Why is Pelosi saying impeachment is "off the table?"

[raccoon]

Anybody know? Has somebody made her a deal she can't refuse?

[Kagemusha]

1. She won't even be Speaker for weeks here.

If she said anything else it'd make her sound like she was there solely to disrupt and not to do the People's business.

[JavDom]

27. Because a Dick is worse than a Bush?

If Chimp is impeached, Cheney will become president. It'd be an even worse fate.

[newyawker99]

29. Hi JavDom!!

Welcome to DU!! :toast:

[JavDom]

30. Thank you!

I'm glad I found this place.

[Turbineguy]

2. Because it sounds

too much like "I wanna be your un-elected President" to say otherwise.

I think it was a smart move. Anyway, the impeachment would occur in the Senate.

[thereismore]

4. impeachment starts in the House judicial committee. She is saying

that to blunt the reeps' outcry. It's a preemptive measure, you know.

[kenny blankenship]

3. Waiting a decent interval until facts established by investigation put it on the table?

Like a responsible adult would do?
That would be my guess.

[HereSince1628]

8. I think there is some concern about the time it will take to do that.

Personally, I think she's wrong on that count. There are plenty of experts who've published what they think are evidence of impeachable actions...

But if she's right, not much would get done between now and 2008. IMO Pelosi wants to be able to point to accomplishment rather than stalemate caused by the impeachment process.

And at this point there aren't enough votes for conviction by the senate. That also levers the decision.

[kenny blankenship]

16. I agree that there are other good reasons for her not to be for impeachment

out of the gate. But there is also a scenario in which the votes for conviction could materialize in the Senate, whereas a couple of days ago they clearly couldn't be found. Here's why: Bush's response to the "message" from voters appears to be to ramp up American commitment in Iraq with 20,000 more troops, and this move implies more snap "prove-your-love-for-me-and-the-troops" appropriations votes. Assuming Bush follows through on these threats we're now hearing about, it may turn out that Senate Republicans won't want to go into 2008 with Iraq as an EVEN BIGGER sore spot with voters than it was in 2006. If Republicans are fearful of losing several more Senate seats to Bush's war, then they may discover that they have a sufficient motive to find him guilty on the crimes alleged in House impeachment articles. We've been hearing how furious Bush made Republicans by hanging onto Rumsfeld and only firing him after the election; many Republicans ran away from Bush in 2006 because of the unpopularity of the war, if he ties them more closely to his war by upping American commitments and making it more difficult for us to leave, Senate Republicans may join us in deposing him to save their own skins.

[O.M.B.inOhio]

13. Yes, let there be investigations of war-justifying lies and of both Pres. elections first.

And if it's demonstrated in the next 2 years that Bush and Cheney lied to Congress and the American people to start a war in Iraq and that they were never the choice of voting Americans in the first place, then those who oppose impeachment will have to prove why these offenses are less impeachable than Clinton's. In my personal fantasy, I imagine Congress utilizing a new procedure for the illegally installed usurper President, a sort of annulment of Bush's presidency that deligitimizes such Bush actions as his SCOTUS appointees.

[Benhurst]

5. Because she doesn't want to look like the rabid Republicans

who went after Clinton.

Once the hearings get started and the criminal record of the Bush Crime Family is spelled out to the American people, she will be "forced" by public outcry to begin impeachment hearings.

[kentuck]

9. I think this is correct...

Right now, there are important issues to attend to, while the investigations go on, and if there are facts of crimes or high misdemeanors that come forth forth in the investigations, she could not prevent further hearings or impeachment.

[sam sarrha]

6. i wouldn't jump to that conclusion.. i think an "INVESTIGATION" is on the table.. dont put the cart

before the horse.. your cant impeach before the Investigation and grand jury.. they are just trying to get out of trouble with this lying spinn.. dont get caught up in it.

the Reich Wingers are getting shrill fearing investigations, they have 'All' been like a bunch of monkeys at a salad bar gobbling up all the corruption and illegal money they could, arrogant that we couldn't stop them, or win both houses

careful what you believe they say.. remember... if their lips are moving they are lying or blowing a CEO for campaign contributions...

NOTHING THEY SAY IS TRUE, nor anything the media says to support them..

[longship]

7. Because...

Pelosi doesn't want to be quoted, "First we impeach, then we investigate."

[johnlal]

15. What investigation do we need?

Bush has admitted that there were no weapons of mass destruction.
Bush has admitted that we have secret prisons in foreign countries, and that we have indefinitely detained people there without access to the courts.
Bush has admitted that he has been spying on the phone calls of US citizens without a warrant.
Bush has tacitly admitted that we engage in torture, and Gonzales' documents back that admission up.
We know that there are billions of dollars missing from Iraq.

Bush has admitted some of the most damning transgressions, and he has dared the Dems to do something about it. What are we going to do about it?

We don't need more hearings. We need action! That's what we voted for.

[ClassWarrior]

19. Nonetheless, it needs to get into the official record. We're all...

...eager for a resolution, but we have to be patient and follow the process.

NGU.

[longship]

20. Uhhhhm...

I am now wondering whether you understand the process of impeachment.

We don't indict people without a legal chain of evidence, and we do not impeach a President without investigations. To advocate for any other way is to advocate for fascism. There is a process which has both legal and historic context. This must be honored otherwise we are no better than the people who we are against.

[johnlal]

33. Well...

When he's already admitted to having an agency that collects data on the telephone calls of American citizens, without a warrant, what do we have to investigate? When Bush has already stated publicly that we have been keeping people in secret prisons on foreign shores without charge, without access to lawyers, why do we need to investigate. It's all in the public record. These things have come straight from the President's mouth.

I'm telling you, you're just giving these crooks another chance to give their song and dance. "Did I violate the law? Heavens no! Henny Penny! I guess you want Al Queda to win".

Sure, we may need to tie up some loose ends, but to say that impeachment is off the table, in the face of the evidence we already have, is just plain criminal. We voted a lot of people out this election. If the new folks won't provide the proper oversight, we can vote them out too.

[sam sarrha]

10. we are not just out for revenge and payback, we want Justice 'First', and it is goin to be easy.!!!!

[iconoclastic cat]

11. Because she knows that impeachment is organic.

Impeachment builds on its own, like a fractal. It doesn't matter who says its off or on the table: If investigations turn up crimes by Bushco, impeachment will follow.

[Apollo11]

12. Some good answers here

My impression is that Pelosi is both tough and smart. Much better than being one without the other!

House Democrats have to focus on the real issues - the people's priorities.

Any investigations should focus on revealing the truth, not serving a partisan agenda.

Nancy knows the BEST way to get back at Bush-Cheney is to win back the Whitehouse in 2008.

Everything the Dems do from now on should be part of an overall strategy leading up to that.

[raccoon]

14. Good answers, yall. nt

[The Count]

17. because verdicts follow trials, not the other way around.

In the reality based community at least.

[stillcool]

18. because it's on the 'desk'?

[zbdent]

21. She was set up in an interview before ... given a question they would not

have given a Repuke in 1994 ... "If the Dems win, can you pledge not to impeach the President?" NP made the mistake of answering that ... and in the affirmative ... now, like Murtha's video of refusing a bribe, her answer will be resurrected infinitely, especially if the evidence of crimes against humanity comes out massively against Bush, and even Repukes are calling for investigations. If she decides to impeach, the media will go into full "SEE!!! YOU CAN'T TRUST A DEM ON THEIR WORD!"

Now, I have yet to see any - and I mean ANY - media person ask Joe Lieberman a question along the lines of "Were you offered the job of Sec. of Defense? Will you pledge to refuse the job if it is offered you by the Bush administration?"

[Skinner]

22. Because Pelosi is a smart politician.

You don't get to be Speaker of the House unless you understand how the game is played.

[wryter2000]

23. Because it's a useless gesture that will only tick the public off n/t

n/t

[ClassWarrior]

24. Until the public starts to demand it.

NGU.

[wryter2000]

28. Right

When all the crimes are out in the open and everyone wants Bush/Cheney kicked out, go for it!

[formernaderite]

25. Because we want to win in 08

and it would be a distraction...let the repubs sink further. We will be demonized by the public who wants change...the election proved it...but doesn't want another impeachment. As much as I'd like Bush gone...it just ain't going to happen. Let's let him wallow in it...and then win in 08...and win more seats as well. We have a tide moving in our direction...impeachment is looking back, everyone now knows that mistakes were made.

[Spaceman Spiff]

26. First you would need

to get articles of impeachment voted on in the House. Then you would need a 2/3 vote in the Senate for a conviction on anything. No way is the 2/3 vote gonna happen. In the end it would just be a waste of time.

[El Fuego]

31. Because it would look like a power grab since she will be third in line for the presidency

[slackmaster]

32. Invading Canada is still on the table as far as I know

Nothing is really ever off of it. Congresswoman Pelosi is being diplomatic.