Once again: there is NO political argument that can put impeachment "on the table"

[jgraz]

Yes, impeachment hearings would likely be successful. Yes, even a failed attempt would probably destroy what's left of the Repug party. And, yes, these hearings would guarantee an Obama victory and HUGE gains in the House and Senate.

But none of that matters.

...because the Dem leadership's suppression of impeachment has nothing to do with politics. It has to do with the fact that these Democratic leaders were briefed on Bush's black site prisons, his torture and his wiretapping back in 2002. In order to pursue Bush for his crimes, Pelosi, Reid, et al would have to expose themselves to the same legal jeopardy.

Nancy Pelosi is an expert politician, as are most of the current Congressional leaders. They know the gains they would realize from even a modest and truncated impeachment investigation. But none of them will risk putting their own butts in the dock for complicity with the crimes of the Bush Regime.



Edit: Link to yesterday's post by Randi Rhodes that supplies a bunch of corroborating material. http://forums.therandirhodesshow.com/index.php?showtopic=2497

[Swamp Rat]

1. I, a citizen of the United States of America, grant Pelosi and Reid immunity from prosecution.

[jgraz]

2. . DU bug

[jgraz]

3. A good idea, but no one can grant immunity for war crimes.

If we were to grant them explicit immunity under US law, it would open the door for their arrest and prosecution in other countries.

[Swamp Rat]

5. Then I suggest Nancy and Harry not travel abroad anymore.

Boo hoo. Too bad for them.

How many American soldiers have died to date? How many Iraqis?

[jgraz]

6. I share your sympathy for them. Every last bit of it.

:nuke:

[LakeSamish706]

4. Your OP is absolute... Right on the money... And this in my mind should have these...

Dems. voted out of office in there next election cycle. There is no room in either our party, or our country for people that would allow this crap to happen IMO.

[aint_no_life_nowhere]

7. If true, that makes it even worse

Putting impeachment off the table for the sake of political strategies and maneuvers is bad enough. Complicity in crimes with ChimpCo is too dark to contemplate.

[EFerrari]

8. I usually agree with you but this time, I don't.

These people are not afraid of the dock.

Their interest, imho, is in maintaining the semblance of governablity -- which in turn allows them to maintain their positions of power.

Just as after the Kennedy assassination, when most of the insiders publicly endorsed the Warren Commission Report and privately said otherwise, our government willfully ignored CIA involvement because their greater fear was rupturing the illusion of a representative government responsive to the people. (And CIA involvement isn't my assessment but the assessment of the Church Committee and the House Select Committee on Assassinations.)

They're not worried about jail. They never have to think that far. They only need to maintain the status quo and wait until we "forget".

[jgraz]

10. How DARE you not agree with me 100% of the time!!!!111111shiftone11

[EFerrari]

12. It's Insurgent Thursday!

:rofl:

[Raksha]

20. It's too late for that. That particular horse is already out of the barn.

Re These people are not afraid of the dock.

Their interest, imho, is in maintaining the semblance of governablity -- which in turn allows them to maintain their positions of power.

Certainly here on DU, and no doubt elsewhere as well, we already KNOW we no longer have a democratic republic. We KNOW our system of checks and balances has been compromised. Whether it has been fatally compromised or not remains to be seen.

I believe it can still be restored, but just electing a Democratic president won't do it. No president including Barack Obama has any right to the imperial powers of the "Unitary Executive." What we have now is the shell or semblence of the democratic republic that once was, not the reality. The only way to restore it is through holding the abusers of power accountable, and the only way of doing that is through impeachment.

[grasswire]

9. which is also why the MSM won't cover impeachment

They are complicit, too.

And they like the narrative the way it is, the way they've driven it.

[On the Road]

11. You Do Realize This is Exactly What the Republicans Thought

before impeaching Clinton -- that it would destroy the Democratic party and guarantee a Republican win in 2000.

[JackRiddler]

14. The results were mixed...

They disciplined the Democratic Party and got close enough in 2000 to steal the presidency.

Anyway, this isn't the point. They conducted a coup based on lies about a blow job.

This is about historic high crimes.

[Raster]

18. The one thing that the rethuglicans did not consider about the Clinton impeachment is that

the American public was able to see that in essence it was politically motivated and brutally partisan. As the impeachment unfolded in the national media, America was able to judge the severity of the potential "crimes" for themselves, and found the charges blown completely out of proportion. <all puns intended>. Instead of America punishing a popular President, America turned their dissatisfaction at the less-than-truthful accusers.

Unfortunately today some use this history as a reason to not impeach George W. Bush* AND Dick Cheney*, citing potential blowback <pun> and loss of majority status. This assertion is flawed. We do not have a popular President in Bush* and his Vice Henchman Cheney*. Instead we have the most UNPOPULAR President and Vice President of this modern age. Instead of trumped-up, politically motivated charges, we have bona fide evidence of the highest crimes and misdemeanors. Any continued parallels between the Clinton impeachment and the potential Bush* and Cheney* impeachments are disingenuous as best. And at worst, bald-faced lies that beg the question of complicity.

We must impeach to regain our country's soul and moral foundation. To not impeach is to ourselves become accomplices to the death of the Republic and to betray future generations of Americans. To not impeach--for whatever the rationale du jour--makes us just as guilty as those that committed the crimes.

Wake up America!:kick:

[Orsino]

58. Good thing that didn't happen.

A Republican presidency would have been catastrophic.

[nadinbrzezinski]

13. BINGO it is about their own asses

[JDPriestly]

15. Pelosi, et al. enjoy absolute immunity as for their conduct.

It is in the Constitution. It is called legislative immunity.

The president, on the other hand, can be impeached. The procedure for ousting an errant member of Congress is called an election. The process for ousting an errant executive or other high official including a member of the judicial branch is called impeachment, and the House alone is given the authority to impeach. Alexander Hamilton explains why in Federalist Paper No. 65. It is because the House is considered to be closest to the people.

The conduct in question concerns actions for which Bush as the executive is responsible. You are simply wrong. An example is the violation of FISA. Even if top members of Congress were told about some aspects of those violations the Congressmembers state that they were not told the whole truth. And the Congressmembers faced terrible penalties if they told anyone what they had been told so they could do nothing to stop the violations.

I do not want to go into each of the charges and explain why you are wrong. You are making the assertion, so I will ask you, since you claim to know that Congress was complicit for a fact, to please identify the evidence for your claim with regard to each of the articles of impeachment. You have the floor. I will be looking forward to reading and responding to your accusations.

Further, if you read Federalist Paper No. 65, you will understand that the House of Representatives brings the individual facing impeachment before it in the name of the people. Even if certain members of the House had information we did not have, we didn't, and we have the right to demand to know the facts now. Impeachment is necessary regardless of what politicians are shown to be corrupt and ousted as a result.

[Name removed]

16. Deleted message

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

[JDPriestly]

32. What am I wrong about? I have my textbook on Constitutional

Law right here.

True, I miswrote and used the word absolute immunity instead of legislative immunity, but you obviously were smart enough to figure out that I meant Article I, section 6. The link says that Pelosi was shown videos of the torture and rendition. It did not say whether she was allowed to discuss those videos publicly or even with other members of Congress. I will bet she did not and that had she done so, she probably would be in jail today.

Prosecution for revealing state secrets would likely not be prevented by legislative immunity. But staying silent about torture if its existence is a state secret would be.

Besides, the House represents our will when conducting impeachment. The personal interests of the members of the House are not supposed to interfere in their carrying out our will. I realize that is a bit too idealistic, but that is the ideal that Alexander Hamilton suggests in Federalist Paper No. 65.

Pelosi does not have anything to fear even if she did know about the Bush crimes. She is immune from prosecution for her complicity unless she took a bribe. She might be embarrassed if the truth came out, but that would not prevent her from being re-elected from her district considering her history.

Congress is just scared. Remember the anthrax. By the way, why hasn't Congress investigated the failure of the investigation of the anthrax letters?

[jgraz]

44. Wait -- you screwed up "absolute immunity" with "legislative immunity" and I'M not smart enough???

You are really a piece of work. You did not merely mess up a "word'. You supported that "typo" by asserting that Pelosi, et al were immune from prosecution for war crimes.

You were wrong. Loudly, obnoxiously wrong. I showed exactly where you were wrong and other posters have shown exactly where you were wrong. Yet you come back with this weak shit about me somehow "not being smart enough".

Act like an adult, admit your mistake and move on. This silly little tantrum is making you look even more foolish.

[JDPriestly]

49. Sorry, but I am right. They are immune from prosecution

for the decisions they make that are related to their work as members of Congress. This is an essential factor in insuring the separation of powers. Please cite to one case in which a member of Congress was prosecuted (by the Justice Department which is in the executive branch) or sentenced (by a court which is part of the judicial branch of government).

A member of Congress can be prosecuted and sentenced for driving without a license, for taking a bribe and certain forms of corruption, for murder, or for spousal abuse, but cannot be prosecuted and sentenced for voting this way or that on a bill or for closing his or her eyes to violations of international or American law. It just cannot be done. This is central to our separation of powers.

[nashville_brook]

17. this is exactly what bothers about the randy rhodes "conspiracy theory" -- so what if they knew?

it seems as though they would have some sort of immunity. they didn't perform the renditions and the torture themselves.

so, there has to be something else that is being held over them. although, i do kinda like the RR theory because, if it were true, there's very few lawmakers who were in oversight roles who would be compromised: Pelosi, Rep. Jane Harman (D-Calif.) and Sens. Bob Graham (D-Fla.) and John D. Rockefeller IV (D-W.Va.), as well as Rep. Porter J. Goss (R-Fla.) and Sen. Pat Roberts (R-Kan).

[jgraz]

19. JD's completely wrong here. He doesn't understand this concept at all. Not one bit.

Just google legislative immunity and you'll see what I mean. Pelosi, Reid et al are sure as fuck subject to criminal prosecution for their complicity in war crimes.

[JDPriestly]

31. Yes, I have been properly corrected. It is called legislative immunity.

I misspoke or miswrote and used the term absolute immunity, which has a very different meaning and is used, albeit more commonly, in a different legal context.

Article I, section 6 of the Constitution protects legislators from prosecution for conduct that is legitimately related to their roles as legislators. It does not, of course, protect them from prosecution for such things as taking bribes or that kind of corruption. There is no allegation that Pelosi accepted bribes to close her eyes to the wrongdoings of the Bush administration.

Randi Rhodes argument makes no sense and is no excuse. Impeachment is a process through which the House, which Alexander Hamilton explains in Federalist Paper 65 is closest to the people (elected every 2 years, most numerous, etc.), on behalf of the people acts as a body to bring charges against a high official including the president or vice president.

Randi Rhodes is making excuses, or explaining behavior. We should not make excuses or explain the behavior of our Congressmen and women on this issue. We should demand that they impeach the president.

Members of the House cannot be impeached. They win or lose elections every 2 years. In theory, we know our Representatives much better than other elected officials. In theory, and certainly at the time of the writing of the Constitution, we were closer to them than to other elected officials.

All members of Congress enjoy legislative immunity. So, they need not fear being prosecuted themselves just because the Bush administration showed them videos of torture or rendition -- which they were bound under the threat of severe penalties not to discuss in public and could not publicly criticize or condemn.

If you read the history of the legislation on the electronic surveillance, and I have not read the information in great depth, you will realize that Congress did try to act and thought it had, but that Bush simply violated the law.

I favor impeachment. Randi Rhodes seems to have cold feet on it. I think she feels that it will overshadow Obama's campaign. I disagree. Impeachment is necessary. It would be great if it could take place between the election and the inauguration of the next president. That would prevent Bush from strutting around and acting self-important and continuing to embarrass us after he leaves office.

[jberryhill]

24. Utterly Incorrect

Legislative immunity applies to certain types of civil actions, NOT to criminal actions.

Which you would realize upon the simple reflection that Dan Rostenkowsky spent 15 months in jail.

[JDPriestly]

28. You are incorrect.

The immunity protects the member of the legislature for acts that are related to their work as a legislator. It does not protect against prosecution for taking bribes or similar corruption which are not related to the member's official role.

[jberryhill]

45. You're getting warmer, doc....

...but still don't seem to appreciate the difference between civil and criminal immunity, nor the scope of legislative immunity.

While there is general separation of executive and legislative functions, there is some overlap. Pursuant to the APA, for example, the executive branch performs both legislative functions (in promulgating regulations) and judicial functions (in certain agency proceedings). The legislature - and especially the Senate - performs a number of quasi-executive and executive oversight functions. An oversight committee is NOT engaged in "legislating" a damned thing. They are carrying out an executive oversight function.

Just because a House or Senate committee is "doing something" does not mean they are "legislating".

[JDPriestly]

48. Cite one case in which a member of Congress has been convicted

of failing to oppose the criminal acts of a president.

Sorry, but the APA applies to the administrative agencies which are considered to be in the executive branch but have quasi-judicial, quasi-legislative powers. Nevertheless, you have hit on an important point.

The Constitution does not grant any kind of immunity to the executive. But Article I, section 6 grants legislative immunity to the members of Congress.

Why did the Constitutional Convention grant immunity from prosecution to members of Congress for acts associated with the exercise of their duties (as opposed to bribery, etc.)? I have not researched this, but I suspect that it is to ensure the separation of powers. Congress could not act as an independent body if the Justice Department could prosecute or the judicial branch judge its members for conduct or decisions related to their duties as members of Congress.

[aint_no_life_nowhere]

25. There is no absolute legislative immunity under the Constitution

The primary argument that Kucinich has made in each of his articles of impeachment is that George Bush violated his oath of office to uphold the U.S. Constitution. Those who were complict with Bush in helping him in his violation of his oath of office also violated their own oaths of office. They too are subject to criminal punishment under federal law.

Article 1, Section 6 of the U.S. Constitution provides exceptions to legislative immunity:

"...They shall in all Cases, except Treason, Felony and Breach of the Peace, be privileged from Arrest during their Attendance at the Session of their respective Houses, and in going to and returning from the same; and for any Speech or Debate in either House, they shall not be questioned in any other Place."

I submit that violation of their oath of office is a felony, as it is potentially punishable by up to one year in prison.

Members of Congress must swear to uphold the U.S. Constitution when sworn into office.

The Constitution specifies in Article VI, clause 3:

"The Senators and Representatives before mentioned, and the members of the several state legislatures, and all executive and judicial officers, both of the United States and of the several states, shall be bound by oath or affirmation, to support this Constitution; but no religious test shall ever be required as a qualification to any office or public trust under the United States."

This same oath as established in the Constitution has been codified in Federal law under 5 U.S.C. 3331:

“An individual, except the President, elected or appointed to an office of honor or profit in the civil service or uniformed services shall take the following oath: ‘I, AB, do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; that I take this obligation freely, without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion; and that I will well and faithfully discharge the duties of the office on which I am about to enter. So help me God.’”

Executive Order 10450 clarifies the meaning of a violation of the oath of office. It was designed to instruct federal investigative services such as the FBI as to what actions might constitute violations of the oath of office in determining whether violations had been committed. It lists advocacy of the "alteration" of the form of government of the United States by unconstitutional means. The only way to alter the Constitution is through amendment, not through complicity in executive branch action that alters our Constitution and our form of government.

“Whereas the interest of the national security require that all persons privileged to be employed in…the Government shall be reliable, trustworthy, of good conduct and character, and of complete and unswerving loyalty to the United States… it is hereby ordered as follows:

(a) The investigations conducted pursuant to this order shall be designed to develop information as to whether the employment or retention in employment…of the person being investigated is clearly consistent with the interests of the national security. Such information shall relate, but shall not be limited, to the following:

(4) Advocacy of use of force or violence to overthrow the government of the United States, or of the alteration of the form of the government of the United States by unconstitutional means.”

5 U.S.C. 7311 (1) provides:

“An individual may not accept or hold a position in the Government of the United States of the government of the District of Columbia if he (1) advocates the overthrow of our constitutional form of government…”

And 18 U.S.C. 1918 provides for removal of office and imprisonment for violation of the oath of office:

“Whoever violates the provisions of section 7311 of title 5 that an individual may not accept or hold a position in the Government of the United States or the government of the District of Columbia if he (1) advocates the overthrow of our constitutional form of government shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than one year and a day or both.”

That is a felony, one not protected by legislative immunity. I accuse those who conspired with George Bush to alter our Constitution and form of government through any other means besides legislative amendment to have committed crimes for which they can be punished.

[jgraz]

26. Thank you. I thought I was going insane there for a minute

JD stated his case so forcefully (and arrogantly) that I actually went and looked it up again, even though I knew he was wrong.

When will I learn that someone's level of bloviating is quite often inversely proportional to their understanding of the facts.

[dailykoff]

33. Her.

She was launching Wright grenades back in November.

[jgraz]

41. My bad. Usually it requires testosterone poisoning to be that loud and that wrong all at once.

[JDPriestly]

27. Sorry, typo, misspoke. I meant legislative immunity.

My brain connected to the wrong word or something. I was talking about Article 1, section 6, which, of course, is limited to immunity related to the official work of a member of the legislature.

I believe it protects Pelosi from prosecution for failing to speak out against torture or other such matters.

[aint_no_life_nowhere]

34. I have to disagree

Failing to honor her oath of office to protect and uphold the Constitution is not protected by legislative immunity. Her duty involved more than a duty to speak out against Bush policies, but to take all necessary means to uphold the Constitution including impeachment of the President who violated the Constituion and actively sought to alter the Constitution and our form of government: denying the writ of habeus corpus, violating the War Powers Act and Congress' unique authority to declare war, violating the Geneva Convention (a treaty) which is a part of the Constitution through the Supremacy Clause, violating the 4th amendment through illegal wiretapping, violating the 6th amendment by failing to allow access to counsel, violating the 8th amendment through the application of cruel and unusual punishment including torture and extraordinary rendition, and a host of other violations. These are extremely grave and serious transgressions of our Constitution and are as much of an effort to systematically overthrow our form of government as an armed and violent coup d'etat in our streets. That Bush failed to keep his oath of office to uphold the Constitution is clear. That others were made aware of his transgressions and made no efforts to prevent them, including the remedy of impeachment violated their own oaths of office to protect and defend the Constitution. I think a Constitutional scholar could make the case that Pelosi et al. committed felonies, from which they are not immunized under art. 1, sec. 6.

[dailykoff]

35. That's a very good argument

and a good list of impeachable offenses. And just for the record, 911 was a demolition without a permit.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=125&topic_id=127965&mesg_id=127965

[JDPriestly]

47. Do you have any legal precedent showing that a member of

Congress has been or can be prosecuted for these omissions and commissions?

You are listing things you wish (and I wish) Pelosi had the courage to take action on and you are right that it is her duty to do so. But these are not the kinds of felonies for which a member of Congress has ever been prosecuted. Article I, section 6 protects members of Congress from criminal prosecution for these kinds of omissions/commissions. It's the Constitution.

[jberryhill]

55. Since a claim of immunity is a defense

...you'll have to point me at all of the cases in which this claim was asserted.

Show me the dismissals.

[crickets]

36. Would you please kindly explain why you are excusing Pelosi of war crimes...

and failure to uphold her oath of office to defend the Constitution?

aint_no_life_nowhere and others have studied it from a standpoint of law and letter much better than I could, but from a moral standpoint, it already made perfect sense to me that Pelosi et al are screwed. Respectfully, why are you arguing so forcefully that she is not culpable for what she has done?

[JDPriestly]

46. I'm not excusing Pelosi. I'm just saying the law does not

hold her responsible. Her unwillingness to impeach Bush in my opinion is not due to a fear on her part of criminal prosecution.

I think she is just afraid not to be "nice." She has gotten where she is by being "nice." She wants to just get along.

Nancy Pelosi is not willing to stand up for what is right. She can't be prosecuted for her silence in the face of obvious wrongdoing, but she still just wants everybody to be "nice."

Strange. I almost typed "Nanny Pelosi." Kind of appropriate. She is just being a nanny for the House. She isn't really leading it. She is not taking truly strong public stances. She is afraid to criticize Bush to the extent that he needs to be criticized.

[crickets]

54. Ah. I see.

I think we're going to have to agree to disagree on this one, but thanks for coming back to explain.

She is just being a nanny for the House. She isn't really leading it.

Yep, that's one way of putting it. :)

[L. Coyote]

21. No, but the evidence can. So, lets just keep at it and collect the evidence as

we are doing daily. That will tip the scales.
Read the Articles of impeachment. How much of that was unknown in Jan 2007?

Drip, drip, drip, water on stone ..... works every time.

[jgraz]

22. BTW, thanks for posting the impeachment vids. That had to take some work.

I went through and methodically K&R'd each one.

[L. Coyote]

23. They are an easy to copy and paste list, so make good use of it.

Kucinich: Articles of Impeachment 1. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=c0mWVxlSysM
Kucinich: Articles of Impeachment 2. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=X1zrGUtey20
Kucinich: Articles of Impeachment 3. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lP0S7pEb6Xo
Kucinich: Articles of Impeachment 4. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=x5Gkrk6EevI
Kucinich: Articles of Impeachment 5. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aExE6ElXWhA
Kucinich: Articles of Impeachment 6. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=f9KfWbhvwmE
Kucinich: Articles of Impeachment 7. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tGFwdtauCEc
Kucinich: Articles of Impeachment 8. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=s1kA6xJtRHY
Kucinich: Articles of Impeachment 9. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Bm7sh0ZzyCw
Kucinich: Articles of Impeachment 10. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JNSUh61Fr5w
Kucinich: Articles of Impeachment 11. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JznHmWjreTg
Kucinich: Articles of Impeachment 12. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UFZbUcwNUK8
Kucinich: Articles of Impeachment 13. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jf3x7eo8U84
Kucinich: Articles of Impeachment 14. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EDyN_tUqJYQ
Kucinich: Articles of Impeachment 15. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=q5KYgOAI3yA
Kucinich: Articles of Impeachment 16. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eVYmbRyGkhM
Kucinich: Articles of Impeachment 17. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rvIJc0ucA2U
Kucinich: Articles of Impeachment 18. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CjIvjGIWLSY
Kucinich: Articles of Impeachment 19. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ovGNh7kapSo
Kucinich: Articles of Impeachment 20. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=u1v-jAws4CU
Kucinich: Articles of Impeachment 21. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DhkjROmnQU4
Kucinich: Articles of Impeachment 22. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VayMskOeLyA
Kucinich: Articles of Impeachment 23. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1eFd-O21-9c
Kucinich: Articles of Impeachment 24. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cdaZvXRC0vc
Kucinich: Articles of Impeachment 25. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DbJob6I8Z08
Kucinich: Articles of Impeachment 26. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=luBzvyuJGyY
Kucinich: Articles of Impeachment 27. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vPMLI_lWLto
Kucinich: Articles of Impeachment 28. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pSbGErV3X4c
Kucinich: Articles of Impeachment 29. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nJY_eWVH88w
Kucinich: Articles of Impeachment 30. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oU7br4ONOQU

[dailykoff]

29. Misleading thread title.

I know what you mean, but it looks like you're saying it's pointless. Incidentally I think the Gitmo ruling makes impeachment all the more important.

[jgraz]

37. Ah, I see what you mean.

That's what I get for posting while tired.

[2008]

30. Homer Simpson

"You tried your best and you failed miserably. The lesson is 'never try'."

[bdamomma]

38. I am sure that there are forces out there who want to see justice done

to this thuggish regime.

[Echo In Light]

39. Collusion, not "cowardice." Just as intentional war crimes aren't "incompetent"

[spanone]

40. but there IS a constitutional argument that it SHOULD be

[jgraz]

43. Completely agree

[orleans]

50. can't the dem house hold a special recall/election to yank pelosi

out of her position? (for failing to do her job?) maybe vote in wexler or conyers?

is the house truly stuck with her "leadership" until 09?

[jgraz]

51. Don't know about that, but they can vote to expel her from the house

It requires a 2/3'ds vote, but I bet some of the Repugs would be happy to oblige.

[orleans]

52. i don't know if republicons would be happy--after all, she isn't going

after their dear bushlet

[mmonk]

42. It doesn't matter as far as the people and rule of law go.

The message should be don't do the crime if you can't do the time.

[supernova]

53. Then Nancy should have to explain WHY

she thinks impeachment is a no go. I want to hear her say it. OUT LOUD.

[Canuckistanian]

56. I regret not looking at this post earlier

Man-oh-man, do I ever agree.

The pieces are starting to fit together so perfectly.

We've been getting bits and pieces since LAST YEAR.


FOR EXAMPLE:

Hill Briefed on Waterboarding in 2002
In Meetings, Spy Panels' Chiefs Did Not Protest, Officials Say

By Joby Warrick and Dan Eggen
Washington Post Staff Writers
Sunday, December 9, 2007; A01

In September 2002, four members of Congress met in secret for a first look at a unique CIA program designed to wring vital information from reticent terrorism suspects in U.S. custody. For more than an hour, the bipartisan group, which included current {b]House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.), was given a virtual tour of the CIA's overseas detention sites and the harsh techniques interrogators had devised to try to make their prisoners talk.

Among the techniques described, said two officials present, was waterboarding, a practice that years later would be condemned as torture by Democrats and some Republicans on Capitol Hill. But on that day, no objections were raised. Instead, at least two lawmakers in the room asked the CIA to push harder, two U.S. officials said.

"The briefer was specifically asked if the methods were tough enough," said a U.S. official who witnessed the exchange.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/12/08/AR2007120801664_pf.html
(bolding mine)

[DCKit]

57. "Nancy Pelosi is an expert politician..."

And therefore, she should have known better. She made a bet and hitched her horses to the wrong team (mixed metaphor, but somehow it fits). She gambled and lost.

Fuck anyone who doesn't stand for the Constitution while serving in Congress.