be a leader, not a behind-the-scenes tactician, so I have to assume that this was bad leadership.

Brother it's walking, quacking and talking like a duck.

Ergo

[petgoat]

141. Been there, done that. I invented all kinds of excuses for Kerry after 11/04.

I kept saying "Just you watch! This is all part of the plan!
It's a trap! They're going to get the election fraudsters!
It's a sting!"

When Bill went off palling around with Poppy Bush, I honestly
thought they were negotiating W's surrender so he'd have to
answer for his crimes.

I'm done inventing "happy conspiracy theories" about the maneuvers
these folks are up to.

The do-nothing facilitators are in some ways worse than the criminals.
The criminal violates the law. The officials who refuse to do anything
about it destroy the law--it no longer exists if it's no longer enforced.

[tomp]

127. bullshit!

every speaker of the house has the same issue. your point implies impeachment could never take place because the speaker could always be charged with self-aggrandizement. this is an obvious falsehood.

secondly, the president and the vice president will never be impeached simultaneously. that will never happen.

the arguments against pelosi stand.

[ColbertWatcher]

132. "your point implies impeachment could never take place"

No, you infer that impeachment could never take place unless the Speaker gives everyone permission to vote her way.

What I said, and will continue to say, is that Pelosi only said impeachment is off the table.

That means as much as her nomination of John Murtha for Majority Leader back in 2006.

As Speaker she has to say things that put her "above the fray".

So, now she said something bipartisan and befitting someone holding that office--she covered her ass.

There are many ways to get that bill voted on; what happens now depends on what everyone else does despite what she says.

[tomp]

152. what i am responding to is the idea....

...that pelosi cannot push impeachment because she might be a benefactor. that is bullshit, not to mention illogical.

in adition, your idea of tacitcs in politics is different from mine. pelosi can say whatever she wants and to say that impeachment is off the table or palnt in the minds of people that it CAN BE off the table is misleading(at best), to the denigration of the very process of impeachment.

[Zodiak]

157. She threatened to have Conyers removed if he went forward

that goes a lot farther than "above the fray". Her hand is actually involved with preventing impeachment...it goes far beyond words.

If she had not issued that threat, your hypothesis would hold more water.

[Name removed]

27. Deleted message

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

[lynnertic]

30. Oh yes- swearing will get you your way.

[mrbluto]

65. Drop the "bitch" word please.

It doesn't further the cause any.

It's a bad sign. Easily tagged as misogyny.

That said, I agree that I ultimately don't give a fuck what her reasoning is - it's long past time to defend the constitution in the case of the People versus Jr.

[Raksha]

69. Sorry, I just got carried away with frustration.

Her stonewalling just pisses me off. It wasn't a misogynistic remark since I'm also female. Just expressing my uncensored opinion of her.

[RadiationTherapy]

28. Ahhhh, C'mon fucking gal !! nt

[Peace Patriot]

31. Those of us who know that our party leaders have colluded on the rigged voting machines

are well aware that the problems in our party are a good part of WHY we have suffered this Bushite fascist coup.

And it's pretty much a matter of simple math. SEVENTY-PERCENT of the American people oppose the Iraq War and want it ended; we vote--and somehow we produce a Congress that is the OPPOSITE of the American people: 60% to 70% FOR the Iraq War.

But instead of just these general cries of anguish, when our party leaders do something horrible yet again, we should be thinking more practically or strategically.

And I just had a thought along these lines. One of the reasons that it is difficult to mount a successful effort to oust pro-war, pro-corporate ("Blue Dog") Democrats is that there is always something--or some set of things--that they will vote with real Democrats to accomplish--usually related to some sop to workers and the poor (a little incremental bump in the minimum wage, or, as lately, the extension of unemployment benefits). We hate to lose such votes; and we hate to lose the chairs of committees and other majority power, even if it almost never benefits the majority of people in this country. (Our choice is fascism, or less fascism--a choice that has gotten pushed way to the right over the last several decades.)

So how do we deal with this, strategically? We need a national strategy group, for one thing--that is within the party, but not of it. Something like we had in California when I was a kid--the California Democratic Council, a formal organization of liberal/left Democrats, but outside the authority of the offical party. The CDC had its own convention, for instance, to pick or endorse party nominees. If the CDC thought a party candidate was too "centrist," it would place its own nominee on the ballot in the primary--and it had excellent grass roots organization, either to help chosen party candidates, or get its own choices nominated.

Maybe the Progressive Democrats of America will become this needed national group--to pull the party away from the right, and actually BACK TO the center (and veering left)--where most Americans are really located on the political spectrum.

What needs to be done, it seems to me, is SELECTED targeting of a very LIMITED number of party leaders--like Pelosi--maybe just two or three, who have done so much damage to our party and to the interests of the majority. And use them as EXAMPLES! Refrain from jeopardizing our majority in Congress. Just oust a couple of leaders, as the "sacrifice" for a better party.

Because, of course, this means, a) getting a left Dem on the primary ballot in the first place, to try to get the nomination--and put ALL RESOURCES into that fight, in just a few, select places; b) failing that, mounting a third party or independent effort, which WILL split the vote up and probably elect the Puke (temporary set-back--the point is to come back later with a real Dem), or c) -horror of horrors, vote Puke one time, and one time ONLY, to get the bad Dem out (only possible if the Puke isn't too bad--or maybe pick a really outrageous Puke, to make defeating him/her easier, later.)

The beauty of this strategy is that it is not a general strategy; it is a POINTED strategy--and it should be announced as such. It is a strategy to break the power of certain bad party leaders--not to split the party, but to inflict a lesson, a warning, to other leaders.

This strategy brilliantly defeats the fear that a GENERAL movement against established Dem leaders will result in loss of the majority in Congress.

With regard to the Senate, we may have more wiggle room next time--since it's likely that more Dems will be elected to the Senate. In '06, only one third of the Senate was up for re-election--so we were stuck with a lot of dinosaurs, still there--whereas the House comes up for a full turnover every 2 years. The way the war profiteers defeated the 70% anti-war majority in the country in 2006, was: a) some bad or fearful Dem leaders supporting Lieberman and NOT the voter-chosen Dem Senate candidate Lamont--the key vote in a 50/50 Senate, b) defeating anti-war Dems in the primaries, using money and rigged voting machines; and c) putting "Blue Dog" Dems on ballots and FOOLING the voters that their vote would bring an end to the war.

We still have A LOT OF work to do to get rid of the rigged, "TRADE SECRET" CODE voting machines that our own party leaders inflicted us with (--for the purpose of shoving this war down our throat, and other fascist policy). That's Priority No. 1. But secondly, we have to break the power of war profiteers Dems in Congress--while not losing some slim advantages that a Congressional majority gives us, on economic and social issues--and not threatening the party as a whole.

And I think a few targeted defeats for a few bad leaders is a good strategy to this end.

[Raksha]

35. I really like your thinking in this area.

Re What needs to be done, it seems to me, is SELECTED targeting of a very LIMITED number of party leaders--like Pelosi--maybe just two or three, who have done so much damage to our party and to the interests of the majority. And use them as EXAMPLES! Refrain from jeopardizing our majority in Congress. Just oust a couple of leaders, as the "sacrifice" for a better party.

That sounds like an excellent strategy to begin taking back OUR Democratic Party.

[patriotvoice]

52. Then let us, DU, become a National Strategy Group.

We democratically elect a panel of representatives, say 24-48, who communicate virtually and meet periodically. We support and present a candidate as appropriate. We represent at official conventions as a group. And so on.

Start a poll, see who's in favor.... +1 for me.

[spag68]

71. vote rethug

I will puke for a year and still not vote for a puke. In my lifetime, I have seen so few rethugs worth a damn, that I choose not to vote for any.

[truebrit71]

32. Madam Speaker this has nothing to do with 'getting even' and EVERYTHING with upholding...

...the Constitution and the laws of the land.

The fact that you cannot see that immediately disqualifies you from your current post.

Please resign and allow someone that will enforce their oath do the job.

You are a disgrace.

[Wizard777]

34. This is an abridgement to our right to a redress of grievance. Sue her ass off!

She is cutting the process short. Sue her ass off in federal court! As Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi has no authority to countermand the US Constitution.

[dkofos]

36. She is as guilty as he is now.

[TexasObserver]

37. Pelosi is wrong on Impeachment. It should be on the table, ready to go.

The INVESTIGATION has value, and I'm troubled that she is once again sitting on one of the most important of congressional roles: oversight.

Get off your ass, Nancy! You're making yourself and your legacy look weak and cowardly.

[gatorboy]

38. Tell me again why conservatives fear her so? n/t

[mmonk]

39. If good people write our history,

she will be a bad figure in it.

[monmouth]

40. I wonder what Bush and Dicky have on her.....n/t

[timtom]

41. My letter to the speaker of the house today:

Madame Speaker,

With all due respect -- What the heck is wrong with you people (Democratic Leadership)???

George Bush and his minions are pure evil and it seems as though you are giving him a pass on a veritable cornucopia of impeachable offenses. It is as if the Democratic Leadership is consciously abnegating all responsibility to protect and defend the Constitution of the United States.

Whatever is happening right now is most certainly NOT open and forthright.

America is shamed.

[indepat]

42. Madame Speaker richly deserves to lose her seat in Congress due to her stand on this

one grave issue IMNSHO. :D

[aint_no_life_nowhere]

43. How could I have been so wrong about Nancy Pelosi?

I used to think she was great. Now, I just can't stand her and think she needs to go. What she's saying is that Bush and Cheney could commit any crime and they would never be impeached as a result of her Machiavellian political calculations. Whether it's politically expedient to impeach or the very opposite, what matters is the law. Elections come and go. Political parties and personalities come and go. But the law cannot be broken repeatedly. This is about justice and government and is much bigger than politics and positioning, which seems to be Pelosi's only concern.

[Zodiak]

158. Most of the time when we make these erroneous assessments

What really happened is you saw the D after her name and where she was from and made assumptions. The reality is very few Ds can be trusted, and none of them should be given trust because they are reputed to be "liberal". We need to do our homework on every one of these characters before we cross the precipice into "trust".

[miles 2 go]

44. We all need to email her and ask her just what they have on her

Is she afraid of being pulled down with them or is there something else that we don't yet know about? Same with Conyers. He was going to do this and that until he got re-elected. Now, he just kisses the Nance ass.

[MonkeyFunk]

51. They have nothing on her

she can count to 67.

Geez, people, get a fucking grip.

[bertman]

165. IT'S NOT ABOUT COUNTING TO 67

It's about doing what you swear to do when you become a member of Congress--upholding the Constitution.

It's not about winning the election.

It's not about the Senate finding Bush and Cheney guilty.

It's about saying ENOUGH IS E-FUCKING-NUFF!! We won't tolerate this anymore!!

So what if they don't convict? It's about exposing the fascists for what they are.

Do the Republicans count votes when they are in the minority? Hell no. They just act and hope and pray that enough people see their point that they get behind them.

Democrats count votes, wonder if it's going to affect their chances to win the election, read the polls, analyze chicken entrails, consult psychics. Then they shiver in the corner and wait for the Republicans to do something so bad that even a Democrat can't lose.

Well, we're there.

[bvar22]

45. Nancy parlayed her Congressional seat....

...into a seat at the Rich White Man's Table, and she never looked back.

[WhiteTara]

47. do you think the CIA has her by

the ovaries?

The O Henry surprise...I like that
And damn straight - Pelosi must go!

[skyounkin]

50. You're a disgusting piece of trash pelosi......

may you rot when you get fired by the people.

[bdamomma]

53. she is obstructing justice.

[Phred42]

55. Pelosi MUST be taken off the TABLE!

It's obvious that we must impeach Pelosi FIRST.

Sadly - Let's get with it!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!


NOW!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

:banghead:

[Lorien]

57. Sorry Nancy. Your re-election is off the table. n/t

[hisownpetard]

99. I'll second that.

[Triana]

58. Impeaching bu$h is NOT about "getting even", it's about UPHOLDING THE LAW...

...laws (plural) that HE broke!

:wtf: is the matter with that woman?

[iconicgnom]

Very nicely argued case, Seafan

[noise]

59. Why does her view come across

so self righteously? This is no moral high ground position on her part. It's cowardly and in violation of the Congressional oath of office.

[Postman]

62. I hope you Californians kick this asshole out of office.

n/t

[orleans]

63. can't someone (wexler, conyers, waxman) hold an emergency

vote in the dem house and get that fucking pelosi unseated as speaker???

ARE WE SADDLED WITH HER ASSHOLENESS UNTIL 09???

[trthnd4jstc]

64. Impeach Pelosi!

Impeach Pelosi for derelection of her Oath of Office.

[meowomon]

66. How can we impeach Pelosi?

And what does George have on her that keeps him safe?

[lligrd]

67. What Are YOU Hiding Nancy?

A bit of complicity, perhaps?

[Swamp Rat]

74. Her Bush... see post #73

:D

[MrSlayer]

70. A serious inquiry would reveal all the Neos in BOTH parties.

It wasn't just BushCo and the Republicans who did this to our country, there are very many Democrats involved as well.

[wurzel]

106. True. You can't lie to people who know you are lying!

Many Democrats in Congress knew Bush was lying and voted for the war anyway.

[Swamp Rat]

73. Here ya go:

:D

[dailykoff]

82. Ha.

That's good. Let me guess, 2007 SOTU? He just about had her wiping his lil bottom.

[Dark]

77. Jesus Christ. Focus on the GE.

n/t

[Name removed]

78. Deleted message

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

[Sultana]

80. Was exactly does Pelosi do?

seriously :eyes

Many of the Dems in Congress seem freaking lazy, the Repubs (& some Dems) impeached Clinton for a much lesser offense than that committed by *.

[meowomon]

84. Tell Conyers:

http://www.democrats.com/please-john-conyers

[Donald Ian Rankin]

85. I'm very grateful Pelosi has the courage to stand up to her base; I hope she stands firm

The only effect of impeachment procedings would be to boost McCain's chances in November.

As a method of holding Bush to account, it would be on a par with praying for him to be struck by lightning.

[Politicalboi]

105. Well they had

2 years to do this and they did nothing because according to Mother Goose "Impeachment is off the table". Hickory Dickory Dock the rat ran out the clock. They had 2 years to calm the fears but chose to waste the years. Piglosi should be impeached.

[Zodiak]

159. This was predictable

There were a large amount of DUers that knew that running out the clock was her only real reason for this.

One thing is certain about the Democratic leadership: they are the most risk-averse group of wet noodles ever to cower on the Hill, and they are helping to destroy the country with their risk aversion.

[The Backlash Cometh]

86. Pelosi would be wise to pay attention to just what happened to Hillary Clinton,

or the ceiling her head is going to hit next, will be the bottom of her own table.

[Preening Fop]

88. Evidently, Rep. Palosi has 'no problem' with Imperial U.S. Premeditated Murder in Iraq

:nuke: After all their just heathens :nuke:

[bdamomma]

92. Nancy Pelosi is a collaborator.

and should be held accountable.

[sellitman]

93. She is as guilty as bushco.

You got it. Kucinich should of gone after her first.

[theFrankFactor]

95. This Proves Democratic Cowardice

I can not believe that this national disgrace, Nancy Pelosi, still has a job. She is poison to America, Democracy and the Democratic party. She actually turns my stomach. And you can throw Reid in there too.

This is precisely why Democrats are perceived as inept losers. Failure to act and act with conviction and bravery. An obstacle to our being taken seriously and its infuriates me and it should every Democrat that is worth a shit to the party and America.

[Echo In Light]

97. ...and collusion. Not in entirety, but obviously enough to sway rightward

[windbreeze]

114. we are viewed as inept losers....

because we keep eating our own...at every turn, and at the first chance we get...IF Dennis Kuchinic is doing this, to get charges up front and on the books...ok...I get it...IF, on the other hand, he really intends to go through an impeachment process at this time, I have to ask...WHAT do we get out of it in the end...Satisfaction???Will there be enough of that to salve the sore spots left from the last 8 years?

What is it we do not fathom??? Impeachment has to get through Congress, right??? When do we get it through our heads that we DO NOT HAVE enough votes, or a big enough majority in either house, to even think of pushing it through to a successful conclusion????? Don't you believe that Pelosi knows and understands that??? Her saying impeachment is off the table, is not because she's in collusion with *....it's because she knows the votes aren't there and it would be a waste of time and money....We should try anyway???....sure...why NOT take a chance on forcing the village idiot to take even more drastic actions against this nation, than has already been done???When without the votes, we do NOT succeed anyway..!! Why not wait until we have him out of office...then go after him in criminal court, when he no longer has the protection the WH offers him???

The votes we do NOT have will stop us cold in our tracks..we need...2/3 vote in the Senate....2/3 of a 100...67...and 2/3 of 435...which is 290..at the very least we absolutely have to have that many votes....so realistically, does anyone think it's possible???? and that is an honest question I am asking all of you who are hell bent on doing this now....Do YOU think it's even remotely possible that we could find these votes somewhere to make impeachment happen??....IMO this has been the problem all along...wb

[riverdeep]

121. Two things.

One, do you really think someone will go after him in criminal court when he gets out of office? I know the Vincent Bugliosi book, 'The Prosection of GWB for Murder' is out and makes that case, but what are the chances it's going to happen? Has anything happened to Donald Rumsfeld, besides being given a comfy position for life? I think people will want to forget and he'll walk scott free, surrounded by yes men and a lavish lifestyle, while he and his minions attempt to rewrite history.

Two, during the process of hearings, an account will be made, in front of the country and the world, what these eight years have really been. People will be forced to choose, do they side with such evil in such a public way, or do they renounce it? The final vote tally, could therefore change. We don't know what it will be, we can only speculate.

[frogcycle]

96. Jesus Christ on a french fry!

getting even?

Nancy, with all due respect, FUUUUUUCK YOOOUUU!

Could you possibly just take a quick GLANCE at that document you swore to uphold?

Could you possibly pull your head out of your ass long enough to do that?


I am not necessarily saying there aren't good reasons for restraint (like maybe he'd go bonkers and nuke California) but THAT is not one of them. Lamest fucking statement ever.

[The Stranger]

104. Our real enemy is actually very close to us.

[Vilis Veritas]

107. At what point will it become necessary to throw them all out?

There is not a single politician in washington that does not know WHO the Bush Family is and that their familiy history is filled with attempts to undermine the 'Will of the People' in order to fill their own pockets and those of COMPLICIT politicians on both sides of the aisle.

I will grant that not all are complicit, but ALL are aware of just who this family is and what they are doing.

All tyranny needs to gain a foothold is for people of good conscience to remain silent.

Banking establishments are more dangerous than standing armies.

Every generation needs a new revolution.

Every government degenerates when trusted to the rulers of the people alone. The people themselves are its only safe depositories.

Experience hath shewn, that even under the best forms of government those entrusted with power have, in time, and by slow operations, perverted it into tyranny.

I have sworn upon the altar of God, eternal hostility against every form of tyranny over the mind of man.

I hope we shall crush in its birth the aristocracy of our monied corporations which dare already to challenge our government to a trial by strength, and bid defiance to the laws of our country.

Merchants have no country. The mere spot they stand on does not constitute so strong an attachment as that from which they draw their gains.

The strongest reason for the people to retain the right to keep and bear arms is, as a last resort, to protect themselves against tyranny in government.

Thomas Jefferson

saddlesore

[Ganja Ninja]

108. Clearly we need another Speaker in the next congress.

Something needs to be done about Nancy.

[frylock]

109. i've said it before and I will say it again: fuck you, pelosi

[LibDemAlways]

111. And yet the people of her district overwhelmingly

chose her over a pro-impeachment opponent in the primary. Money and power still talk.

[jwirr]

112. Nancy, you work for we the people. If you do not want to impeach

then: EXPLAIN YOURSELF!

[sui generis]

113. Pelosi, if you're not questioning the president, then you condone him.

You are in danger of becoming an apologist for the Bush administration's policies.

I completely understand political tactics and strategy here, but the fact of the matter is that George w. Bush manipulated our nation into war against Iraq when there was absolutely no evidence whatsoever to back up his case "WMD. Period.". When, if ever, do you plan to address it? "Not now" is not good enough. You have harmed the democratic party and the unified political process.

He tampered with the CIA, put intelligence agents and deployments at risk, and he is directly responsible for sending our kids off to a hopeless war where years later we barely occupy a a couple of heavily fortified acres in an irrelevant section of Iraq next to the airport in Baghdad, sending them off in uniform and bringing them home in boxes. We shouldn't call it the Green Zone. We should call it what it is: "Green Acres".

I'm sure you agree that GWB and his cabinet are criminal, and the worst kind: a monarchical tyrant who would wage war for personal gain, shamelessly. In that case Nancy Pelosi, shame on you for not having the courage of your convictions. You are equally responsible for "accepting" the deaths of our children and feeling some false sentiment about how "heroic" they are.

They're dead. What are you doing about it.

[madwivoter]

115. That sounds dangerously similar to the "I'm the decider" comment by dubya

This is not about getting even. This is about people who broke the law, history will not be kind to Nancy Pelosi.

[Solly Mack]

117. Yeah..the table is being used to water-board people

America - a war crime nation

[Vidar]

119. Just title her "Bride of Lieberman"--her fellow appeaser.

[Swagman]

120. It's her DUTY !!! not her decision.

which part of the Constitution doesn't she understand ??

[NewEnglandGirl]

122. She has been

a big disappointment.

[newfie11]

123. Maybe old nancy has some of the missing trillions

She sure seems to want to protect bush!

[riverdeep]

124. Even if you think impeachment is not a good idea,

it's really stupid as hell to take it off the table. Strategically, it's bone-headed. You're showing your cards to your opponent. You're saying saying we won't come after you no matter what you do. In the best light, she said it to reassure a public before the '06 election that there won't be any 'distractions' as she puts it, or petty squabbling. She should have left it ambiguous, something like:

Questioner: Is impeachment something you will pursue or is it off the table?

Pelosi: We're not looking at impeachment in the near future, but nothing is off the table. Constitutionally, I don't have a right to take it off the table.

She should be sent packing just for imbecility alone.

[Fireweed247]

125. Who the hell does she think she is.

This country does not belong to her or the Bushies, they just think it does.

Why the hell did Kucinich wait until after the CA primary?? Damn!

[yurbud]

126. she got her facelift so tight it squeezed her brain into her ass

then she shit it out.

[Phred42]

130. Petition to Remove Pelosi

http://www.PetitionOnline.com/everyman/

[PATRICK]

131. This interesting too

Conyers has expressed reservations about impeaching and the impeding of investigations is a slow route to making him present such as the only way. It is a far different matter though to order him to remove impeachment from the process and screw his chances of ever getting witnesses to appear.

This instead has set up the possibility of a drama, of Conyers calling her bluff even though he is not currently enacting the impeachment hearings. If he does that he could be removed without ever even bringing up the impeachment hearings! So Pelosi has set up several things to head off the threat at the pass and squelch the possibility now that it is trapped in committee.

To do this she is playing with a more localized fire, over cautiously perhaps and politically, Constitutionally questionable as the imperious lapdog to the imperial presidency. A mess too if instead of disengaging the wily GOP from tripping up the half-hearted Dems she creates more opportunities for losing face and cementing impunity and secrecy into Bush's last dangerous days with new wars on the horizon- even if she thinks she knows some of these dangers will not take place and some future advantage is worth this appalling show.

It would also be 'crippling" I suppose if the Speaker and Conyers tied up Congressional leadership in a me or her power struggle that would in humiliating fashion reopen all the cracks and insincerity in the recent shuffle toward impeachment. She is likely banking on Conyers experience and prudence that he would not choose to do so, hence the daring hard line. As for replacing Pelosi would we have Hoyers or Murtha so easily sliding behind the helm?

So instead of impeaching Bush, Pelosi gives herself in a service/disservice to the party as a costly firewall and perhaps a future sinecure at the Carlyle Corporation.

[ColbertWatcher]

134. Gee, I thought she was already Queen of the Illuminati? n/t

[npincus]

135. I say she needs to "set the table" or her constituents should vote for Cindy Sheehan

Could the answer be that simple?

[mdmc]

136. corporations uber alles

We have one corporate party with two right wings...

[Martin Eden]

137. JUSTICE is off the table. RULE OF LAW is off the table

Pelosi's duty to the Constitution and to the citizens she represents is OFF THE TABLE.

[Overseas]

138. I voted for Shirley Golub to express my displeasure but very few others voted against Pelosi.

[Fire Walk With Me]

139. It. Is. Not. YOUR. Table.

[bobthedrummer]

142. There she is, big rich daddy's girl as Speaker of the House of Privatization!

:argh:

[Scooter24]

143. I understand the outrage, but this isn't something our party wants 5 months from a national election

First, we don't have the votes.

Secondly, the last thing we need is a media distraction from the candidates this close to a national election. McCain would label our party as wasting taxpayers dollars trying to get revenge and we would alienate the independent voters who are on the fence and are so close to coming to Obama's side.

Obviously, strategic planning isn't a strong suit to many here.

[saracat]

144. Barack Obama has exactly the same position on impeachment as Nancy Pelosi!

[smiley_glad_hands]

145. Unfortunately I disagree with the sentiments against Pelosi.

We have an election to concentrate on. Lets win the whitehouse and let the lawyers work it all out then. At this stage in the game it is too late for impeachment.

On edit: and its a distraction.

[totodeinhere]

147. Perhaps we should try to put Bush and Cheney on trail by an international war crimes tribunal.

Those two would make good cell mates.

[Marie26]

148. Obama agrees & so did Clinton

So does Sen. Reid. This is the mainstream Dem opinion; it's hardly just Pelosi.

[L0oniX]

150. Let's wait and see what newb Dem she will be replace with.

I am voting mostly anti incumbent Dem. They clearly have not impeached the war criminals or stop funding the Iraq war.

[Bake]

155. Please, somebody, show me the votes in the Senate to convict.

OP: "No, Ms. Pelosi; removal of a criminal executive and his vice president supersedes your woefully shallow reasoning."

The House can impeach, the Senate must vote to convict/remove from office.

Do we now miraculously have the 60+ votes needed to convict/remove? Would someone please point out the Republicans who will vote against their party to remove?

We might HAVE that large a majority after November (or actually, January) but it will be MOOT at that point.

So why waste the time, money, and energy on a doomed mission, when the fucker will be gone anyway in January? And PLEASE don't say "to hold them accountable." Impeachment without conviction doesn't hold anyone accountable for jack sh*t.

Bake

[LynneSin]

156. Stop posting stuff like this DB - you make too much sense and heads will explode

Seriously, we don't have the votes to remove Bush from office which means we'll be spending all this time on impeachment with nothing more than a hand slap. And the repukes would love nothing more than to take the impeachment and spin it in the media (which supports them) as a giant time waster when the ecomony is tanking and gas prices are going thru the roof.

Seriously, let's not actually help the republicans keep the white house.

[petgoat]

167. You count votes AFTER the hearings, not before them.

Impeachment will not be moot after November.

Impeachment is the Constitutional remedy to threats to the Constitution
and our form of government. If it is not employed against same, it may
as well not exist, and its power to keep rogue Presidents in line in the
future is reduced.

[Bake]

170. That's bullshit, in every line.

What's the point of impeaching AFTER a Prez leaves office? The sole remedy is removal from office; impeaching after he leaves office is indeed MOOT. It does NOTHING. I'm not even sure Congress could legally DO IT.

Count votes after the hearings? Hearings will take longer than the six or seven months he las left.

It's bullshit.

Bake

[petgoat]

171. It's NOT moot.

We're talking about after November, not after he leaves office.

Hearings need not take six months. He said on nat'l TV he ordered
the illegal wiretaps. The perp confessed on Nat'l TV to an
impeachable offense! He could be removed in one day.

Impeaching after he leaves office isn't moot, either. It's not
about removing W, and it's not about punishing W. It's about
defining executive behaviors that are beyond the pale. It's a
warning to Presidents in the future to kindly limit themselves
to unimpeachable conduct.

[FunMe]

160. I said it before: you're a TRAITOR to the US Constitution

What is there left to say about this useless piece of human in the Congress.

San Francisco: WHY HAVE YOU NOT FIRED HER?????????????

[petgoat]

166. Take it easy, roll another doobee, man. That's why. nt

[Maineman]

161. Voters have the final say.

I believe there is an intelligent, progressive alternative to vote for in her district. I am sure that person would function more like a responsible Democrat and defender of the Constitution.

[Disturbed]

163. To Replace Nancy Pelosi as Speaker of the House

of Representatives for the Purposes of Pursuing Impeachment

http://www.petitiononline.com/everyman/petition.html

[Torn_Scorned_Ignored]

168. * l *

5501

[aint_no_life_nowhere]

169. CNN just out-and-out ridiculed Kucinich - I couldn't believe it

They treated him like a cartoon character just now on CNN. It was some ass wipe commentator who does a show called "This Week In Politics" (a tall gray-haired distinguished-looking guy who is the most conservative talking head on that station - don't know his name). They were running down the news of the week and they did a brief minute on Kucinich bringing forth the articles of impeachment. They did this with an intro featuring a UFO and with comedic 'Keystone Cops' music in the background. The asswipe commentator said with glee in his voice that while it took Kucinich over four hours to read the articles of impeachment, it took only seconds to banish the matter into the House Judiciary committee. All through this report, that same goofy comedic music was playing in the background. This is NOT professional journalism by CNN. It's worse, much worse than Fox. They treated Kucinich like some kind of complete kook and gave him not one bit of respect that a representative of the People should have (whether they agree with him or not).

[AgadorSparticus]

172. and we are surprised...why? you don't get to a position of power without the power backing you.

as hard as it is to take, it's just more of the same ol same. And as glad as I am about Obama getting the nod, I'm not certain that he can affect a whole lot of change. Don't get me wrong, I'm hoping he does. But I won't be surprised if he doesn't.