Pelosi criticizes Truth Commission as inadequate, advocates criminal prosecutions

[kpete]

Source: Salon

Wednesday Feb. 25, 2009 14:44 EST
Pelosi criticizes Truth Commission as inadequate, advocates criminal prosecutions

This directly relates to the post I wrote earlier about Mark Benjamin's report that the Senate Judiciary Committee appear to be on the verge of creating a "Truth Commission" to investigate Bush crimes, but this is newsworthy in its own right, and so I wanted to highlight it separately:

In an interview today with Rachel Maddow -- to be broadcast on Maddow's MSNBC show tonight (and transcripts of which I've obtained) -- House Speaker Nancy Pelosi repeatedly advocated the need for criminal prosecutions, not merely fact-finding. She even directly criticized the proposal by Sen. Pat Leahy for a "Truth Commission," on the ground that such a Commission would improperly immunize lawbreakers and thus foreclose prosecutions:

MADDOW: This is something that liberals have really been pushing. And you have stated your support for John Conyers convening an investigation into potential lawbreaking in the Bush administration.

PELOSI: Absolutely.

MADDOW: You've been outspoken about contempt of Congress charges related to the politicization of the Justice Department and that investigation. You have been less specific about how Congress should proceed on warrantless wiretapping and torture. Why is that? . . .

PELOSI: Senator Leahy has a proposal, a Truth and Reconciliation Commission, which is a good idea. What I have some concern about though is it has immunity. And I think that some of the issues involved here, like the services part, politicizing of the Justice Department, and the rest, they have criminal ramifications, and I don't think we should be giving them immunity.

...................

MADDOW: Then in terms of your report, if the inspector general report that comes out this summer suggests that there has been criminal activity at the official level on issues like torture, or wireless wiretapping, or rendition, or any of these other issues...

PELOSI: No one is above the law. I think I have said that.

MADDOW: ... you support a call for a criminal investigation, potential investigation.

PELOSI: Absolutely.

Read more: http://www.salon.com/opinion/greenwald/2009/02/25/pelosi/index.html

[kirby]

1. Actions speak louder than words, Speaker Pelosi n/t

[BluePatriot21]

40. The mouth moves...

just like Charlie McCarthy, thing is the dummie never does anything else. I will believe that Pelosi has grown a spine when I see her DO something of ACTION and not of words. Then I will remove her the lsit of jellyfish and invertebrates.

[dflprincess]

56. Only when the botox starts wearing off

:evilgrin:

[IntravenousDemilo]

43. Ah, but she's the Speaker, not the Actor. n/m

[JenGatherer]

88. Oh, well said!

:rofl:

[tblue37]

54. I have long suspected that they were keeping their poweder dry for a

time when they had larger majorities. Sure, I realize that was cowardly, and the American public probably would have supported impeachment and criminal inquiries even when we had a small majority, if the Democratic House had used its investigative powers to publicly build the case, but they were afraid that they could still get burned with CheneyBushCo still in power and their toadies still in control of the DOJ.

Now, with the evil administration out to pasture and larger majorities in both houses, as well as Democratic president and Justice Department, including an AG who will back them up all the way, Pelosi is feeling safe to follow conscience rather than just political expediency and safety, because now they both point in the same direction.

[pnwmom]

70. If we had brought impeachment charges during the Bush era,

we wouldn't have had enough votes for conviction, because the Rethug controlled house would never have voted to convict. This is NOT the Watergate era -- it's much worse in many ways.

And if we had brought criminal charges against anyone, and obtained a conviction, Bush most likely would have either commuted the sentence, as he did with Libby, or pardon the individual altogether.

This isn't about political expediency. It's about obtaining justice -- which won't occur until some of these people are convicted criminals.

[tblue37]

85. That's pretty much what I figured, which is why I didn't hate Pelosi the way

so many here seem to.

[LynneSin]

58. It's not her job to do the investigation - just bring it to the floor when it's ready to vote

She says she supports what Conyers is doing - that's her job as Speaker

[mikelgb]

2. perhaps rumors that Dem co-conspirators would be called as well startled her

[The Stranger]

3. So what the fuck are we waiting for?

[mike_c]

4. I distrust anything Pelosi says on this topic....

She was the Bush administration's foremost protector in the U.S. House during his last term. Saying she wants prosecutions now just doesn't ring true.

[puebloknot]

8. She was against prosecutions, before the was for them. Impeachment ...

...was off the table, which by definition is a process to investigate whether there were impeachable acts, prior to referral to the Senate for trial. No, that's not criminal prosecution, but opposing impeachment was tantamount to opposing criminal prosecution, as well.

Pelosi is try to do a makeover, I think, to gloss over her abject failure over the last two years.

[JJ]

15. I didn't like it at the time, but I believe that if they'd have impeached Bush...

He would not have been convicted, not with CJ Roberts presiding,and

Sarah Palin would now be Vice-President.

[jmowreader]

34. We didn't have enough votes to get rid of him

The only way we could have removed Dipshit from the White House before 1/20/2009 is with 67 votes to convict in the Senate. Every Democrat would have voted to convict, and every Republican who wanted to continue his or her career in Republican politics would have voted to acquit. That's when Dipshit would have claimed his actions had been approved by the Senate...and then he would have gotten really bad.

Here's the other problem: Nancy Pelosi knows Bush is the First Name in American Organized Crime since 1901. If she would have gone after Shrub when he was in the White House, I would not put it past the bastard to attempt to kill her. Right now, he's out of power and his family's powerful friends are more than willing to save themselves by handing Shrub over. So he's cooked.

As to your other assumption...I think we'd still be looking at a Democratic president, but he'd have a lot fewer congressional Democrats to help him move his agenda forward. Their crime wouldn't have been trying to get rid of him, but rather failing.

[No Elephants]

69. The Chief Justice presides, but does not vote. The Senate could easily have convicted Dummya, but

then Cheney would have been President and lord only knows whom he would have chosen as his Vice President. How many people would they have had to impeach? The country would have been crippled and torn apart even more than the "Uniter" tore it apart.

[polmaven]

75. Tell us how, exactly,

the Senate could have convicted Bush.....Do you REALLY think any more than 2 or 3 Republicans would have voted for conviction?

I discussed this with my Congressman at a town-hall meeting. He agreed that the easy part would be the Impeachment...But conviction wasn't going to happen, and Bush/Cheney would look at that as justification of their actions...Now wouldn't THAT have been a treat?

[puebloknot]

100. Many of us argued (and I still do) that uncertainty about conviction ...

... should not have stopped an impeachment. It would have made a public and legitimate record of Bushco's crimes.

I don't know that Sarah Palin would have been Vice-President now over that issue. We can't hold back doing the right thing always, out of fear of political consequences. That's what got us here in the first place. ("Here" meaning all that has happened over the last eight years.)

[defendandprotect]

93. From what Pelosi says now, I can only conclude SHE was holding Conyers back . . .

And let's hope that things are loosening up now and moving soon to prosecutions -- !!???

[puebloknot]

101. I get the feeling that Pelosi is playing "CYA" now. I definitely have felt ...

...all along that Pelosi was holding Conyers back.

Yes, let's hope! :)

[Baby Snooks]

61. She is still the Empress protecting the Emperor...

She knows perfectly well no one will be prosecuted. Certainly not Bush or Cheney. If there was insufficient evidence to file for impeachment, there is insufficient evidence for prosecution. Prosecution might have followed impeachment even if the House had voted against it or the House voted for it but the Senate voted against conviction. But she kept it off the table. Knowing perfectly well that doing so would prevent prosecution. Maybe they can find another Libby or two to offer up as both scapegoat and sacrificial lamb but that is all they will be.

Time for everyone to accept reality. Unless Barack Obama decides to refer the matter to the UN Security Council no one will ever be held accountable. And while I would like to think Barack Obama would refer it I know he won't. Too many others would go down with the Bushes. And too many of them are on Capitol Hill. They have been complicit in all of it. Which is why so many in so many other countries hate us. They know what we refuse to even acknowledge. Bush and Cheney did not act alone.

Even if he did refer it, Great Britain would probably use its veto power to quash it. Parliament was complicit as well.

[rambler_american]

71. Question:

Although removal from office is obviously moot, can Congress still impeach and convict? It seems to me that both those things should happen in addition to criminal proceedings, though the latter would be enough to make me smile.

[defendandprotect]

95. ...and I think there is also precedent for considering conspiracy between VP and President -- !!

"Precedent" -- not in the sense of actual prior legal action -- but

in such an event having been understood to be possible and the founders

having given it credence.

[tomp]

73. agreed. something fishy here. nt

[Gregorian]

5. To paraphrase Malcom X- Stop singin' and start swingin'!

I'm a skeptic until I see some action. More than action. I want convictions.

[Quiz Master]

20. Understandable....

However, I doubt she'd say this if she was as "complicit" as so many 'round the liberal blogosphere were caterwhauling about....those folks had her tried and convicted in their own minds, and here she is outflanking them.

Anyhow, even though I thought Leahy's commissions were probably our best shot, I think this is a good development. Hey, it's weird seeing Glenn Greenwald for once unable to work himself into righteous wrath for a change (not that it's inappropriate for a constitutional watchdog to bark a lot).

Maybe law really is being restored.

[VP505]

29. I wouldn't be too quick to

jump to the conclusion that:

"I doubt she'd say this if she was as "complicit" as so many 'round the liberal blogosphere were caterwhauling about."

She may well have knowledge of something that could mean that she knows that NO ONE will ever be held accountable and she feels free to gain as much cred as she can wring out of putting on a good show of outrage. Just saying. :shrug:

[tavalon]

51. Accomplice.

[KoKo]

21. Agree...Conyers wimped out...Rove still refuses to testify along with others...

and this seems a "fake bone" thrown to Obama's Lefty Voters. I'll believe it when I see it. We on the side of "Truth Out" are always given promises where they throw out stuff and wait for the Right to Reply and tell them why they shouldn't do what they said they'd do...that we just wait and watch and sign petitions and give money to groups we hope will ONE DAY...hold THAT BUSH CRIME FAMILY ACCOUNTABLE FOR SOMETHING.

Wait and see...is what this DU'er is doing.

[shadowknows69]

6. Now Nancy gets some guts?

[apnu]

13. Really, now that Bush is gone maybe impeachment is back on the table (nt)

[Arkana]

16. We can't use this phrase anymore--our guy's in the White House, remember?

So let's go with "prosecution is back on the table."

[spiritual_gunfighter]

81. You can still impeach a president no longer in office

But impeachment and criminal prosecutions together is what should happen.

[FailureToCommunicate]

18. Nah, must be a passing whim... or the WRONG Nancy P. or... "Looks like meat

is back on the menu, boys!" IF she means it...

[Wizard777]

7. It is so nice to finally be able to agree with Mrs. Pelosi whole heartedly.

:patriot: :fistbump: :applause: :headbang: :yourock: :headbang: :applause: :fistbump: :patriot:

[BR_Parkway]

9. Would have not been needed if you'd called for impeachment

[Selatius]

10. Talk is so cheap. Bold words from a person who has signed blank checks to Mr. Bush's War.

I'd rather see some action than cheap words.

[tanngrisnir3]

11. Fuck that noise right off the table, Nancy

Can she ever get her story/priorities straight?

[nakanishi oshi]

12. Leahy's commission is a whitewash

I do not understand why Leahy is ignoring our international obligations. Torturers, once identified, must be prosecuted. We are a nation of laws.

[baldguy]

14. I guess impeachment for Bush's crimes is back on the table

Now that it's impossible.

[iconicgnom]

17. She has no excuses. If she honestly wants this, she can get it.

So why is she doing it already? Why is there all this yapping about immunity?
Like others, I'll believe it when I see it. The congressional dems haven't been impressive.

[elocs]

19. Evidently there is no pleasing some Liberals.

They piss and moan when you don't agree with them and then when you finally come around you get an, "About time, fuck off!" as a response. They don't believe in redemption unless they are ever in need of it and unless you bow, yield and kneel to them because nothing you will do will ever be good enough.

[Toasterlad]

38. When Pelosi Actually DOES Something Instead of SAYS Something, We Will Be Happy.

Sorry, I'm funny that way. I expect my elected representatives to actually defend and serve the constitution, not just talk it to death.

Too bad I can't join you in your sunny "anyone with a D after their name is automatically sponge-worthy" world, but I don't like the flavor of your Kool-Aid.

[liberalsince1968]

49. When politicians talk out of both sides of their mouths - and refused to take action when they

SHOULD have - then they deserve all the criticism they get.

Nancy Pelosi is a joke. There is no point in "redemption" because she wasn't there for us when it really counted. Now it's too late. I wouldn't trust her as far as I could throw her.

Leahy's "truth commission" is also a pointless joke. And where is Obama on this? SILENT as the grave.

[elocs]

60. And I have my confirmation. I knew it would come.

There are some Liberals who believe they know all there is to be known, are never wrong, and only their opinions have merit while nobody else ever has a point. Happily I am not among their number.

[IthinkThereforeIAM]

78. Ditto...

... I agree with your post. Too many do not understand that politics is compromise. And compromise can and does include timing.

[f the letter]

83. This is not a liberal/conservative matter.

It's people who think war crimes and crimes against humanity are so abhorrent and dangerous that they should be addressed immediately. Contrast this to those who say that the only means we have of removing the criminals is "off the table" for years, then conveniently claims that she is in favor of prosecution when the winds have changed a bit. What a cowardly, useless sham she has turned out to be. And it's not a matter of "knowing everything" either. Have you heard Pelosi speak over the last four years or so? She's stood in the way of investigations as often as she possibly can.

[Captain Hilts]

96. Ain't that the truth. We have a 'plays well with others' problem here. nt

[byeya]

22. Go To It Nancy! {I'll believe it when I see it} eom

[Jefferson23]

23. Oh Nancy, we all recall when you said on national TV :

Speaker Pelosi Declares That There is No Evidence of Any Crime by President Bush:
snip* If somebody had a crime that the President had committed, that would be a different story.

http://jonathanturley.org/2008/07/31/speaker-pelosi-declares-that-there-is-no-evidence-of-any-crime-by-president-bush/

IF she said not that long ago, pathetic Pelosi.

[libodem]

24. Thank you, Nancy!

Now, set this in motion. These people are criminals and the rest of history will be reading about this some day. We can't let them down. This is a saga of epic proportions.

[MasonJar]

25. Good for Pelosi. We need a Special Prosecutor asap. That is up to

Obama and his Justice Department. I know he is very hesitant to go after these Bushista crimes, but I do not know why. A Special Prosecutor, once appointed, is not in any way beholden to Obama, and so Obama will not be hurting his popularity by what the prosecutor says and does and finds. I truly believe that Leahy's Truth Commission is a pathetic idea, and I also think it is one that Obama supports.

[GoddessOfGuinness]

26. Thank you, Nancy! Now DO it.

Just think of the jobs that can be created in the legal sector of the economy.

[salguine]

27. Are you fucking SHITTING me!? After The Nancy took impeachment "off the table" because,

in her words, she could see no evidence of wrongdoing!? Oh, we are so fucking through the looking glass here, people.

You know what? I wish Pelosi was gone, right along with Dubya and Darth Cheney.

[tomp]

74. agreed, something fishy here. nt

[Peace Patriot]

28. Hm. Is Pelosi being hypocritical? I ask again: WHAT "table," Nancy?

"Impeachment is off the table." --Nancy Pelosi (Nov 06)

Further questions:

Did The Deal that occurred at that mysterious "table" include only the "made men" at the top (Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld and a maybe a few others) and their protected designees? Who are the designees? (For instance, did it include Rove?)

Did The Deal include not just impeachment (while in office) but also immunity from prosecution later on? (Side issue: Is this why Bush issued no pardons--all the top perps were immunized?)

If there is a thorough investigation, and crimes and perps are identified, will only the flunkies be subject to prosecution?

Is Pelosi telling the truth when she says she is concerned about the investigation immunizing people? Or is she already aware of who is immunized and who isn't, behind the scenes, as the result of The Deal at the mysterious "table" that impeachment was taken off of?

What was traded for immunity from impeachment and prosecution? My guesses: No nuking of Iran; Bush/Cheney leaving peacefully when the time came; and possibly also getting rid of Rumsfeld. (My guess--The Deal occurred circa late 2006.)

If such a Deal was made, what powers do Bush, Cheney are others still have to retaliate, if the terms of The Deal are violated--that is, if the principles are now prosecuted? (--blackmail, for instance? or, something to do with the Financial 9/11 they pulled off in September? Bushwhack moles who are still operating within the government? does Obama and/or the 'white hat' cabal who did The Deal have full control of the government--or is the effort to regain full control of the government on-going?)

Why can't the American people be told the truth?

[Enrique]

30. was Obama in on The Deal too?

Bernie Sanders too?

[and-justice-for-all]

31. Is it on the table??

They would not impeach the fuckers, so I am not going to hold my breath on this one.

[Jackpine Radical]

32. Pelosi always said that she didn't want to impeach for tactical reasons:

a) It would be a huge distraction and
b) It would fail, pissing off the public.

I didn't agree with her on either count, but it is possible she was fully sincere in this reasoning, and now only a month after the inauguration she's ready to go for Republican blood. I hope it's true.

[FourScore]

48. That's exactly what i'm wondering. n/t

[omega minimo]

33. poll/links to add yourself and/or DU to Geoups supporting prosecution

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=389&topic_id=5127177&mesg_id=5136039

[Zhade]

35. Believe it when I see it. Now's her chance to stop being a coward.

Let's see if she means it, or if she's still willing to let criminals walk.

For the record, I support arresting the war criminals.

[Tesha]

36. 2922 days late and a dollar short, Pelosi. (NT)

[Toasterlad]

37. What a Tremendous Leader You Are, Nancy.

Thank you so much for talking tough, not when you knew Bush had lied us into an illegal war, not when evidence of it began to surface, not when you received a clear mandate from the voters to end the war and hold those responsible accountable, but NOW, now that you have Obama to hide behind and a couple dozen more blue seats to stand in front of. Now is CLEARLY the time to talk tough, and demonstrate what a forceful woman of integrity you are. Just please don't follow through and actually DO anything. I couldn't handle my image of you being so totally blown.

[ProgressIn2008]

39. God, what a hypocrite. And the trail leads back to the cowardly Dem leadership, too. nt

[L. Coyote]

41. Starts in a few minutes = LINK = play on demand too

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/26315908/#29374420

[Bryan Sacks]

42. Do we get to investigate her, too? n/t

[veganlush]

44. right on

[Union Yes]

45. Investigate Israel.

If you want to uncover warcrimes Nancy, you must go to the source.

Bushco was the puppet. Guilty as hell but he had his strings pulled.

Include Israel in this investigation.

[Ohio Joe]

66. Are you serious?

You believe Israel controlled Bush&Co?

[deacon]

46. Redeem yourself! Do the right thing and investigate. n/t

[NoodleyAppendage]

47. Transparent attempt to kill Levin's effort. In effect, kicking the ball down the court. Typical.

Pelosi is WORTHLESS.

J

[Moochy]

55. Worthless to us

And yet, worth quite alot to her fellow possibly-indicted plutocrats.

[tavalon]

50. Is this a body snatchers moment?

Pelosi, who forgot to set the table now wants to light it on fire?

Weird.

[JackRiddler]

52. Suspicion: Just a maneuver to kill Leahy's idea.

Prosecutions won't follow w/o a prosecutor, so until she suggests something concrete, this looks like stonewalling Leahy.

[liberalsince1968]

53. :smacks forehead: I think you are exactly right.

[f the letter]

84. i agree. She's stalling and trying to kill it. n/t

[scytherius]

57. I wouldn't trust Pelosi if I could go forward in time to see her do it. n/t

nt

[Juan_de_la_Dem]

59. I am reminded of the Peanuts' Adult Character audio

I would love for it to be true, but I kind of feel anesthetized to this type of talk

[peacetalksforall]

62. I believed that the problem was timing. I gave her some credit in knowing

when to strike. I believed in her 50-50. I think 50% was a lot of trust based on the inaction.

I had been worried obsessively in the thought that their would be a Pentagon coup of the Congressional Branch if they moved while the thugs were still in the WH. Something could still happen, but it would be much more difficult to sustain.

I felt that they couldn't possible bundle all the crimes, they had to pick and choose to find the one or two that would really stick.

I believed the knowledgeable DUers who told us that it is never too late to impeach. I always wished that the cases could be in the Federal courts, rather the court of the Senate. I wanted a dozen trials all being prepared concurrently.

With her statement today, I guess i'm now at 51-49 in favor of believing her.

I think we have to admit that there were way too many sleeping and clock obsessed citizens who have learned plenty in the last two months. They are waking up and they need to be awake to support an action. They weren't before.

The citizens have so many people warring against them. The corporate-brass, the monetary mafia, the most vile of the CIA, the entire old NSA (all the agencies starting with an N), and all the corporate-media. And, yes, to the person who brought up Israel - their power in the Pentagon and in the State Dept, intelligence agencies is or has been solid. It has been foolish to NEVER, EVER call them down for their inhumanity (except for our hypocrisy in criticizing another country for inhumanity.) What we still have to fear are the Dems who are no better than Republicans.

Fighting our own is demoralizing.

Republicans fighting Pres. Obama on an attempt to reverse our downfall is putting a spotlight on a lot of our enemies.

Let's hope that a betrayal is not on the table.

[riverdeep]

63. Superficially, it's the right move.

But will it ever happen? Will we ever see the sight of a former President and Vice President being led away in shackles? Even Alberto Gonzales or Rumsfeld? If I were a betting man, no way I would bet the house on it happening, given her history.

[JackRiddler]

64. Nancy's plan? Three years from now: Coals for Fitzmas, again!

In this maneuvering (or are they all only posturing?), who if anyone should I believe actually means to do the right thing?

Of course I prefer prosecution! A criminal junta came to power in a stolen election, declared a doctrine of absolutism and launched aggressive wars, killing unknown hundreds of thousands of people.

But when Pelosi says it, I figure I've seen this movie before. Here is my fear: We get to wait for three years, read a lot of Web-only speculation about pending indictments, hear nothing about what's going on...

And then, when the glorious day finally arrives, the New Fitz issues a couple of parking tickets to Douglas Feith (for example), who then has a 14-month process during which time he is heroized by Rush and the other RW nuts, before he pleads in early 2012 to some perjury bullshit and gets off on parole. Mission Accomplished.

My feeling is, Leahy, the target of an anthrax attack, might actually know what he is doing: bring out the shit first, soon as possible, even granting immunity to some of the perps. The unspoken part being to stir the public outrage to the point where prosecution of bigger fish becomes a serious alternative. A loud educational effort has to precede everything else, if you want to see success. It's not enough that the majority now think the Bush regime was utterly corrupt; you still need disclosures and details on individual involvements.

As for the supposed specter of granting immunity: There is no way in hell big players will go to Leahy's truth commission! Do you see Cheney voluntarily showing up for his immunity card? Leahy's idea might be to get some lower-level whistleblowers, and set off an avalanche.

People keep thinking Obama is a brilliant tactician who unveils his next step only when the timing is right, maybe Leahy is too?

Who here trusts Pelosi?

.

[ProudDad]

65. Wha!!!!!!!!!!!!!!???????????

:nuke: (Head Explodes) :nuke:

Where the hell were you 2 years ago???

Well, better late than never.


Anyone know where's bush the lesser these days?

[Bette Noir]

67. This is Nancy "Impeachment Is Off the Table" Pelosi?

I like this version better.

[w4rma]

68. Very good. (nt)

[eridani]

72. Why not in 2007? n/t

[rosesaylavee]

76. Well, I guess we will see if she means it.

[RandomThoughts]

77. Maybe many are more cynical then me.

But she is advocating what many of you have asked for. And if she was involved in the actions, that just shows that much more courage, personally from the answers she gave, I believe she was being honest. Considering she was not allowed to discuss anything Bush/Cheney told her, and they never said they were actually doing it, I don't see her being complicit.

In 2002 How many of you would have backed her up if she would have broken the secrets act, and gone to jail just to let us know what the Bush Administration mentioned they might do. Many of you aren't even backing her up now.

I figure it is up to Congress and Executive branch to decide how they will handle the past actions of Bush/Cheney, they are who we elected, and they are responsible now as we move forward. But when Whitehouse or Pelosi stands up, I will applaud them for it.

[mdmc]

79. talk...

so cheap
ACT!

[BridgeTheGap]

80. Nancy, Med Pot is legal now in your home state. Get a script, load up the vaporizer

let the thc do its work, then get creative about what you can DO about the criminals now out of power. These people are traitors and should be dealt with as such.

[Iggo]

82. She's right.

I don't believe for a second she intends to do anything about it.

I do believe she's either the dog or the pony in this show.

But what she says about immunity is right.

[ProSense]

86. Excellent, and much better than impeachment

The Bush years were sorry and devastating, but the last thing anyone wanted was to have some lame proceeding stand in the way of real justice:

Impeachment is a very serious affair. It is perhaps the most awesome power of Congress, the ultimate weapon it wields against officials of the federal government. The House of Representatives is the prosecutor. The Senate chamber is the courtroom. The Senate is the jury and also the judge, except in the case of a presidential impeachment trial when the chief justice presides. The harshest penalty is removal from office and disqualification from holding future offices. There is no appeal.

The crazy thing is that it would have required 67 votes to remove Bush and cheney from office. During the 110th Congress that translated to all the Dems and 17 Repubs. It was never going to happen.

[bdamomma]

87. oh well, I am still waiting for Rove to be hauled the House Judiciary

Committee has anyone seen that yet? If we do not hold these criminals responsible for their crimes they will do it again. I want to see action now.

It take all of us to keep this on table and keep on calling our Reps let us be pain in the a$$es to them, we have all had enough.

[robinlynne]

89. what?

[ElboRuum]

90. IBIWISIMS - a new Pelosi specific DU acronym.

I'll
Believe
It
When
I
See
It
Madam
Speaker

That's all fine and good for her to say. It's a damned fine thing to say. It has political win written all over it. Now, I'll congratulate her on doing the right thing if she spearheads an effort to actually conduct an investigation and bring charges against those who merit them. Until then, she's still the two-faced self-preservation artist telling her constituents to get off her lawn.

[Enthusiast]

91. I have been quick to criticize Pelosi

in the past. Last night on R Maddow I found her answers credible. She is on our side.

[defendandprotect]

92. One of the puzzlements for me is why the military hasn't moved on this . . .

we have the Taguba report -- and torture is ILLEGAL according to miltiary rules . . .

is it not?

Miller is prime for imprisonment, as far as I can see.

And, once these things get rolling, I'm quite sure that the whistleblowing witnesses

will be there --- !!!

They are the ones who have show great courage -- as Taguba has!!

[SlingBlade]

94. Pelosi has no grounds to criticize

When she speaks of criminal prosecutions the very first thing that comes to my mind is KKKarl Rove and his antics, What exactly has Pelosi done about that ? Nothing!

She's attempting to obstruct, Simple as that.

[Myrina]

97. Is Pelosi confused?

For the last 3 years, she was the Bush White House's lackey, now we have a DEMOCRAT in the White House and she's pissing on half of what he wants to do. Parts of her interview with Rachel Maddow really made me think :wtf: ???

Is she really a GOP Mole? :shrug:

[mfeher1971]

98. Since when did Nancy "Impeachment Is Off The Table" Pelosi ever favor this?

Remember, it would have been "partisan" and "divisive"???

[Imagevision]

99. Nance, c'mon we've been hearing this for too long, let's get the show on the road!

Obama clearly stated that no one is above the law? - we'll see...