The ad the Repigs would use if Pelosi said impeachment on table

[zulchzulu]

For people who seem to think that Pelosi should say impeachment is on the table might have a better understanding why she has said what she has.

I'm sick of hearing people like Ed Schultz that simply don't get it.

Here's the ad the Repigs would use:

Sound:
Eery music sound bed comes on.

Visual:
Bad picture of Nancy Pelosi with goofy expression really zoomed in and slowly zooming back as voiceover begins:

VO:
Nancy Pelosi says that if the Democrats win in November that the impeachment of President George W. Bush would begin as soon as she takes charge of Congress.

Nancy Pelosi, who has been in parades with pedofiles in San Francisco, would be in charge.

Nancy Pelosi would demand the impeachment of not only George W. Bush but also the Vice President, Richard Cheney.

Nancy Pelosi would do these deeds and become...

Sound:
Loud snare drum, gong and military drumming added to eery sound bed

...President of the United States!

Graphic of Pelosi fades and bold type comes on "Is that what the American People want?"

Fade to "Vote Republican this November." with slow motion of family happily playing iu autumn leaves

[SlipperySlope]

1. Thank You

It didn't dawn on me before this; some people would perceive that she had a conflict of interest as "3rd in command". I was just scratching my head wondering WTF?

If the rest of the D make enough demand, she can "reluctantly" change her mind.

[zulchzulu]

4. Here's what will happen

Conyers will get subpoena power and begin the process. It will be damning evidence. Pelosi will obviously then step in and say that justice must done... Boom, bing, bang...done.

[onenote]

6. more likely, this is what will happen

Conyers will issue subpoenas. Chimpy will invoke executive privilege, citing national security. The Democrats will push. The matter will drag through the courts, ending up with the SCOTUS, which will side with the administration.

[zulchzulu]

7. If Chimpy invokes executive privilege, a lot of GOP would peel off

...and join in a bi-partisan impeachment effort. There is no way that Bush would be able to get away with it. SCOTUS would have to allow hearings to continue.

[onenote]

8. I doubt that -- they love the "national security" blanket

They will rally to chimpy's support, claiming that the application of the doctrine of executive privilege to matters involving national security is well settled. And why do you think this SCOTUS will support a Democratic Congress is a fight with chimpy?

[zulchzulu]

9. Even SCOTUS couldn't allow the obvious desperation

Chimpy would look like he is trying to cover up evidence. The reasoning that SCOTUS would allow for him to get away with it would have to so apparent that they don't prefer justice that it would imply that they have no power. It would be 6-3 with Thomas, Scalia and Alito siding with the Chimp.

[onenote]

13. Again, I disagree

Chimpy and gang have repeatedly invoked executive privilege in the past without any downside. And the one area that precedent strongly supports the invocation of the privilege is with respect to national security. You really think Roberts would go against that precedent and support what would be portrayed as an intrusion into the executive branch's traditional powers?

Look, I'm not saying I like this outcome. But I am saying that we all know how the other side plays these things and that they will play the national security card to the hilt. The leading SCOTUS case on executive privilege is US v. Nixon, where the court rejected Nixon's claim of executive privilege as to communications not related to national security sought in the context of a federal grand jury investigation. What the unanimous court said in that case bears consideration when trying to predict what the current court likely would do if chimpy resists congressional subpoenas for information about the run up to and conduct of the war:

In this case the President challenges a subpoena served on him as a third party requiring the production of materials for use in a criminal prosecution; he does so on the claim that he has a privilege against disclosure of confidential communications. He does not place his claim of privilege on the ground they are military or diplomatic secrets. As to these areas of Art. II duties the courts have traditionally shown the utmost deference to Presidential responsibilities. In C. & S. Air Lines v. Waterman S. S. Corp., 333 U.S. 103, 111 (1948), dealing with Presidential authority involving foreign policy considerations, the Court said: "The President, both as Commander-in-Chief and as the Nation's organ for foreign affairs, has available intelligence services whose reports are not and ought not to be published to the world. It would be intolerable that courts, without the relevant information, should review and perhaps nullify actions of the Executive taken on information properly held secret."

ON edit: What we need to anticipate is that the repubs will take the issue of whether the president should be forced to disclose information that the pres claims relates to national security and they will try to jam it down our throats with the public, portraying it as an effort by Democrats to "help the enemy" by revealing secret intelligence information and information gathering capabilities. I'm as offended as anyone by the idea of the same jerks that cavalierly exposed Valarie Plame for political purposes making this argument, but (a) they are without shame and (b) its been shown to work in the past, as reflected by the general absence of public outrage over the Plame affair.

[zulchzulu]

15. Conyers could call Chimp's Exec Priv. abuse another impeachable offense

I really don't think it would even make it to SCOTUS if Chimp tried to use executive privs on a subpoena.

After all, the process would initially be behind closed doors and he couldn't say bringing evidence is a danger to national security. That would imply that Congress shouldn't be allowed to see classified information. That would imply that the White House is above and not an equal branch of government.

We can agree to disagree. But I could see how Chimp would only make it easier for a bi-partisan impeachment effort if he dared to use executive privvies...

[onenote]

16. yes he could

but I doubt it would pick up a lot of public support if the court was to rule in chimpy's favor.

To add a bit of additional context: the executive and legislative branches historically have taken diametrically opposed views on Congress' power to compel testimony and/or document production from the office of the President and his advisors. The executive branch position, which is that the president and his close advisors (whatever that might mean) are immunized from congressional demands for testimony by the doctrine of separation of powers, is described in this memo from Janet Reno to Pres. Clinton: http://www.usdoj.gov/olc/falnpotus.htm

Not surprisingly, the legislative branch takes an altogether different view, arguing that oversight of policy matters is within its constitutional role. Where disputes have arisen in the past, Congress has attempted to use its contempt authority to compel compliance with its demands. In most instances, the stand off is resolved by compromise rather than in the courts -- often through a limited production of documents under tight restrictions as to how long and by whom the documents can be reviewed, limits on copying.

While a rational executive branch might seek to avoid a constitutional confrontation by a limited compliance with a subpoena worked out with congress, I don't view this administration as rational. And if the sought-after testimony/documents is damning to the administration they will never willingly give it up. INstead, I believe that they would be willing to push the confrontation to the farthest limit, and I further believe that repubs in Congress would (faced with the alternative, which would be to reveal to the world the misdeeds of the administration they blindly supported) will go to the mat as well. In the end, the matter ends up before the SCOTUS as was the case during Watergate. Only this time, I fear (with good reason) that a majority of the court will side with a btroad deference to the executive on matters characterized as having to do with foreign policy and national security.

Its a very sucky outcome, but I believe we all know what the repubs are capable of and how they are able to scare the public. I would hope you are right that the public wouldn't fall for it, but recent history makes me wary of reaching that conclusion.

[ClassWarrior]

10. You seem to doubt a lot around here. Why do you stay?

NGU.

[onenote]

11. If you doubt me, why don't you leave.

I stay because I'm a lifelong Democrat who happens to think that looking at things clearly and realistically is important.

[ClassWarrior]

12. Ahhh, so "looking at things clearly and realistically" means...

...disagreeing with other Democrats most of the time?

I'm sincerely curious. I didn't ask you to leave. I asked why you stay.

NGU.

[onenote]

14. I stay because I think I contribute to the discussion

by not simply accepting statements that I believe are debatable if not unsupportable. Because I think that, as Democrats, we strengthen our case by testing it against each other to ensure that we cast off our weak arguments and weak strategy and go into battle having fully vetted the potential consequences of various courses of action.

[pat_k]

20. Here's something. . .

. . . I have directed onenote to a number of times -- didn't seem to help tho.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=364&topic_id=2302569

[pat_k]

18. Fingers crossed. . .

. . nevertheless, Nancy's pledge is a monumental error morally and politically.
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=364&topic_id=2458812&mesg_id=2459400

[DURHAM D]

2. Had to listen to DumbEd earlier. Can't get Randi in the car.

Such a sad pathetic lite-weight.

[napi21]

3. If you listened to enough of Edk, you would have heard him say

HEthinks she's only saying it to difuse the Pub response! He has had a lot of callerswith a different opinion, but THAT is his, and I agree with him.

[zulchzulu]

5. Ed's response that he wouldn't respond is clueless

Pelosi said it's "off the table". Done.

They have no issue.

If she said (as Ed would like her to say) that she doesn't know or that she's not sure...then they HAVE THE ISSUE.

Things can be "off the table", but after further review, be put back "on the table".

[pat_k]

19. We should take comfort that she is lying?

Her pledge is a monumental mistake both morally and politically.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=364&topic_id=2458812&mesg_id=2459400

[pat_k]

17. There is no rationalization for dereliction of duty. . .

. . .and the dems could VERY easily deal with that by simply pointing out that point out that Bush and Cheney can choose to keep the Presidency Republican. It's as easy as 1, 2, 3:

1. Cheney resigns, Bush nominates new VP.
   
   The VP must be confirmed by both the House and Senate. Since we elected these folks, if they object to a nominee, that objection reflects our will.


2. Bush resigns, new VP is sworn in as President.


3. New President nominates a VP.
   
   Once again, the VP he/she nominates must be confirmed by both the House and Senate, and therefore meets with our approval (through the people who represent us).

The Democratic members of the Congress fighting for impeachment need to sincerely express their fervent hope that Bush and Cheney do this (and they need to actually BE sincere, so they had better give the moral principles long hard thought).

They need to be clear that they actually want things to play out this way because they do not want the nation to have ANY Question about whether or not their motivation is partisan. If they are clear with themselves, they will be clear with the nation.

Of course, if Bush and Cheney choose to be removed by force, then the succession We the People have established in the 25th amendment will govern, and the Democratic Speaker will take the office of the Presidency. Since this succession is in accordance with the laws we established, it is also a reflection of our will.

Pointing out the choices that are available to the criminals in the WH is also a way to speed up the whole process. It shifts the accusations that "they are subjecting the nation to a long painful process" to Bush and Cheney.

When they decide to just "do the right thing" things are always far simpler" than the insiders with all their partisan machinations and "strategery" can imagine.

Failing to accuse Bush and Cheney of their crimes = Exoneration. And that is FAR more damaging to the nation, and the Democratic Party. Particularly given the national polls on impeachment. Despite the 100% anti-impeachment propaganda being beaten into the national psyche by the beltway establishment, they have gooten ONLY 44% of the electorate to say "shouldn't impeach."

They are betraying their oath to defend the Constitution for nothing.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=364&topic_id=2458812&mesg_id=2459400