The $64,000 Question for the Speaker of the House

[Phoebe Loosinhouse]

Q - Madame Speaker, do you believe that the Law is above the President or that the President is above the Law?

Regardless of your answer, please tell us how your actions have supported your view.

[Captain Angry]

1. And please give recent examples if they exist.

She'd never answer that question honestly.

[Wiley50]

2. $64,000 is pocket change for Nancy

so don't hold your breath for an answer

[Greyhound]

3. Indeed. n/t

:kick:

[Phoebe Loosinhouse]

4. I really wish that I (or anyone for that matter) could do one of those

You Tube questions of this for her at the next opportunity. I would really love to hear her answer.

[MonkeyFunk]

5. oh enough already

only an idiot believes that Nancy Pelosi is the only thing preventing the impeachment and conviction of George W. Bush.

[Phoebe Loosinhouse]

7. Nice! Personal assault instead of addressing the question asked.

Nowhere in my very short post did I make the claim that Nancy Pelosi is the only thing preventing the impeachment and conviction of George W. Bush.

I simply asked for her stance on a point of law and how she supported her view.

So please don't call me an idiot for an opinion I never expressed.

But, since you have brought it up, ASIDE from the Speaker, what else is preventing the impeachment and conviction of George W. Bush?

[Phoebe Loosinhouse]

8. Wait! new thought!

Do you behave this way to just shut down discussions you don't want to have so that they turn into food fights? I would hope not.

[MonkeyFunk]

10. No

I behave this way because it's just tiresome to see the same stupid hackneyed attacks against a good Dem just because she can count to 67.

[madokie]

13. just think I took you off ignore just this morning

and it was a mistake I'm soon to rectify, giving you time to reply first though, ok.

peace MonkeyFunk and have a good day anyway

[ejbr]

18. I fin it odd that you can claim anyone else an idiot

1) Nancy Pelosi is the Speaker of the House and has taken "impeachment of the table". She needs to answer for this because

2) IT IS NOT ABOUT THE VOTES! It is about sustaining the fabric of our nation. If this Congress gives Bush/Cheney a pass, THEN ALL FUTURE PRESIDENTS will feel justified in testing the waters, making any "important legislation" of today vulnerable to attack by another tyrant.

Why are these two simple facts to difficult for you to grasp? Plus, a person does not go on trial only if they have a jury that already believes him/her guilty. Are you purposefully being obtuse?

[barbtries]

12. no she's just the most prominent and powerful

of the democrats who are failing to fulfill their oaths of office.

[flvegan]

6. Her actions, and the actions of many have already answered your question.

[Phoebe Loosinhouse]

9. Yes, but I would like her to ACTUALLY answer the question.

No kidding.

[barbtries]

11. yep

have these questions ever been put to her? she's kinda like gw to me now, i can't stand to watch her or listen to her anymore. i think back to just after the 2006 elections when i was so full of hope. sad days, these.

[KharmaTrain]

14. Spread That Question to 534 Other People...

434 other Representatives and 100 Senators. Sadly, wanna bet you don't get a 2/3rds majority on this question. Your question should be posed at every "town hall" and debate going on this summer and fall.

Hopefully someone will ask this question of Speaker Pelosi this afternoon at Netroots...

[Phoebe Loosinhouse]

15. That would be so cool! (Netroots)

I do believe this question is free from snark and very simple to ask and respond to in a civilized fashion.

Nancy doesn't really have any "actions" to cite if she did support the Rule of Law that I can think of, and that is the point. Only inactions and explanations for the inaction -still dodging the question basically.

Or perhaps she's done more than I know and it would be a good chance for her to get that out there.

[KharmaTrain]

16. It's An Important Question

Also one where she truly needs to explain her role on several levels. First and foremost is what a Speaker can or cannot do. Just as is said that she represents the "people" she also is the head of the institution of the House and to keep it going. She has tried to avoid the Gingrich era shutdowns against an obstructionist opposition that contests every little thing she says or does. Hell, they won't even approve the journal of the previous day's actions.

There's also the fact that she can only go where her party allows her...not the other way around. Many of us were highly critical of the games and strong-armed tactics DeLay used that turned the House into a cesspool of corruption. Many in the House are concerned about that abuse as well...Pelosi treads lightly with a large caucus...the Blue Dogs are as much a problem as anyone across the aisle. She's one of many and, unfortunately, in many cases ends up in the minority...even within her own party.

The inaction is the concerns that an Impeachment without a conviction is equivelent to exonoration...the lack of a "smoking gun" that directly links either booosh or cheney to illegal actions that would turn impeachment from political ground to a criminal one (how past ones were conducted) and a party that sees a failed impeachment as a distraction and open license for non-stop abuse and bashing by the corporate media.

I'm glad hearings are taking place this Friday and this will start a process...one that goes beyond 1/20/09 and ends with a future impeachment and conviction when the crimes of this regime are revealed. We only are scratching at the surface of the lawlessness that's gone on...I expect the floodgates will open after these criminals are removed from power.

[Phoebe Loosinhouse]

17. Many accept as fact that impeachment would lead to no conviction

and I wonder why. Monkey Funk above insists that we will never get the 67 vots needed. But who could know that in advance?

Investigations and hearings precede the actual impeachment itself. The Watergate Hearings were enough in and of themselves to cause Nixon to resign. I think the same thing would happen now. If it didn't, the width and breadth of the horrors that have gone on in this administration, once airly openly in a public, telvised forum that all Americans could see, would change many, many, opinions.

[KharmaTrain]

19. I'm Glad We've Gotten To Hearings...

It wasn't long ago Democrats were pushing into the basement of the Capitol and had their mikes shut off. There definitely needs to be investigations and thorough ones. The problem isn't what to investigate but where to start. Also, you have a regime that has put up a 500 foot wall of executive privilidge...one that far outweighs anything Nixon ever did that was ruled unconstitutional...but right now that ruling sits with a boooshie-appointed judge who is taking his sweet time on making a ruling. That's the one that would compel Bolton, Meiers and Rove to testify. Then there are the tons of documents and dozens of witnesses who right now are being walled off...all we have to show for it are "strongly worded letters". Hearings is the start on what I expect will be a long process.

I agree with Monkey Funhk...they won't get the 67 votes to convict. Look at how these goons voted down healthcare for children, the GI bill and the recent restoring of medicare funding. You think they're gonna jump ship? Not a chance...they've got too much blood on their hands as well. I even doubt there'd be the 60 votes to get passed a cloiture vote that would surely happen. But that doesn't mean things won't change after November...as they say election has consequences and a solid GOOP loss may shake a few votes to proceede and then once this regime is removed investigations can be completed and a complete, full and total impeachment and conviction can and must happen.

As one who remembers Watergate well...it began with joint hearings over a year before the first articles were presented to the HJC and it was the combination of the passing of those resolutions along with Nixon's losing the "smoking gun" argument at the Supreme Court that sealed his fate. That was the tape that proved Nixon had broken the law and prompted Barry Goldwater and Hughes Scott to go to the White House and tell Nixon he didn't have the votes in the Senate to avoid a conviction. It wasn't the hearings, Nixon was ready to fight just like Clinton did...it was when the leaders in his party said "game over" that forced his hand. We don't have a Goldwater...we have a McConnell...a BIG difference.

Cheers...

[fla nocount]

21. Yes it's the exposure itself that will be the most damning.

But it might be that same exposure that is making the Dem. collutionists(is that a word, spell checker says no so let's use partners in crime) so reticent to air the facts. Conyers was mighty bold until his wife got caught with her tit in the wringer.

I worry about people like DK with no handles or levers to yank or pull on, they like Carnahan, John Jr.
and Wellstone just seem to disappear. I'm not saying that all of our congress critters are bad people but I sometimes wonder if like inner city shop keepers they see graft, corruption and payola as the cost of doing business in the Big Shitty. That makes them weak, compromised elected officials.

Conviction is not an issue, let the Hague worry about that, the machine needs to be exposed so that the nation as a whole realizes that it is living in the Big Shitty. There's hundreds of millions of us and only a handful of them. If we are united and informed/aware they don't have a prayer and they know it.

[Senator]

20. K&R&Impeach Or Lose To McCain