Speaker Pelosi Must Be Removed For Her Illegal Position on Impeachment Investigation

[nebula]

Talking Points Memo
June 11, 2008, 11:32AM

Congressman Dennis Kucinich introduced 35 Articles of Impeachment against the President of the United States. Speaker Pelosi's position remains, "Impeachment is off the table." This is not leadership, but complicity with war crimes:

“Speaker Pelosi will continue to lead legislative efforts to find a new direction in Iraq but believes that impeachment would create a divisive battle, be a distraction from Congress’ efforts to chart a new course for America’s working families and would ultimately fail,” said her spokesman Nadeam Elshami.

The Speaker's excuses are frivolous. One does not agree to remain complicit with tyranny on the illusion fact finding might be divisive. Division is the intent of the Framers: To ensure power is not centralized, and divided. Pelosi supports centralizing unchecked power under tyranny, not just this President and Congress

An investigation to gather facts -- which she opposes -- is not the same as a decision to impeach. Pelosi cannot explain how she arrived at her conclusion: To not investigate, and without any review of evidence, trump the House.

The Constitution does not delegate any power to the Speaker to decide impeachment issues. That power was only delegated to the House of Representatives.

...Speaker Pelosi is confused. She is (for now) Speaker, not the Constitutionally recognized chamber. The Speaker has no power to impeach; and no legal authority to compel the House not to investigate and not to debate articles of impeachment.

Any Member of the House who asserts "The Speaker Said" as an excuse not to investigate the President suggests, in our view, they are not fit to be trusted with power or access to the voting machines on the House floor.

Refusal To Investigate: Alleged Complicity With War Crimes

It is irrelevant what the Senate may or may not do. The House and Senate are not the same. The House has the responsibility to investigate facts, then review the evidence to decide whether or not there should be charges filed. That is something the House -- not the Speaker -- must decide after conducting an investigation and reviewing the facts.

Once the House decides or does not decide to charge the President with a crime, then the Hosue will have the responsibility to provide that evidence to the Senate.

Pelosi's Partisan Agenda Illegally Trumps Her Legal Obligations To Defend Constitution

Speaker Pelosi must explain why she is unwilling to confront the President's confrontation with the Constitution. It appears the DoD emails and McClellan's propaganda explain the Speaker's reluctance to fully assert her oath. Someone apepars to have convinced Pelosi that inaction on war crimes is in the interests of the Democratic Party.

No, inaction on war crimes is in the interests of tyranny.

Scott McClellan well outlines how the GOP put partisan objectives before the Constitution. His statements apply to the Speaker. She is putting, like the President and GOP, her perception of partisan advantage before her duties as a Constitutional officer: To clear the way for impeachment. The Speaker refuses.

The United States Government: The Domestic Enemy

The public must support the lawful removal of the Speaker. The GOP and DNC have a vested interest in preventing this. The GOP and DNC are in an illegal rebellion against the Constitution; they are the domestic enemies; and they are disloyal to the Constitution. They are the problem.

Our job must be to stand between the Speaker and the Constitution. The Speaker must be confronted. Otherwise, this tyranny will continue under the guise of freedom.

Freedom must be managed. This Congress, Speaker, President, House, and leadership have recklessly invoked the idea of freedom, but given the Iraqis and Americans a mess. We are not obliged to accept that mess. This mess is one for the Congress to confront. Had the Congress confronted the President earlier, the mess would be smaller. The mess is bigger because Congress is a mess.

Complicity With War Crimes

The Nuremberg documents outline how the Nazis seized control of the German state. The American public has witnessed the tyrannical seizure of power, and the Congressional complicity with that tyranny. We are not obliged to remain loyal to the Congress or either party, only to the Constitution.

Refusing to investigate is not a defensible position. If the House refuses to declare the Speaker's position vacant, the public must expand the discussion of a new system of oversight.

Discussing New Oversight for the United States

The new oversight must consider stripping the Speaker and Constitutional officers of powers they have abused, not asserted, or have recklessly delegated to the President. The Speaker and her loyalists have a difficult time explaining inaction on partisan grounds; yet they would have us believe they are about change. The idea of "Change" is their propaganda not their agenda.

Solutions To Confront Tyranny

The Magna Carta and Declaration of Independence are the outlines for this new oversight. The Great Charter and Declaration list grievances. Those grievances were solved. This Speaker refuses to consider the problem, must less provide leadership to solve this mess. Speaker Pelosi is part of the problem, not the solution.


More...

http://tpmcafe.talkingpointsmemo.com/talk/2008/06/speaker-must-be-removed-for-he.php

[Drum]

1. No argument here. nt

[roguevalley]

99. 'it would fail' she is so full of shit. I loathe her and have since 2006

[truedelphi]

2. Support the woman running against her, Golub for San Francisco

And Impeachment!!

[mitchtv]

9. The primary is over, I presume Pelosi won

he opponent will now be Cindy Sheehan (I)

[truedelphi]

51. Sorry about that. Gosh you are right.

I'm so happy about the Obama nomination status that a huge portion of my brain is on hiatus.

[Freddie Stubbs]

83. Obama, like Pelosi, opposes impaechment:

Obama: Impeachment is not acceptable
WASHINGTON (AP) — Democratic presidential candidate Barack Obama laid out list of political shortcomings he sees in the Bush administration but said he opposes impeachment for either President George W. Bush or Vice President Dick Cheney.

Obama said he would not back such a move, although he has been distressed by the "loose ethical standards, the secrecy and incompetence" of a "variety of characters" in the administration.

"There's a way to bring an end to those practices, you know: vote the bums out," the presidential candidate said, without naming Bush or Cheney. "That's how our system is designed."

The term for Bush and Cheney ends on Jan. 20, 2009. Bush cannot constitutionally run for a third term, and Cheney has said he will not run to succeed Bush.

more: http://www.usatoday.com/news/washington/2007-06-28-obama-impeachment_N.htm

[Kolesar]

157. Obama is the leader of our party and he should control the message

I have faith in him. And Barack has got the verbal skills to present this message.

[ejbr]

171. The Constitution trumps Obama... n/t

[JDPriestly]

188. Obama made that statement before we learned about the

missing e-mails, the notes of torture sessions that interrogators were instructed to destroy and before the Intelligence Committee's report came out, the abuse of power in the attorney general's office and many other things including Bush's assertion of executive privilege to silence his aides.

Would impeachment be politically inconvenient? Yes.

Is it necessary? Absolutely yes.

Will Bush be tried and convicted after leaving office if not first impeached? Very likely not. Bush will argue that he cannot be tried for alleged crimes that he may have committed while president that were not of a personal nature unless he was first impeached and tried in the Senate. Considering the make-up of the Supreme Court at this time, there is a good possibility that Bush would prevail on the argument. See the Const. and Federalist Paper No. 65. This question has not been decided for certain.

Once Bush leaves office, it will be difficult to obtain his papers. Crucial witnesses could leave the country or for other reasons be unavailable. Some are elderly and could be ill or otherwise unavailable. Memories will have faded.

It is absolutely necessary to begin impeachment proceedings before Bush leaves office. If Pelosi is bound by her honor not to do so, then she must resign as Speaker.

I believe a strong argument can be made that a president can avoid justice as it pertains to crimes committed in his official capacity if he is not impeached and convicted first.

This is due to the political nature of the accusations in question. I believe that Alexander Hamilton pretty clearly states that when it comes to the kinds of crimes that Bush committed, Congress alone has the power to impeach and convict and only after that process is completed can a president be tried for crimes of this nature.

Clinton's perjury is a totally different thing. It was a personal matter. The accusations against Bush are not about personal matters.

I could be wrong. Constitutional scholars differ about this. But the risk of not being able ever, ever to prosecute Bush for his crimes is to great to risk waiting.

Because a prosecution may not be possible after Bush leaves office, under the circumstances, I think this Congress has a duty to impeach this president. It would be ideal to complete the impeachment after the November election.

I note that several Republican congressmen voted to report the Impeachment Resolution to the committee.

[L. Coyote]

159. Tombstone!!

[Buzz Clik]

162. Golub is a Democrat running for Congress.

I fully support every Dem running against every incumbent. If the seat is currently occupied by a Republican, we want the strongest Dem running. If the seat is currently occupied by a Dem, let's replace them at the primary level with a strong Democrat.

If we really want change in Washington D.C., we have to start RIGHT NOW. They all must go. No exceptions.

[The Magistrate]

168. Not Any More, Sir: The Primary Is Over

Ms. Golub got only a very slim percentage of the vote. The fact is that Speaker Pelosi is very popular in her district, and among Democrats at large throughout the country.

[Buzz Clik]

170. My mistake, and my apologies.

Although I support Speaker Pelosi in her quest for re-election, I hope that someday we take the opportunity to make some real changes in Congress.

[Enrique]

3. wow, I'm impressed, "talking points memo"

your attributing this to the well-known, excellent credible source Talking Points Memo really lends this essay a lot of credibility.

It's as if this reflects the views of Josh Marshall.

:sarcasm:

[nebula]

7. I guess no source is credible if it doesn't come from CNN or Fox News

:sarcasm:

[Enrique]

25. you're all full of tricks aren't you?

purposely mischaracterizing my post.

[nashville_brook]

67. i knew this would happen as soon as GDP went away. sigh.

[tkmorris]

11. It's an editorial, not a news article

Credibility is not an issue here, merely whether you agree with any of the opinions expressed or not. You are trying WAY too hard to find opportunities to put people down.

[Enrique]

27. the OP put "Talking Points Memo" because TPM is credible.

but this is not from TPM.

[Political Heretic]

147. DU considers TPM to be a credible source. Where have you been?

[Enrique]

156. which is why this poster falsely attributed TPM

even though it's not from TPM, it's from some poster at their message board.

[FreepFryer]

4. That's not Josh Marshall's opinion, just some blogger named 'testing'. Pelosi has my support...

As the heir apparent in the event of Bush/Cheney bother being impeached, she cannot drive the process.

Moreover, the impeachment issue HAS made its way into Congress, despite her public (and appropriate) distancing from the issue.

Build the groundswell for impeachment, but STOP ATTACKING OUR DEMS! They are not preventing the groundswell, they are attempting to appear independent of it.

That's politics, and that's what I want my Democratic Party Speaker of the House to do when presented with the question of impeachment.

[Individualist]

6. Damn the DLC!

[MrCoffee]

8. Bullshit. The Speaker of the House is obligated to the House first and foremost.

Bush has unilaterally stripped the legislative power from the Congress through the use of signing statements. Pelosi violated her oath of office and her duty to the Constitution when she said "Impeachment is off the table."

The Constitution invests the House with the sole power of impeachment. Pelosi herself doesn't care what the Constitution says.

[FreepFryer]

10. Ah, so she's compelled to push for impeachment herself? Not at all. Let the Dem caucus do it. (n/t)

[MrCoffee]

14. As leader of the House, she took it upon herself to re-write the Constitution.

Article I, Section 2, Clause 5 of the US Constitution:
"The House of Representatives shall choose their speaker and other officers; and shall have the sole power of impeachment."

When she said "Impeachment is off the table", she violated the Constitution and abdicated her responsibility as Speaker of the House. You cannot possibly deny that.

[FreepFryer]

19. 'Impeachment is off the table' does not equal 'I refuse to impeach whatever the evidence'.

She didn't violate her oath by stating that the impeachment of Bush/Cheney is 'off her table' (in other words, not on the agenda she has for running the House).

It's not on her table. It's ludicrous to suggest that she can't say that without 'abdicating her responsibility as Speaker of the House'. In fact, if she came out gung-ho and said 'We're gonna impeach Bush', THAT would be a violation of her responsibility.

It is the House's responsibility, not Pelosi's, to wield the power of impeachment.

When the groundswell, the hearings and the evidence all collide in Congress, then she can play her part as you envision it.

Not before.

[EFerrari]

28. That's exactly what it equals.

And for you to say the House can move without Pelosi is just dishonest.

[FreepFryer]

31. That's not what I said. And the House IS moving already-you may have noticed Wexler and Kucinich...?

What exactly are you arguing here?

[EFerrari]

45. That for Nancy take take impeachment "off the table" is exactly

an abdication of her duties as a Member. She's essentially saying, let's not try this murder because we're putting in a better DA in the Fall and he will be on our side. That's neither justice nor democracy and, it's probably illegal. :shrug:


We've seen this movie before in the run up to the war. There was plenty of dissent. Plenty of experts speaking out against, millions in the streets and all over the world. The history has been revised to "no one knew".

That's exactly how the issue of Bush's crimes will be revised. "No one knew how bad he was". Watch.

[FreepFryer]

50. No, she's saying "I won't schedule a trial". Because she hasn't seen a motion to impeach in the HJC.

[MrCoffee]

56. H.Res 333...when is Cheney's trial scheduled?

Referred to committee April 24, 2007.

[FreepFryer]

61. So she should unilaterally take it out of committee, herself? (n/t)

[MrCoffee]

65. Absolutely. If she cared about the Constitution, she would.

If she was truly interested in the preservation of the Constitutional system, she would have ordered Conyers to start hearings on April 25, 2007.

How little power do you suppose the Speaker of the House has? You don't think she could order it out of committeee if she wanted to?

[onenote]

77. she sure as hell doesn't have the power to order Conyers to start hearings

How would she go about doing so?

[MrCoffee]

79. She could try picking up the phone...

or stopping by his office, or sending him a nice Hallmark "Hey! Let's start those hearings!" card, or semaphore, or telegraph, or sign language across the chamber when the House is in session...

Any one of those methods would work just fine.

[EFerrari]

81. She has the power to order him not to, though, doesn't she? n/t

[onenote]

92. Nope. She doesn't

And let's make sure we understand the process. The Judiciary COmmittee, having had an impeachment resolution referred to it, could now hold hearings if Chairman Conyers decided to schedule them, to consider whether to recommend a full impeachment inquiry. THose hearings would not constitute a full blown impeachment inquiry. Such an inquiry would require another vote by the House,as was done in the Nixon and Clinton impeachments, whereby the full house authorized the JUdiciary Committee to conduct an impeachment inquiry and recommend whether articles of impeachment should be adopted.

That beimg said, Conyers could hold hearings whether or not Pelosi wants him to. But the bigger question is whether he wants to and/or whether a majority of the Democratic caucus wants to. The answer to that is that its doubtful that they do. Every one of them faces a campaign that essentially starts now. ANd very few of them see any upside to pushing impeachment as a priority when its not a priority for the voters they are seeking to woo.

[EFerrari]

94. Nancy Pelosi has OBVIOUSLY strong armed Mr. Conyers.

So, yes, she does have that power and she is using it.

[onenote]

96. I suggest you don't know Mr. Conyers that well.

I've been lobbying the Judiciary Committee for nearly 20 years and have seen first hand exactly how Mr. Conyers works and I don't believe for a minute he's being "strong armed".

What exactly is her power over him? How does she force him to act/not act? Threaten to take away his chairmanship? Well, that would require a vote of the Democratic Caucus and there is no way in hell the Democratic Caucus would go along with an attempt to strong arm Conyers into doing something that the majority of the Democratic Caucus doesn't want done.

Why didn't Nancy strong arm Dennis into not introducing his resolution if she is the all-powerful ruler you make her out to be?

[EFerrari]

100. Because Mr. Conyers has much more influence to lose

if he steps out of line than Dennis does. Duh.

When John Conyers started using her talking points about impeachment in his interviews, I knew the fix was in. You yourself cannot deny that Mr. Conyers changed his position and even the way he spoke in public about this issue after she became Speaker.

In my own naivete, I posted a thread in the ER forum, asking what in the world he meant by "we can impeach them at the polls" when he knew the state of our elections better than anyone in Congress, not to mention, Bush is not up for re-election.

Talking points written by her office, the same ones those of us in her district used to get in response to our calls and letters.

Maybe it is yourself that isn't looking beyond your own circle of experience to the larger picture this time, onenote.

[Freddie Stubbs]

154. Pelosi alone cannot remove Conyers from his chairmanship

That can only be done by a majority vote of the House of Representatives. If you recall, that is how William Jefferson (D-LA) was removed from the Ways and Means Committee when the feds found $90,000 in cash in his freezer.

If fear is stopping Conyers from moving on impeachment, it would be fear of the majority in the House.

[FreepFryer]

105. Correct - that's the Constitutional path to impeachment. Nary a pitchfork to be seen. (n/t)

[EFerrari]

63. And she won't see one because she has explicitly told Conyers

not to allow it. How do I know? Because shortly after she became Speaker, Mr. Conyers used only her talking points when asked about impeachment.

So, it's disingenuous to say the HJC can move this issue WHEN SHE HAS TOLD THE CHAIR NOT TO.

[FreepFryer]

88. "She explicitly told Conyers not to allow it" - this is an unproven (and incorrect) assertion. Cite?

[EFerrari]

93. Compare and contrast Nancy's talking point "We'll impeach them

at the polls" with Conyer's interviews AFTER she was made Speaker "we'll impeach them at the polls". After she was Speaker, Mr. Conyers' position on impeachment did a 180.

Mr. Conyers held hearings in Ohio. He knows we cannot impeach George Bush at the polls and he never said such a stupid thing BEFORE she was Speaker.

Incorrect, my @ss.

[FreepFryer]

102. You stated that she 'explicitly told him not to hold hearings' and you have no proof. (n/t)

[EFerrari]

106. His parroting her talking points is proof. n/t

[FreepFryer]

110. Okay, so inference is now legal proof. Tell me, doesn't THAT hurt the Constitution most of all?

[EFerrari]

117. LOL

[FreepFryer]

118. 'declaring victory whilst departing the field' - a sad debating tactic, for sure.

It's ok to disagree, but for you to so patently 'flake' on the discussion is just disappointing.

[EFerrari]

121. I've committed to this field until Bush is in jail.

And there's no "flaking" here.

Not bringing your experience to bear in an argument is one of the most fundamental errors in logic.

Go find Nancy's impeachment talking points. Go notice the shift in Mr. Conyers' AFTER she became Speaker.

Unless he was speaking in tongues as some kind of Celestial intervention, he started parroting her talking points.

[FreepFryer]

122. Whether he used her 'talking points' or not in no way proves your point. That's the (your) error.

[EFerrari]

123. When John Conyers starts tell us we can impeach at the polls,

the world has turned upside down.

If YOU don't know that, that's your problem.

[JDPriestly]

191. Impeachment of the polls will not establish a record of the crimes.

We made that mistake in 1992. Neither Bush Sr. nor Reagan was impeached for their criminal conduct in the Iran-Contra matter. Evidence was collected. We have a partial picture of what happened. Crimes were committed. People were even convicted, but there was not impeachment. As a result the criminals returned to office.

When Clinton took the presidency, he failed to follow through on court proceedings, he dropped the matter.

The criminals are living the high life. They have radio appearances and are enjoying their fame and fortune. We cannot allow that to happen again.

Impeachment now is the only way to save our republic.

[nashville_brook]

32. actually -- that's exactly what it's meant.

[FreepFryer]

36. Actually, it's not. (n/t)

[MrCoffee]

54. Unless her agenda includes protecting the enumerated powers of Congress,

she has abdicated her responsibility as the leader of the House. By allowing the president to unilaterally nullify duly passed legislation through the use of signing statements, she has surrendered the Constitutionally enumerated power of the Congress to enact laws.

It is Pelosi's responsibility, as leader of the House, to protect the legislative power as delineated in the Constitution. Her failure to do so demonstrates, at best, her ineffectiveness as Speaker and at worse her violation of the Constitiution.

[warren pease]

116. Circular reasoning and a dose of utter nonsense just to add a little bite...

You argue that "When the groundswell, the hearings and the evidence all collide in Congress, then she can play her part as you envision it."

Where's this groundswell going to come from? How will anyone not familiar with the Intertubes find out? She's keeping impeachment resolutions bottled up in committee, from which they'll never emerge as long as Conyers holds the keys.

She even collaborated with house GOPers to give DK a time slot after the day's official business, further insulating Americans from hearing a scrap of truth about this historic day. Or so it says here:

Rather than let Tuesday’s floor action be interrupted, Democratic and Republican leaders quietly agreed to let the chamber get all of its other work done before anything happens with Kucinich’s impeachment effort. Then, at the end of the day, the Ohio Democrat will call up his articles of impeachment and Democrats will refrain from making a routine request to waive the reading of the document.

"...Democratic and Republican leaders quietly agreed to let the chamber get all of its other work done..." They treat Kucinich like a trained seal when he's one of maybe a dozen members of congress who seems to actually give a shit about making these bastards accountable.

But Pelosi has kept anyone who doesn't watch C-Span from hearing that there are formal articles of impeachment lodged against The Commander Guy.

No matter that every single damn one of the 35 articles against Bushie, plus the three for Cheney, are based on proven assertions, AKA facts. Facts are for the rabble; this is a faith-based country now and everybody needs to have faith that Pelosi and the rest aren't actually having a nightly roll in the hay with some Bushean lizard. Even though that's exactly what it looks like from here.


OK. But what about the evidence various hearings will turn up? Where's all this evidence going to come from? John Yoo? KKKarl? Harriet Miers? Josh Bolton? From the rest of these scum who laugh at subpoenas because the people issuing them are themselves jokes?

They all know Conyers is never going to invoke inherent contempt. And that's the only way any of them are going to get within a mile of the Judiciary Committee chambers.

So it's another great victory for Ms. Collusion and her pals in the white house. And it's another lousy day for the Constitution. Same ol' same ol'.


wp

[onenote]

76. I'll deny that she re-wrote the constitution. That's nonsensical

The House has the sole power of impeachment. Still does. It is a discretionary power and the House has chosen, thus far, not to exercise it. The Speaker cannot stop it if a majority wants it to happen. But a majority doesn't, so its easy for the speaker, in accordance with the wishes of a majority of the Democratic Caucus, to say its not "on the table" because, well, the members aren't putting it on the table.

[FreepFryer]

85. Thank you. (n/t)

[MrCoffee]

89. Except that it has been on the table, for a year, regarding Cheney

and there has been no action on it from House Judiciary. Conyers is just as culpable.

[Ghost in the Machine]

112. "...and the House has chosen, thus far, not to exercise it." Cough *BULLSHIT* Cough

When something has been taken "off the table", you don't have the option to exercise it. Maybe you don't quite comprehend that concept? :shrug:

Here, I'll make it simple for you: If you only have options "A" & "B", you can't choose "C", can you? It's like going to the gas station that carries regular, mid grade, & high test... but the "regular" pumps have plastic bags over them because the station is out of it for now until their truck arrives with more. You can't still choose to get the regular, can you?

"The Speaker cannot stop it if a majority wants it to happen. But a majority doesn't, so its easy for the speaker, in accordance with the wishes of a majority of the Democratic Caucus, to say its not "on the table" because, well, the members aren't putting it on the table."

Please provide a link showing where a vote has been taken and the majority has ruled against it...

Thanks

Ghost

[Dr.Phool]

152. Bush kept her at arms length with a crucifix and garlic for 6 years.

He finally invited her to dinner at the White House when she was elected Speaker.

She came away saying, "He really is a very nice man".

They've said Hitler could be very charming too. Take a hike Nancy. The last I checked obstructing justice and aiding and abetting a criminal, were both felonies.

[InkAddict]

166. Perhaps in so doing, she saved a spot on the map called Chicago.

:tinfoilhat:

Was it worth it? Time will tell.

[glitch]

174. Good point.

I would rather people argue that Dems colluded to save American cities than impeachment is somehow not necessary because they haven't committed any impeachable crimes or wouldn't have enough votes to convict.

This without doing the investigation and presenting the case for conviction.

I actually find your argument more reasonable, and if true, their actions forgivable.

But then I've been wearing tin (it is the new black, you know) since 2000.

[JDPriestly]

189. MrCoffee, you are correct.

Besides, Congresswoman Pelosi made that statement before we learned about the use of the Justice Department for crass political vendettas, before we learned of the bedside visit by Gonzales to Ashcroft, before we learned about the "lost" e-mails, the destroyed notes of torture sessions, the adamant refusal of Bush's aides to honor the subpoenas of Congress, the recently issued Intelligence Committee Report on the use of intelligence by the White House before going into Iraq or McClellan's book. Pelosi can simply explain that she new evidence compels a different position on this issue. Don't worry. Her constituents will not judge her harshly for taking a strong stand against the lies and crimes of the Bush administration.

[snappyturtle]

12. Then why doesn't she come out and say what you said about her

remaining independent and let the House decide? Even if she did 'push it', would that be a crime compared to what this administration has done? This nation and the world needs justice.

edit: spelling

[FreepFryer]

13. Because that would weaken her power as Speaker. If it achieves critical mass, she can move it thru.

[EFerrari]

23. There is no more critical mass.

Remember? The media won't report it and our reps avoid their constituents because we don't fund their elections. You're speaking as if we still have a voice in government.

[FreepFryer]

26. Well I don't accept that 'we' have no voice in government any more than Pelosi driving impeachment.

And 'scorched earth' policies of eliminating powerful Democrats certainly won't help.

We need to be politically smart, and remember that the impeachment wheels are turning - and keepin gup the pressure on our reps.

AND, we need comprehensive campaign finance reform, to get these Blue Dog / Democorporates out ASAP.

[EFerrari]

34. Whether you or I accept it or not, it's effectively true.

Nancy herself hasn't had a single townhall in her own district for years now. She doesn't have to. I don't have a representative in Congress, myself.

[FreepFryer]

37. Well, cynicism can be blinding and I'd rather look at what can be done. (n/t)

[EFerrari]

55. There's nothing cynical in pointing out that my district is not represented

in Congress right now. Maybe the defense contractors are -- there are plenty of them in this district. The voters, nope.

[onenote]

80. why don't the voters vote for someone who represents them?

[EFerrari]

82. See Election finance reform. n/t

[nashville_brook]

62. until little old us can fund their campaigns, we are essentially mute.

[EFerrari]

66. Yep. But we do seem to be getting better at it.

Hope the trend continues. :hi:

[nashville_brook]

69. thank you for the hope -- today is one of those days where I could use some extra...

:hi:

[nebula]

17. "They are attempting to appear independent of it."

What the heck is that supposed to mean?

As a lawmaker it is her JOB and DUTY to take a position on such critical matters.

And her position is very clear; she is strongly against impeachment.

[FreepFryer]

21. It means that she can't appear 'gung-ho' for impeachment, she must be as dispassionate as any other.

Even more than any other, being the next-in-line for the office herself.

She has to let the groundswell as expressed thru the actions of the elected representatives of Congress lead the way.

I think your view of her position is incorrect.

[nebula]

29. Gung ho?

no one is asking her to be gung ho about anything.

we are asking her to do her damn job to uphold the Constitution and laws of the land,
which she refuses to do while failing to provide any valid reason whatsoever for her inaction.

[FreepFryer]

How is she not upholding the Constitution? By not following your interpretation of it?

Thankfully, there's a higher bar than whether she echoes the priorities of her party base in her agenda for the House.

[Prophet 451]

143. No, she cannot drive...

...but she doesn't have to blocade either.

[slipslidingaway]

5. Comment from link and I agree..

"You know, if you think about the whole Right-Wing corruption arc, Nixon/Watergate, Reagan/Iran-Contra, Bush/Iraq-Wiretapping-Politicization of Government-Katrina, one thing becomes very clear.

Every time they come to power it gets worse.

They will be back, and if we let them go this time... it will be worse the next."

[FreepFryer]

16. Agreed - censure and impeach them and if possible, outlaw the Republican criminals from office...

...we just shouldn't call on Pelosi (our Democratic Speaker of the House and next in the line of succession) to resign if she doesn't drive the process to our satisfaction... driving impeachment to satisfy her party base is not her primary function.

[slipslidingaway]

70. Well it would not be to satisfy the party base...

it should be to uphold the laws of our nation and her oath of office. She does not need to drive the car, but she should not be blocking the road.

:)

[tomp]

133. yes, and with worse democratic party sellouts. nt

[Hubert Flottz]

15. K&R...

"The swamp" is filling up faster than ever...

[EFerrari]

18. We're here because no one confronted Bush over the faked WMD.

Wasn't the thinking then, we will handle it in 2004?

It's sad. A few years ago, this language would have seemed very extreme to me. I miss those days.

[Individualist]

20. She took an oath to uphold the Constitution. Refusal to do so is treason!

[FreepFryer]

22. What Constitutional Oath is she refusing, exactly? (n/t)

[Individualist]

30. Oath of Office for Congressmen:

"I 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."
http://bensguide.gpo.gov/3-5/symbols/oaths.html

Do you understand the phrase ...I will support and defend the Constitution of the United states against all enemies, foreign and DOMESTIC;"

As outlined in the Articles of Impeachment, your pal Pissypants has NUMEROUS violations of the Constitution.

[nashville_brook]

35. "enemies foreign and domestic." doesn't get much clearer than that.

[FreepFryer]

39. And Bush's status as an 'domestic enemy' is a legal determination, to be made by hearings...

...has that determination been made, and the motion to impeach carried?

[Individualist]

41. Save the convoluted DLC bullshit for those ignorant enough to fall for it.

The facts speak for themselves.

[FreepFryer]

49. Right, now I'm a pro-DLC supporter because just labeling someone a 'domestic enemy' isn't enough?

Whether it's Bush you label, or Pelosi (as does the author of the editorial in the OP), this whole argument is laughable.

And you have no idea whom I support (it's not the corporate Democrats in the DLC), but the 'label stick' sure is flying around without much thought.

[Individualist]

52. ...and you have a bridge in Brooklyn you want to sell me. I ain't buying!

[FreepFryer]

60. Amazing what pre-conceptions will do to a person's willingness to consider others' ideas. (n/t)

[nashville_brook]

53. no, you're just arguing the morally bankrupt side. but, carry on... please.

[FreepFryer]

58. Right-e-o. The 'morally bankrupt side' - WITHOUT pitchforks and torches and mobs.

Let it work out legally, in the Congress.

Don't call for our most powerful Democrats to be removed from office and simultaneously claim you are a Democrat.

[nashville_brook]

73. i'm not the one obstructing Congress. Just b/c Pelosi's a Dem, doesn't give her a lifelong pass.

it's the way the world works. you cut off your base, and your base cuts you off.

[EFerrari]

75. No Democrat doing their job needs to worry about "mobs" --

aka, their base.

[nebula]

98. Leave the party loyalty oaths to the Freepers

the only loyalty we should have is loyalty to the Constitution.

[FreepFryer]

104. Right you are. Let the Constitutional process play out in the House. Pelosi needn't be a martyr.

[nebula]

114. Pelosi is doing her best to prevent the Constitutional process from taking place

she needs to be impeached along with her masters in the WH.

[FreepFryer]

115. 'her masters in the WH'= ludicrous, demeaning, unfounded, self-destructive attack on a Democrat.

I'll refrain from such pointless, suicidal, self-destructive swipes and instead, will focus on beating the GOP as handily as possible on every front imaginable (including the eventual impeachment of Cheney and Bush).

[nebula]

119. Criminals and their appeasers get no respect from me

sorry!

[FreepFryer]

120. 'appeasers' = Verrrry right-wing talking point 'frame' there, being used against a Democrat..

Not my style at all, that's why I'm here at Democratic Underground.

[JDPriestly]

201. Failure to impeach this president is appeasement.

I believe the Democratic "leadership" in Congress is just hoping he will go away.

The Supreme Court decision on the habeas corpus case today should give Conyers the courage to take a stand against this overreaching president.

The legislature needs to do its part.

[tomp]

135. bush "labelled' himself the enemy by his actions.

and who says it has to be a legal determination?

if the potus is overtly attempting to garner power in the executive to the detriment of congress, and in contravention of the express terms of the constitution, what determination, other than impeachment, would "label" him as an "enemy"? it would seem one has to presume him to be the enemy, based on observed events, in order to get the determination you insist we must have in order to defend against the country and the constitution against him.

[onenote]

86. Should Truman have been impeached for nationalizing the steel mills?

After all, it was held unconsitutional?

And should FDR have been impeached for ordering the internment of Japanese Americans during WWII -- it was held consitutional then, but a different court might see it differently.

The power to impeach is discretionary --- it is conferred on the House and it is solely up to the House to decide whether and when to exercise it. No other branch of government can force it to act. Just as no other branch of government can tell the Senate whether to convict or not. And the decision by the Senate to convict or not convict isn't appealable.

The process is essentially political, which is what happens when elected officials are given discretionary power.

It is up the voters to force the issue by demanding that their representative act. And guess what? The public isn't demanding impeachment. They are worrying about $5 gas, a shitty war that needs to end, about not having adequate health care, about their jobs.

[MrCoffee]

91. These are war powers acts...there are much more direct grounds wtih Bush

The signing statements, which nullify duly enacted laws passed by both chambers of Congress and signed by the President, are unconstitutional.

[onenote]

95. That didn't exactly answer the question I posed.

But let's walk through it. In your view, the signing statements (which have been used by past presidents on numerous occasions) are unconstitutional. No court has held them to be so yet, but we'll accept the premise. Do you think that means that the House is (a) compelled to impeach and (b) the SEnate is compelled to convict?

Do you think you could get a court to order specific members of Congress to vote a particular way on an impeachment resolution? Or to get Senators to vote for conviction? When the House voted to impeach Clinton, did those that voted to do so act improperly? WHat if the Senate had convicted? Does every impeachment vote have to be unanimous?

Its a discretionary, and ultimately, political judgment. THere are no absolutes in the impeachment process.

[JDPriestly]

202. Truman was overruled by the Supreme Court. That was enough.

He was not guilty of the horrible crimes that Bush has committed such as misrepresenting the grounds for a war to Congress in order to channel funds to his friends. He did not as far as history records order torture. He did not violate FISA. He did not hold minors as prisoners without allowing them so much as the right to be charged and to confront their accusers. Bush has just committed so many, many crimes that the courts can never rectify the harm he has done to the Constitution. Please read Federalist Paper No. 65. Impeachment is not only appropriate in the case of Bush but is probably the only means through which Bush's crimes can be vindicated through which his many victims can be granted justice.

4,000 American troops and many, many innocent Iraqis have died -- for lies. That is horrendous. Truman made mistakes and erred with regard to the law, but he was a saint compared to Bush. Same with Truman.

Johnson was pretty bad, but even he did not approach Bush in his violations of the Constitution and criminal conduct.

[MrCoffee]

71. "faithfully discharge the duties of the office"

"Impeachment is off the table."

Article 1, Section 2, Clause 5 of the US. Constitution:

The House of Representatives shall choose their speaker and other officers; and shall have the sole power of impeachment.

She failed to faithfully discharge the duties of the office when she said "Impeachment is off the table."

[onenote]

103. thanks for playing, but the constitution doesn't mandate impeachment

It confers upon the House, solely, the discretionalry power to impeach. THat means no other branch of government can force the House to act, or not act. No court can tell a member of Congress how to vote or not vote.

The constitution isn't violated when individual members, or the house as a whole, votes against impeachment, or when it votes for impeachment (even if the Senate acquits), or when it doesn't vote at all.

[JDPriestly]

200. Actually, there is a strong argument that if the crimes of a president are to be

prosecuted in a court, the president must first be impeached and convicted.

There is no precedent and very likely no possibility of simply charging and prosecuting a president for the kinds of crimes that Bush has committed once he leaves office.

In that sense, since Congress has the duty to uphold and therefore protect the Constitution, it arguably has the duty to impeach and convict a president who blatantly violates the Constitution and the laws of the United States.

I'm getting tired of posting the same links to support this argument over and over on DU.

But here goes, once again. http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/politics/special/clinton/stories/paneltext090998.htm

Also, you can easily Google and should Google and bookmark the United States Constitution and Federalist Papers No. 65, also on line.

In Federalist Papers No. 65, Alexander Hamilton defines the kinds of crimes that should be the subject of impeachment proceedings and explains why the courts are not the appropriate venue for trying those crimes. I believe that his argument will be used and may foreclose any judicial proceeding against Bush even after he leaves office.

So, yes, in my view, and, although I am not a Constitutional lawyer, I am qualified to state my opinion which is that, under the circumstances, Congress does have a duty to impeach Bush and Cheney also.

Representative Pelosi is in an uncomfortable position because she would succeed Cheney if he is impeached.

[sam sarrha]

38. they never sign their oat that way when we finally discover Paloci's OBSTRUCTION of JUSTICE she ca

simply declare she was only impersonating a congressman and they can do nothing

[nebula]

24. and why Congress' approval rating is less than even Bush and Cheney's

[Individualist]

33. Precisely! They're refusing to carry out their duties.

[nashville_brook]

42. makes you wonder whose water they are carrying -- this is NOT a political victory for Pelosi...

she's suffering a MAJOR setback with the Democratic base, and anyone who still believes in the Constitution. She's doing great harm to our party by not carrying out her duties. So, what gives? Which short hairs do the Republicans have her by? Which Bush Admin crimes are Dem leaders complicit in?

[Individualist]

46. They're complicit in every Bush Admin crime they've turned a blind eye to and

refused to take action against.

[nashville_brook]

57. they're acting like hearings would harm them -- and there's no way that could be the case, UNLESS

hearings would reveal just how far they've been up bush's ass these last 7 years.

[Individualist]

59. Bingo! We have a winner.

:)

[nashville_brook]

64. thankyouvurymooch -- :)

[onenote]

107. actually, they're acting like the public doesn't care about impeachment

which is the case.

When the public is asked about their priorities, a lot of things come up.
These days the top issues are the economy/gas prices/jobs/the war/health care. Impeachment doesn't even register.

[Raksha]

142. Is impeachment even one of the poll questions?

When were the voters even ASKED about it? Every poll I've ever seen shows a majority of respondents supporting impeachment. But I haven't seen any recent ones, which is revealing in itself.

I think the level of public support is being deliberately suppressed by the corporate media, in the same way worldwide opposition to the Iraq war was suppressed. What logical reason is there to believe Bush's 25% approval rating WOULDN'T translate into support for impeachment?

[onenote]

144. I don't know what polls you are looking at

First, it is likely that the polls on national priorities ask about impeachment. But they generally have an "other" category and if impeachment was actually at the forefront of the public's concerns in any measurable amount, there would be some indication of that in the size of the "other" category, which remains very small.

Second,I don't know what polls you've seen about support for impeachment, but the last two that I saw, one from last summer and one from last fall, both show that 2 out 3 people don't support impeachment. Interestingly, one of these polls shows that a majority of the public feels that chimpy has committed impeachable offenses, but 2/5ths of those people think that despite his having committed impeachable offenses, he shouldn't be impeached. (BTW, 75% of Democrats thought impeachable offenses had been committed, but a third of those Democrats weren't in favor of actually going through the impeachment process.

http://www.gallup.com/poll/4729/Presidency.aspx
http://americanresearchgroup.com/impeach/

[bdamomma]

163. exactly.

or how much knowledge they know about certain issues.

[Disturbed]

44. What Constitutional Oath is she refusing, exactly?

The Oath states that all Congress persons must "defend, protect & preserve" the US Constitution.

Busholini & his Regime have violated The Constitution. Pelosi must act upon the Oath that she swore to uphold.

[onenote]

111. there is no one way to defend and protect the constitution specified

Impeachment is one option. Passing new laws and amending other laws is another. Cutting off funding is another. And bringing actions in court to actually establish that particular actions are unconstitutional is yet one more.

And its not up to Pelosi to make impeachhment happen. It takes a vote of the House. And that vote will fail. And that won't protect the constitution at all.

[Fovea]

183. You have cut to the core of the problem.

And her failure to defend the constitution regarding signing statements and outright violations and felony offenses against the rights enumerated in the Constitution is a failure of Pelosi to uphold her oath and her office.

[onenote]

109. congress approval rating is low because the public is unhappy about a number of things

The war. The economy. Gas prices. Health care.

Every poll shows that these are the issues that the public wants Congress to address and that the public is frustrated are not being addressed. Impeachment never...NEVER...makes the list.

[JDPriestly]

204. The war. The economy. Gas prices. Health care.

With the exception of health care, it is probable that the war, the economy and gas prices are all directly or indirectly the result of Bush's criminal conduct.

The War in Iraq, especially the borrowing to fund it, is the cause of the fall of the dollar which has caused problems in our economy including ultimately the problems in the housing market and the rise in gas prices.

Bush lied to get a war. That is criminal.

He and his minions made deliberate misrepresentations to Congress and to the American people, and they made them although they knew that their statements were not supported by the evidence. Omission or commission? Makes no difference.

Even if the original misrepresentations were not intentional, the efforts of the Bush administration to discredit its critics who were telling the truth (as the Bush administration well knew by that time) was a conspiracy to insure the continuation of the misrepresentations. McClellan's book reveals the extent to which the cover-up was protected by the president himself and thus Bush's role in the cover-up may have been intentional.

The Bush administration's corruption in granting contracts to its friends to fight the Iraq War robbed our treasury of unimaginable amounts of money, put our troops in bodily danger for no noble cause and diminished the ability of our men and women in uniform to fight the war they had been sent to fight.

The war, the economy and gas prices cannot be addressed unless the crimes of the Bush administration are also addressed. Until those crimes are addressed, a good percentage, a particularly well educated percentage, of the American people remain confused wishing to trust and believe in their government, but uncertain whether they should.

The country is divided not just by different opinions about policy but by different beliefs about the facts. That is why determining the facts is the key to solving other problems and getting the American people to begin to work together and to trust each other. Who is to believe? Rush Limbaugh presents one set of facts. The news media presents a different set of facts. And Randi Rhodes presents a totally different set of facts. What is the truth?

The process set forth in the Constitution for ascertaining the facts and the truth in this circumstance is the impeachment of the the officers accused of lying and covering up and other political crimes including the president. Therefore, to unify the country, to determine the facts about what has happened, we need to start with impeachment. Anyone who thinks that we will be able to unite the political will without the impeachment process is fooling him or herself.

Richard Clarke seemed to suggest recently that we might have some sort of reconciliation commission. The reconciliation process provided by the Constitution is impeachment. Reconciliation you ask? Yes. Impeachment is the outing of the truth. It does not entail punishment necessarily. That is because impeachment may or may not be followed by criminal prosecution. We do not need to look to South Africa or some other country to conduct a reconciliation proceeding. Our Constitution provides for such a proceeding: impeachment.

At the very least this impeachment process will give notice to future presidents that they cannot abuse the trust of the American people as Bush has done. We must impeach this president and the vice president now.

[LibDemAlways]

165. The repukes lowered the bar by impeaching Clinton over

a blow job, and we don't have leadership willing to nail the bastards for war crimes and treason. I agree with you. What Pelosi has done is criminal.

[gatorboy]

40. This only makes the Freeper's fear of her even more laughable.

Time for her to step down.

[nashville_brook]

47. step down. step aside. that Congressional approval ratings are below Bush, it's b/c of Pelosi.

she needs to go.

[sam sarrha]

43. nancy paloci is OBSTRUCTING JUSTICE, she should be removed from office, and charged with complicity

in W's crimes..

[TexasObserver]

48. negatory on removing nancy

not gonna do it

wouldn't be prudent

stay the course

thousand points of light

[Disturbed]

68. Does anyone have that photo of Nancy holding hands with

her "lovely" George?

[Individualist]

72. I don't have that one, but isn't this one just toooo precious...

http://www.smh.com.au/ffximage/2007/03/29/bush_pelosi_wideweb__470x300,0.jpg

A picture truly is worth a thousand words.

[Disturbed]

74. Ahhh.... the look of love.

:loveya:

[glitch]

175. I actually like this one - she looks like she just zetzed him. nt

[ForeignSpectator]

131. I don't understand why people aren't all over this quote...

and she praised * and his family some more in that interview ("great, patriotic family" yeah, as if ). There is no need for her to say such things, is there? So it's gotta make you wonder...

[MonkeyFunk]

78. What an idiotic idea

there's no "illegal" position on impeachment. That's absurd.

[Freddie Stubbs]

84. Does Kucinich have the spine to remove Pelosi?

:shrug:

[MrCoffee]

90. He probably has the spine, just not the muscle.

[onenote]

97. and he doesn't have the muscle because the Democratic Caucus doesn't back DK

Funny how that works, isn't it.

[Freddie Stubbs]

113. Are you suggesting that the Democratic Caucus supports Pelosi?

:shrug:

[MonkeyFunk]

126. you mean the people who elected her Speaker?

Yeah, she has their support.

[Freddie Stubbs]

153. She was elected Speaker? By the Democrats in Congress?

I get the impression here that some people think she acquired that office in a bloody coup rather than through democratic means.

[Zhade]

87. Agreed, but she won't be. Cowards are willing to let criminals walk.

They're repeating the mistake they made with reagan and poppy bush that led to THIS b*s*.

[leftofthedial]

101. Pelosi is clearly complicit with the bush cabal

the only war is the class war

and she is on the same side as king george

[lonestarnot]

108. Is she Ms. Merican pie?

[dana_b]

124. Malloy said that she threatened to fire Conyers

from his position on his committees if he continues with the impeachment issues. I hate her guts.

[lovuian]

125. She must be removed like Gephardt was

Kucinich has all the votes and even republicans

[Freddie Stubbs]

172. Gephardt was never removed as Speaker. He never served as Speaker in the first place

[Imagevision]

127. Getting Pelosi was/is a rip off - I'll take Cindy Sheehan in a heartbeat!

[Freddie Stubbs]

176. This picture pretty much sums up Cindy Sheehan's campaign:

[lovuian]

128. If she is protecting Bush she needs to go

and it looks like there is a majority to do it too

She is looking like a Lieberman

[bdamomma]

164. not only protecting Bush she is protecting herself.

she knows about alot of things, and she was not left out of the loop, from abu ghraib to torture procedures, you think?

[pleah]

129. K&R!!!!!!!!!!!!

[Sunnyshine]

130. K&R - Nancy pretended to be all for "holding them accountable" and was elected on that.

Soon as she got the job, she pulled the typical switch job on her constituents and this country. As a Democratic voter, I think we should hold her accountable for failing to protect and defend the Constitution. That should be the basis of their duty.

NOT to protect and defend incompetent elected leaders and criminal White House officials.

Simply because "the majority of Dems" in caucus or elsewhere do not publicly proclaim support is neither here nor there. Impeachment is not started because it is a popular idea, but rather out of necessity to serve justice and uphold the tenets of our civil society.

We are talking about miles of legalese and precedents. The majority is not adhering to those bedrock principles. Nancy knows we have excessive corruption in all branches of our government. Declare it as such. Stop pandering and playing cards with the Masters of disasters. Or be held to account otherwise.

Last I checked almost half the country supported Impeachment. 166 stood up for the Constitution today and did not want this to go to committee. They deserve recognition. :patriot:

[Supersedeas]

167. silly campaign promises -- not unlike the gas tax holiday -- just gimmicks to the politicians

[Sunnyshine]

187. Typical and predictable. Will we ever have true representation? I've been waiting for 20 years.

[Occam Bandage]

132. Four for the pseudolegal arguments:

:rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl:

Two for the outright ignorance of House politics:
:rofl: :rofl:

Five for comparing Nancy Pelosi to Nuremberg war criminals:
:rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl:

And twelve for suggesting an outright coup to reallocate power.
:rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl:

[wildbilln864]

134. Agreed! nt

[mvd]

136. I never understood taking impeachment off the table so..

early. Their crimes aren't just petty crimes; they are treasonous and exceptionally high. If I wasn't against the death penalty, I would advocate following the Constitution's ultimate punishment. I'm not going to advocate removing Pelosi now, but she has disappointed me. Good legislation was blocked by obstructionist Repukes for the longest time; there was time for impeachment. I still support it, but time is running out.

[cascadiance]

137. K&R

[Norrin Radd]

138. kr

[frog92969]

139. I support the lawful removal of the Speaker.

Whole heartedly!:thumbsdown:

[cali]

140. so what? the OP is silly and so are the comments about removing Pelosi

good luck with that. She's supported by the democratic caucus and her constituents. There is no way to remove her. What a waste of time.

[frog92969]

185. Silly?

Tell that to the millions of Iraqis either dead or homeless.
Tell that to the unknown number of people being tortured in "our" unknown number of black sites throughout the world.

It's her sworn duty to stand against a tyrannical president (successful or not) and she's failed miserably.

[RBInMaine]

141. Impeachment WON'T happen, the votes AREN'T there, put energy into winnning elections !

[proud2BlibKansan]

145. Some of us place country before party

Imagine that!!

[Senator]

150. Actually, The Votes ARE There

And have been since 2005.

Senate Supports Interrogation Limits: 90-9 Vote on the Treatment of Detainees Is a Bipartisan Rebuff of the White House

...But last night, 89 senators sided with Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.), a former prisoner of war in Vietnam who led the fight for the interrogation restrictions.

Of course, in then became clear that the legislative branch is literally impotent to do anything but impeach...

Bush could bypass new torture ban: Waiver right is reserved

WASHINGTON -- When President Bush last week signed the bill outlawing the torture of detainees, he quietly reserved the right to bypass the law under his powers as commander in chief.

After approving the bill last Friday, Bush issued a ''signing statement" ...

But only McCain has publicly sold his soul -- and Our National Soul -- for the chance to be cheney's new puppet.

There may well be many more GOP Senators (than the handful necessary for a moral/PR/optics victory) who refuse to defend a gaggle of lame duck war criminals -- a war crime in itself, btw -- for the world to see, to mark their own historical legacies, for their own grandchildren to read about.

Impeachment for torture would also mean months of McCain on the defensive. Which might be the only way for the votes to be there in November for Obama.

---

[Electric Flag]

146. Kick! Time to have Pelosi removed.

:kick:

[Political Heretic]

148. This is pretty much why we lose elections and never get anything done.

[happygoluckytoyou]

149. LOVE TO HELP----but im too busy fighting republicans right now

I don't like NP... and will vote against her in favor of a better Democrat when I have the chance to....

ON THE OTHER HAND.... I believe we need to spend ALL available time and energy fighting THE GREAT SATAN which is the GOP

when we get enough hard-core democrats elected... and LIBERAL becomes the new CENTRIST... the trials will come

------ I liken this to the PRO-LIFE who is fighting BIG TIME in the media to save "EACH of 100 babies" when if they cared
"SO MUCH" about unborn lifes they would send their money and food to places where infants are dying by the THOUSANDS
------- they AIN'T MOTHER THERESA.... they just like to get together and bitch to the media

WE HAVE A TON OF LOW-HANGING FRUIT for 2008..... Put your efforts in UNSEATING the WEAK AND POWERLESS GOP
.............and never ever ever ever refer to the GOP candidate John "THE BUSH REPUBLICAN" McCain without his nickname ! ! !
he should wear his party well... like a shiny lapel pin

[Pooka Fey]

151. K&R

[Buzz Clik]

155. Yet another distraction. The entire Democratic Party is ADD.

[EstimatedProphet]

158. Actually, I think it's just the ones here.

I'm hoping the rest of the country is more sensible.

[Buzz Clik]

161. You are correct: I shouldn't impose on the population at large the behavior observed at DU.

[L. Coyote]

160. Someone needs a little Poltitics 101. This article relects a lot of ignorance.

if not LIES! It is a BASH piece.

[George II]

169. Illegal?? HAH!

Aren't there enough republicans out there that can be criticized, what's the point of attacking "fellow"* Democrats?

*Assuming you ARE a Democrat and not a republican plant/troll?

[George II]

173. I suggest you read Rules 1 and 2 !!!!

[literacyadvocate]

177. Perhaps removing her is an impossibility; but...

doesn't anyone believe in trying anymore. If chances of success was the motivation for actions, then the world would have not accomplished much by now.

[Freddie Stubbs]

179. Kucinich doesn't have the balls to try to remove Pelosi

[OPERATIONMINDCRIME]

178. ROFLMAO!!!!!!

Illegal...

:rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl:

[Baby Snooks]

180. The worst possible time..

It really is too late and if Congress were to proceed at this point it would divert attention from the elections in November.

Hopefully the voters in her district will solve the problem of Nancy Pelosi by removing her from office at the polls.

If they don't, everyone should boycott San Francisco.

[rabies1]

181. K & R

We can't boot her out fast enough.

[backscatter712]

182. Fuck Pelosi.

Obstructor of justice, indeed, even threatening to fire Conyers if he opens impeachment hearings.

What's she hiding? Her own complicity...

Hanging's too good for quislings like her.

[jeff30997]

195. "What's she hiding?"

I keep asking myself the same question.Did they bought her?Blackmail,maybe?

There's something really fishy going on with her.

[ladywnch]

184. frankly, I don't whether he is impeached or not. but HE MUST

be held accountable in some forum whether is be at the Hague, criminal court, world court; I don't care. Unfortunately, I believe that by the time they conclude the investigations jr will be out of office.

If Pelosi and the Congress refuse to take action what they are effectively doing is telling the rethugs that if and when they ever regain the WH they are free to take up where Bushco left off and we the People and the Democratic Party will just sit back and let them.

For the sake of the future of the Republic BUSCO MUST BE HELD ACCOUNTABLE and ACTION MUST BE TAKEN.

Pelosi should be removed too. She is a MASSIVE disappointment to women everywhere. She needs to be replaced in the new administration. The Dems need to realize that they are NOT dealing with honorable people (republicans) and trying to behave as if they are is folly. The Dems continued belief in this false premise will be America's undoing. Republicans are ruthless thugs who will do anything to line their pockets and serve their own interests. They don't give a rat's ass about Americans.

[muryan]

186. Sorry, if you want to see the chances of a democratic landslide disappear

Keep following this course. This country doesn't want to go through an impeachment, the guy is on the way out, and by the time everything is dragged out itll be january regardless.

[Wizard777]

192. The latest polls indicate that 3/4 disapprove of Bush. If 100% percent disapprove and we try to

Impeach. That could cause a civil war. :sarcasm: At worse the Republicans will claim it's retaliation for Clinton's Impeachment. But that actually set a Precedent in Presidential lying. It's not our fault the REPUBLICANS set the bar that damned low. But now we have to with that.

[muryan]

199. You overestimate the number of idealogues in this country

You'll alienate 90% of moderate voters by pushing an impeachment agenda.

[Wizard777]

190. Pelosi is now denying We The People our right to a redress of grievance.

She is abridging the impeachment process. First charge in the articles of impeachment against Rep. Nancy Pelosi.

[Wizard777]

193. Nancy Pelosi has no authority to countermand the US Constiution.

[Baby Snooks]

194. Neither does Bush

Neither does Bush but both are doing just that. The Emperor. And his Empress.

[jeff30997]

196. K&R

She have to go.

[Sequoia]

197. She didn't grow up in politics did she?

Wasn't she just a well to do stay at home housewife and then when her kids grew up she needed a hobby: Hey, maybe I'll get into politics, I have money!"

I'm very dissapointed in her.

[indepat]

198. Hear, hear!

[Medusa]

203. She's been such a disappointment

for this and many more reasons.