Evidence Showing Pelosi Must Recuse Herself On Impeachment

[Phred42]

Well - I guess she really IS protecting Bush & Cheney.

The Democratic 'Leadership' are, and have been, the Silent partners of the Reich all along.

We must remove Pelosi FIRST - Ony Then can we Impeach the Bastards

Reid - your next up for removal

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~


Evidence Showing Pelosi Must Recuse Herself On Impeachment

http://tpmcafe.talkingpointsmemo.com/talk/2008/06/evidence-showing-pelosi-must-r.php

Apparently, Pelosi was involved with policy making decisions on torture and NSA surveillance. Either Pelosi recuses herself and makes way for an impeachment investigation -- which may implicate her as an alleged co-conspirator; or the House must remove Pelosi as Speaker for her alleged ethics breaches and refusal to permit the House to enforce the laws of war through impeachment.

Have you wondered why Speaker Pelosi took impeachment "off" the table? She made this decision before conducting any fact finding. Or, so she wants us to believe.
The (apparent) truth is surprising. Information has been developed, and forwarded to Congressman Conyers, strongly suggesting Pelosi knows far more than she's admitting.
This week, Professor Turley accused the Congress of collusion. There's aparently some substance to this allegation.
Apparently, Pelosi was involved with policy making decisions on torture and NSA surveillance. We've also learned Harman knew some things, but didn't say something.
David writes, implicitly suggesting Pelosi must recuse herself:

Pelosi's criminal participation and duties can be defined even more clearly, since she participated in discussions of both warrantless surveillance and torture -- Articles 24 and 18 of the Impeachment case.

[seemslikeadream]

1. That's it

[Benhurst]

2. Recuse herself?

She should resign.

And she should be sent to the Hague with her co-conspirators.

[az chela]

3. They all need to be charged as

WAR CRIMINALS

[checks-n-balances]

4. She has effectively taken away constitutional protection

or the right of citizens to be protected from executive malfeasance (at the very least).

Couldn't that be called "Obstruction of Justice"?

[Phred42]

18. Damn good points!

Time to start hammering on these.



:toast:

[cali]

5. The author, some anonymous poster on TPM provides no

evidence for his charges whatsofucking ever. I hate, detest and despise witchhunts no matter how much support they have. Pelosi isn't my ideal of a speaker, that's for sure, but a war criminal? I want evidence of it. And so far none of the little witch hunters have shown any real evidence.

[petgoat]

7. Nancy was complicit in torture. She was informed in 2002 as one of the Gang of 8.

She did nothing to stop it. She did not object. She did not reveal it.
She's up to her eyebrows in bloody shit.

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

Nuremberg Principles:

Principle VII

Complicity in the commission of a crime against peace, a war crime, or a crime against humanity as set forth in Principle VI is a crime under international law.

Torture is a war crime.

[mzmolly]

14. "Recollections of briefings varied greatly...." "no objections were raised THAT DAY" "details not

disclosed"

I smell spin?

[petgoat]

28. When did Nancy ever raise objections? She's complicit in torture. nt

[mzmolly]

30. One would have to know if she was properly informed first.

One would also have to know what was discussed in a classified manner.

http://www.house.gov/pelosi/press/releases/Nov05/torture.html

"I served many years on the Intelligence Committee, and I know we endanger our own troops and personnel when we use torture, because it can be used on them. The quality of intelligence that is collected by torture is worthless – it is uncorroborated and it is worthless. We have the know-how, the personnel, and the resources in our country to protect the American people in a way that protects our values, that reflects the priorities of our citizens. And that means not using torture." ~ Nancy Pelosi

[mzmolly]

8. Agreed!

"Apparently, Pelosi was involved with policy making decisions on torture and NSA surveillance."

Apparent to whom? I need more than innuendo to assume that our Speaker approved of torture.

[Occam Bandage]

17. "Apparently" is usually code for "The following is bullshit:"

[orleans]

27. omg

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 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

[mzmolly]

29. dup, sorry.

eom

[mzmolly]

33. LOL

yes indeed.

[petgoat]

20. Silence gives consent. WH cited Gang of 8 briefing as fulfilling their duty to notify Congress, nt

[mzmolly]

31. Not if one is unaware.

However Nancy was not silent -

“I served many years on the Intelligence Committee, and I know we endanger our own troops and personnel when we use torture, because it can be used on them. The quality of intelligence that is collected by torture is worthless – it is uncorroborated and it is worthless. We have the know-how, the personnel, and the resources in our country to protect the American people in a way that protects our values, that reflects the priorities of our citizens. And that means not using torture." ~ Nancy Pelosi

[DearAbby]

22. Being silent is being complicit

when a crime has taken place, and you don't say anything to expose it, you are a willing accomplice to the crime. When Pelosi and others (gang of 8) were briefed, they knew that it was unconstitutional and against the law, they did not come forward to stop it, or expose it. They became willing accomplices to the crime.

[mzmolly]

34. Again, what was covered in the brief is debatable.

Also, we don't know if anyone objected because the "gang of eight" were likely discussing classified information which would have been illegal to reveal.

I sure wish I could subsribe to an all or nothing thought process about this, but I can't. I wasn't there, I do not know what was said to whom, by whom.

What I have witnessed is continual attempts by the media to divide democrats with BS like this and a segment of progressives that bite on it every time Dearabby.

I don't consider this silent.

http://www.house.gov/pelosi/press/releases/Nov05/torture.html

"“I served many years on the Intelligence Committee, and I know we endanger our own troops and personnel when we use torture, because it can be used on them. The quality of intelligence that is collected by torture is worthless – it is uncorroborated and it is worthless. We have the know-how, the personnel, and the resources in our country to protect the American people in a way that protects our values, that reflects the priorities of our citizens. And that means not using torture." ~ Nancy Pelosi

[orleans]

26. omg

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 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

[mzmolly]

32. Again, descriptions about what was involved in the briefing vary.

http://www.house.gov/pelosi/press/releases/Nov05/torture.html


Pelosi: ‘Torture is not Consistent with American Values’
Wednesday, November 16, 2005

Contact: Brendan Daly/Jennifer Crider, 202-226-7616

Washington, D.C. – House Democratic Leader Nancy Pelosi joined other Democratic leaders at a press stakeout this morning after the Democratic Caucus meeting to discuss the House Republicans’ opposition to banning torture. Below are Pelosi’s remarks:

“Thank you very much, Mr. Menendez. I want to commend you, the Chairman of our Caucus, for your leadership on these issues, about honoring our responsibility to the American people. To protect them is our first responsibility. And what is happening in Iraq raises a big question as to whether it is making America safer.

“When we put our young men and women in harm’s way, we always owe the American people the truth, and that is what the Congress is asking the President for: the truth.

“I served many years on the Intelligence Committee, and I know we endanger our own troops and personnel when we use torture, because it can be used on them. The quality of intelligence that is collected by torture is worthless – it is uncorroborated and it is worthless. We have the know-how, the personnel, and the resources in our country to protect the American people in a way that protects our values, that reflects the priorities of our citizens. And that means not using torture.

“I urge the Speaker to appoint House conferees to the defense appropriations bill immediately so that Congressman Murtha can offer his motion to instruct conferees, which would demonstrate the House’s strong opposition to the torture of detainees. We must send a clear message to the world that torture is not consistent with American values.” ~ Nancy Pelosi

[Greyhound]

24. The fact that you do not acknowledge it in no way diminishes it's relevance.

There is a mountain of evidence and much more to be discovered by anyone that looks.

Pretend not to see it all you want.

"Do you know where that smell is coming from"? - a good German.

[LiberalFighter]

6. If this is true Obama needs to backdoor Pelosi out of office. IF TRUE!

[Blarch]

10. What do you mean "if true"

It is already 100% fact that she is protecting war criminals. This story is just a pileon at this point.

[cali]

11. what crap. no one has provided and fucking evidence at all that

Pelosi is protecting bushco. Too many people here are utterly fucking clueless as what constitutes evidence. But never mind, have at it with your witch hunt. Wouldn't want to interrupt the the mob when they're so busy with their pitchfords and tar. carry on.

[petgoat]

13. Pelosi is protecting Bushco by pre-emptively vetoing impeachment. nt

[Two Americas]

35. oh my, how low have we sunk?

People tortured and raped, including children, people held in indefinite detention without charges and treated like animals, bribes paid to people for arresting and handing over innocent people for barbaric treatment, and you would have us worry about a multi-millionaire politician with immense power and have us see her as the victim of a "witch hunt" because a few of us question or criticize her behavior, which well may be complicit with the horrors that have been occurring?

In a representative democracy, when the government belongs to the people, the benefit of the doubt and the presumption of innocence goes with the common people, not those enjoying immense power and holding positions of public trust. The burden of proof is on the government officials, on the authorities, not on the dissidents and critics.

None of us have the power to charge, convict or even be more than an easily brushed away gnat to Speaker Pelosi. She is in no danger from us, and trying to batter people into silence about this with specious arguments about "evidence" and unfair treatment of politicians is indefensible.

This has nothing to do with who is holding any evidence, nor with anyone's understanding as to what evidence might be. There certainly IS evidence. You may not like that, you may be correct that it is insufficient evidence at this point to support the speculations and conclusions made by some people on this thread, but we have a sacred duty and civic responsibility to raise these questions, and mocking and ridiculing people for doing that is highly authoritarian and reactionary.

[Blarch]

9. She should be charged, tried, convicted, and jailed

[petgoat]

12. Impeach Nancy First. nt

[Occam Bandage]

16. You can't impeach Senators or Representatives. Moreover, who would do the "impeaching?"

Her own party? Why wouldn't they just decide on a new Speaker? And for what--for not pushing an impeachment bill that they themselves (with the exception of a handful) do not want?

[petgoat]

Senator William Blount was impeached. Whether Reps can be impeached is an open question.

Reps can be expelled. Semantics. Nancy's got to go!

[Occam Bandage]

23. And the 1799 attempt to impeach Bluont stalled because the House did not have

jurisdiction to impeach a Senator or Representative. There was no vote, because to vote either way would have been offering support to the notion that the House had authority to impeach members of Congress.

Instead, the Senate voted to expel Bluont, and left the impeachment to die. Since 1799, they haven't tried again. Senators/Representatives cannot be impeached.

(And as for expelling? Same question: why would the House vote to expel its speaker on the merits of her refusal to push a bill that nobody save a handful of the leftmost wants?)

[petgoat]

25. The House Would Vote to Expel the Speaker for Complicity in War Crimes nt

[Occam Bandage]

15. Recuse? What the fuck does that mean? Are you just throwing legal-sounding terminology around,

much as an angry toddler will fling his mac-and-cheese against the walls?

Seriously, "recuse" does not even make sense here. She isn't a judge and this isn't a legal case; she's a Speaker and this is a bill in the House. Are you saying that Nancy Pelosi should withhold her vote on impeachment? Are you saying that she should bring it to the floor? Wouldn't pushing an impeachment bill to the floor be the exact opposite of recusing herself?

[KharmaTrain]

19. Anyone Ever Heard Of Conflict Of Interest?

She stands to politically gain from an impeachment...or so it would be viewed...especially by the corporate media. Again, be assured if such a scenario happened, we'd hear non-stop about how the Democrats were attempting to "overthrow" an election and that somehow Pelosi is/was involved in this.

Once again...damn this gets tedious. It's not up to the Speaker to move impeachment. That's not how it happened for Nixon or Clinton. It falls upon the Democratic leadership...a guy by the name of Steny Hoyer...ever heard of him? He controls the Democratic agenda in the House and if he wants this ball to roll it rolls...if not, it gets sent to committee.

Pelosi's job is, in theory, a representative of the entire House...not just one party and in that role you don't see her propose legislation or get into any controversial legislation...again, that falls to the Majority leader. In the past, that was Tom DeLay...he was the one who did the moving and shaking on Clinton's impeachment, not Gingrich or Hastert.

But then...nothing makes one's life feel good around here than a good case of Pelosi hate.

[Phred42]

21. So she should ingnore hre Sworn obligations because the Reich might call her a name?

:banghead:

Luckily the Founding Fathers had more guts.

[MonkeyFunk]

36. stop the idiocy

really, just stop it.

[Freddie Stubbs]

37. The House hasn't voted on impeachment, so there is nothing to recuse herself from

All of the articles of impeachment are in the hands of the Judiciary Committee. Chairman Conyers has so far chosen to not schedule any hearings on those articles of impeachment.