Impeachment - What Nancy REALLY said.

[mzmolly]

I feel a clarification is necessary again as Nancy's "off the table" comment gets so much attention. Let's look at the depth of her comments before the election.

Courtesy of Mikael’s Impeach Bush Blog
November 8, 2006 ~ http://impeachforpeace.org/blog/?p=98

A lot has been made of soon-to-be Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi’s claim that impeachment is “off the table” but it is critical to note that in a Washington Post interview…

‘ …Pelosi said a Democratic-controlled House would launch investigations of the administration on energy policy and other matters. She said impeachment would not be a goal of the investigations, but she added: “You never know where it leads to.”

...

The reason it is the best choice to minimize the threat of impeachment is that investigations will now ensue with full subpoena power in the hands of John Conyers, whose already published report: “George W. Bush versus the U.S. Constitution - The Downing Street Memos and Deception, Manipulation, Torture, Retribution, and Coverups in the Iraq War and Illegal Demestic Spying” makes perfectly clear where it should lead - full accountability for multiple crimes and misdemeanors for the President, Vice President and his administration:

Nancy Pelosi has more on her plate than any speaker in recent history, and she's taking this one step at a time. I think some underestimate the good speaker as well as her partner in justice, The Honorable John Conyers? ;)

"You never know where it leads to ..." I think Nancy knows. I think we all know.

[mahina]

1. Rec'd. Thanks for that. They know a lot more than the most informed among us.

I know it's our job to give them hell when they mess up, and I've written and called right along with the loudest. But for them it's not a part time thing, they are doing the best they can with the hand they have. Investigations first. And then, stop that idiot asshole before he starts another war.

[elocs]

18. I have always thought there were many here who thought they knew all there is to be known.

That it was their patriotic duty to tell anybody and everybody how to do their jobs. You mean this is wrong?

[SharonAnn]

58. She's smart and she's taking it one step at a time. I think she's great!

[MrMickeysMom]

96. Jesus tap dancing Christ! They might know more than the most informed, but...

VERY few have the intestinal fortitude to act in the halls of Congress, and put a halt the bullshit being used so well by the Repubicans in committee. What is it that is shielding you from evaluating the weak muscles of our Democratic leaders by forcing recognition that our Constitution is being IGNORED? It's our job to make sure they do BETTER than that!

:wtf:

This means that we the people have reason to question and demand of speaker Pelosi, member Jihn Conyers and any and all who would force action leading to investigations, impeachment... WHAT HAVE YOU!!!

[bjobotts]

104. Pelosi stated, "It's a waste of time", Coyers said, "I'm not going to

impeach anybody." They are just admitting they are not going to hold this administration accountable. How can you respect anyone who refuses to fight because they might not win especially when there is so much at stake. Conyers see that it all leads to the WH and is busy pointing his finger at the WH and saying , "see. see where it leads". But they DO nothing. The WH has not once, ever been cooperative or compromising with the congress. It ignores subpoenas and blocks investigations. Saying "I'm not going to impeach anybody" does not make me feel confident in Conyer's ability to set things right.
You say the speaker has a lot on her plate...well this is the number 2 issue of importance from the '06 elections...to stop the corruption and make this administration accountable.. She needs to clear her plate for it. She says she is too busy trying to stop the Iraq war. She doesn't even call it an occupation. But she has done nothing to do that.
Pelosi desperately needs to reconsider her position because there is no downside to impeachment and this is what she will be remembered for. It would strengthen the Democratic party as having the balls to defend the constitution against the worst, most corrupt and unpopular Administration in our history. It would (with the appointment of a special prosecutor) bring out the corruption running rampant in the WH. It would tie the president's hands making it more difficult to attack Iran. It would bring out the widespread corruption of all the federal agencies. It would unite Americans against an administration dedicated to destroying our democracy. It would more effectively help in ending the occupation in Iraq than anything else Pelosi and others have tried.

Pelosi is preventing it from getting on the table since it is she who hands out assignments and offices and delegates the "importance" of issues. She claims the reason is because "it is a waste of time." Because it 'might' not be successful in the Senate. Because we 'might' not win. Maybe Pelosi has plans for higher office in 2012 and doesn't want to take a chance on losing. Whatever her reasoning, she is wrong. She is waiting for the elections to remedy the situation and hoping Bush will not do too much more damage before he leaves office. This is not practicality it is cowardice. If she gets re elected it will be as the lesser of two evils but certainly not out of support for her refusal to impeach, to make Cheney/Bush accountable, or her oath to defend the constitution. Her re-election is as a congressperson not Speaker of the House.
I cannot respect her if she continues to refuse to re-consider the issue of Impeachment with all that is on the table now. To me it means she is ignoring the voice of the people for the petty reason of ...It's just too inconvenient and we might not win anyway. Some principles are worth fighting for. The constitutional crisis is already happening with Cheney/Bush and impeachment IS the constitutional remedy. Too important to ignore.
Bush and Cheney have sold us out to the corporations, have destroyed our freedoms, and caused the deaths of hundreds of thousands unnecessarily, without regard for the American public. They have politicized all federal agencies, replaced science with propaganda, threatened the world, demolished our treasury, stole money from our retirement(Social security) to pay their war profiteers, and all but destroyed the equality of Justice in America and they NEED TO BE HELD ACCOUNTABLE, MISS SPEAKER. Put impeachment back on the table!

[MrMickeysMom]

110. You hit upon the issue here...

... when stating... "She is waiting for the elections to remedy the situation and hoping Bush will not do too much more damage before he leaves office. This is not practicality it is cowardice. If she gets re elected it will be as the lesser of two evils but certainly not out of support for her refusal to impeach, to make Cheney/Bush accountable, or her oath to defend the constitution. Her re-election is as a congressperson not Speaker of the House."

Jeez, I wonder if congressional members are heeding the bulk of DU comment here... I see most of us realizing this, particularly after Bill Moyers 7/13/07 Journal on PBS.

[formercia]

125. The Bill Moyers show on Impeachment was great.

I'm sure it woke a lot of people up.

[Betsy Ross]

102. Can Congress pre-empt a war?

Since the President has time between starting a war and going to Congress, could the Congress pass a law preventing the President from war?

[truedelphi]

126. Unfortunately the 97 Senators that voted

For the amendment last week seem compelled to help allow Bush/Cheney to have that war
against Iran

It's actions like that that allow for the malaise expressed in the OP

There doesn't seem to be a Whole Lot of Anything that we can do

It's like we have allowed the Powers that Be to put "Duck and COver" into place as the National Pastime (in which our participation is required 24/7.)

[mmonk]

2. We have a history of investigations

without impeachment. When is this supposed to start (voting on articles)? In 08?

[mzmolly]

3. We've only just begun IMHO.

We're trying to get Harriet Meyers aka John Dean in for testimony. That's no coincidence. ;)

[bluedog]

4. a theory I read

I wonder if this is how it went:

See, Pelosi and the other members of the Democratic leadership knew that they could never muster enough support to nail the BushCheney crime family for any of the multitudinous affronts to the Constitution and the U.S. Code that they had committed, no matter how egregious those affronts might have been.

They knew that the White House and the Right-Wing Noise Machine would always find an excuse for virtually any atrocity the Rethugs had perpetrated - mostly because most of the crimes had occurred behind closed doors, or in dark cellars, or in cold, isolated cells, or in dimly lit, windowless rooms, or in areas or to people about which or whom no members of the Republic base would care.

But the Democrats knew that if they pursued investigations into all of these dark corners, sooner or later the threads would lead back to the White House, and sooner or later the pressure on the White House would be too great - the administration would have no choice but to reveal the truth, or refuse to testify.

And, given that Nancy Pelosi had said that impeachment was off the table, why, the Rethugs had nothing to worry about. They got cocky. Well, cockier.So when John Conyers was left staring at an empty chair with Harriet Miers' nameplate over it, there was no abstruse legal explanation needed - everybody got it: Somebody was defying a subpoena.

In an investigation into the White House.

That is as blatant and graphic a display of obstruction of justice as I can think of.

And thus it was that the Rethugs were lured into committing an absolutely indefensible crime against the Constitution, right out in front of God and everybody, on national television, defiantly and unapologetically.


found on dailys kos

sounds good to me!

[mzmolly]

5. Oooh, I like it too. And the Libby pardon didn't the R's either. What timing huh?

:hi:

[blondeatlast]

7. I honestly think that Bush thought the public would blindly side with him on

that--and I think thanks to it we have them on the defensive now.

[mzmolly]

10. Isn't that interesting?

And the Clinton connection to the Republican outrage is also a ironic twist. Apparently the R's don't like the fact that Libby was exonerated for what Clinton was impeached over?

[Dan]

95. nah, Bush had no choice on the commuting of the prison

and the eventual pardon to come.

Libby knows enough on Bush and gang, to put all their asses in jail...and I suspect even more.

Libby is lucky, more lucky than he might realize...because Libby even pardoned will always be a threat to Bush & family. I suspect for certain crimes committed by the WH, there is no statue of limitations.

Libby's loyalty is to Chaney...Cheney is an old man...and once Cheney is gone, I wonder, "Libby, who will be your daddy?". Libby is a long term threat to Bush - and I wonder how long the Bush family can/will tolerate a man with this much knowledge of their internal dealings having this type of knowledge.

Thats my personal thoughts...and speculations

[blondeatlast]

6. I've often considered that scenario. If true, politicizing the hearings would be a dreadful mistake,

therefore, they must proceed with caution.

I want impeachment, but I want the corruption to be brought forth even more.

The truth is that impeachment won't necessarily stop the creeps and they sure as hell won't resign.

We need to make absolutely certain that he can't pervert the constitution. Keep those investigations front and center and I think impeachment will happen in a REASONABLY short period--and the administration will have to proceed with caution in the meantime.

[mohinoaklawnillinois]

11. John Conyers will not let impeachment hearings become

politicized.

He was a member of the Judiciary Committee in 1974 that voted on Nixon's impeachment.

"Conyers is the last remaining member of the House Judiciary Committee who had voted on the Articles of Impeachment against Nixon in July 1974. Two other members then serving on the Committee are still serving in Congress: Representative Charles Rangel (Democrat of New York) and Senator Trent Lott (Republican of Mississippi)." from Wikipedia.

[mzmolly]

13. Color me ignorant.

I had no idea.

[blondeatlast]

40. I know--he's a class act all the way. That's why I want to see him

and the JC get as much on them as possibl;e. I think Jr's setting up a separation of powers challenge.

[elocs]

22. If there is no chance of conviction, then there is not reason for them to resign.

It's not that conviction is impossible at this time, but it is improbable. If only a few Republican votes were needed it would be much more doable. Impeach anyways? Ever hear of a DA who does not indict a mobster that everybody "knows" is guilty until the DA has the evidence and a reasonable chance of getting a conviction?

[AntiFascist]

21. I have a simpler theory...

many of these threads lead back to the same old corruption that was covered up in the Iran-Contra scandal involving illegal arms/drugs trading and the shadow government. For some reason, Democrats never want to go there.

[John Q. Citizen]

57. History would seem to side with your theory. We are half way through July

07.

We've known about many many crimes for a long time. The Senate just voted 97-0 that Iran is waging war on our troops in Iraq. I didn't know they held a trial before they convicted Iran, and there is no discussion of the evidence for this.

I think we are naive if we continue to believe the Dems aren't on board with the Repos on many of the things the Repos have done. We are clinging to faith and ignoring the evidence in front of our noses.

[AntiFascist]

71. This would lead to the conclusion that...

most political leaders are corrupted. Either they or their families and cronies have conflicting business interests, or they may be receiving laundered money.

Kerry is the only one who got away with investigating the Iran-Contra scandal to any depth, but he later got swiftboated.

[OzarkDem]

56. These Dem leaders are lucky, not smart

As I've said numerous times before, they've been groomed as survivors only, not leaders. Their greatest skills are in staying elected, not leading or proactive political strategy or enacting good public policy.

I'm willing to forgive and move forward, if they're willing to take charge and do their job.

[roxnev]

105. What justice dept is going to prosecute her

and after millions spent to prosecute a pardon awaits :dunce:

[ooglymoogly]

8. Yes we need to be reminded of this.

[madrchsod]

9. i remember reading that a long time ago....

well it does seem like a long time ago. i`m as guilty as anyone else in not checking the facts or reading what was all said.
to win a battle one needs a solid plan and the troops to carry out it out.

[elocs]

26. If your cause is righteous and noble you need no battle plan

because if your cause is righteous and noble it will always turn out perfectly and there is no chance that the guilty would ever escape justice. Just do it. We don't need no stinking plan.

[MADem]

12. Oh, stop making sense. You'll ruin the trade in torches and pitchforks!

The Punching Bag crowd just HAVE to get their little anti-Democrats workout, and injecting TRUTH into the discussion will spoil their fun!

How DARE those Democrats INVESTIGATE before reaching conclusions. Surely it's more fun to shoot first and ask questions later?

[mzmolly]

14. LOL

:hi:

[Ghost in the Machine]

15. She also said this - - - - - - >>>

"The President isn't worth it.he's not worth impeaching. We've got important work to do." Stark says he replied, "Respectfully, the question is whether or not the Constitution is worth it," to which he says Pelosi responded, "Well, yeah, the constitution is worth it if you can succeed."

And she also said this:

"....just so oblivious. He’s a lovely man. You know, he comes from a beautiful, lovely family, great patriotic family, serves in the highest office of the land, leader of the free world. And he’s a nice person. It’s not his personality, it’s his policies."

[mzmolly]

17. These comments do not negate "you never know where it takes us..."

Further if you read this post:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=389&topic_id=1336397&mesg_id=1336438

Comments such as those are part of a strategy? We didn't just subpoena Meyers for nothing.

[Ghost in the Machine]

25. I already read that post. The first two sentences are the clincher

The title of the reply: "a theory I read"

The first sentence: "I wonder if this is how it went:"

Sorry, but I don't care about someone else's 'theory', I deal in the 'here and now'. We know they committed crimes. Hold them accountable. NOW. Waiting is like watching someone you know that is guilty of murder, just waiting to see if they kill again before you do something about it.

We keep hearing "Conyers threatens subpoenas. Leahy threatens subpoenas, etc., etc.... ad naseum...

Quit threatening already and DO IT, dammit!

[mzmolly]

30. Waiting is like watching a grand jury gather evidence.

But I understand the impatience. To the matter of subpoenas, Miers just ignored hers last week. http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/07/11/AR2007071100249.html?hpid=topnews

[Ghost in the Machine]

36. Right.. and Condi has ignored *her* subpoena too... LAST MONTH or longer

.. and so has the White House and the RNC concerning turning over emails.

How long do we let Miers skate? Why hasn't Condi been frogmarched in front of Congress to answer her subpoena? Can you see what I'm saying? It's not impatience at play here. Not at all. It's a demand for accountability and justice. Until the day comes that I see one of these criminals FORCED to testify, or get dragged off in cuffs to cell, I'm not giving them a pass on anything. Nothing. Stop threatening and just freakin' DO IT!

[mzmolly]

38. Understood.

:hi:

[loudsue]

101. I'm with you, Ghost!

They've all so CLEARLY broken the law, and have cheapened our criminal justice system to humiliate this country and our constitution. I want them in jail NOW.

:kick:

[cui bono]

53. They did. They gave out subpeonas. n/t

[Ghost in the Machine]

55. When, and to whom??

link please?

[cui bono]

60. Seriously? It's been all over the news. Bush has defied congress and refused to comply

as well as ordered Harriet Miers to not show up for testimony.

Subpoenaed were:

Condi Rice
RNC emails
Sara Taylor
Harriet Miers
WH documents
WH emails

I'm sure there were more.

I'd gather links but I think you must have been kidding. If not, just google it in the news search.

[Ghost in the Machine]

61. oh, I thought you meant new ones, not the ones that have already been ignored

read the title of your reply:
"Bush has defied congress and refused to comply.... as well as ordered Harriet Miers to not show up for testimony."

Ok.. so WHAT is being DONE about it??

Next we have:

"Subpoenaed were:

Condi Rice ----- where is she, and why isn't she in jail??
RNC emails --- where are they, and why hasn't someone been arrested yet??
Sara Taylor --- showed up, lied, left without being held accountable
Harriet Miers --- a no show, but hasn't been arrested yet. Why not??
WH documents --- where are they, and why hasn't someone been arrested yet??
WH emails --- where are they, and why hasn't someone been arrested yet??

Investigations that lead nowhere are useless, as are subpoenas that get issued and ignored, while the person who ignored the subpoena is still free, out on the streets, enjoying their life. Where's the accountability? Why isn't someone in jail???

[cui bono]

77. I agree with you. I thought you were saying that no subpoena's were ever

issued.

They better use Inherent Contempt if they want to save the government. I agree with John Dean. Did you read his piece from Friday?
http://writ.news.findlaw.com/dean/20070713.html

[roxnev]

106. They can not prosecute

all they can do is collect evidence and turn it over to AG

[rodeodance]

20. so, the Constituon is worth only if you succeed. If indeed she did say this

this my respect for her just fell off the table!!

Pelosi responded, "Well, yeah, the constitution is worth it if you can succeed."

[mzmolly]

23. Well that was a dumb comment, but I'd like the full quote with a link and the context

personally. :shrug:

[Ghost in the Machine]

41. here's your link: from an interview with Charlie Rose

CHARLIE ROSE: The President. Do you think he is approaching irrelevancy?

NANCY PELOSI: I think he’s approaching obliviousness.

CHARLIE ROSE: He’s oblivious to what’s going on around him?

NANCY PELOSI: Just so oblivious. He’s a lovely man. You know, he comes from a beautiful, lovely family, great patriotic family, serves in the highest office of the land, leader of the free world. And he’s a nice person. It’s not his personality, it’s his policies. And...

CHARLIE ROSE: What’s he oblivious to?

NANCY PELOSI: He’s oblivious to the truth on the ground in Iraq. He’s oblivious to the needs of many people in our country in terms of saying that we need to lift up many more people in our economy if we’re going to be proud of our economic success and our prosperity. He’s oblivious to children.
http://speaker.gov/newsroom/articles?id=0051 : it's about 3/4 of the way down the page...

[mzmolly]

43. Thanks I recall that interview.

I tend to read between the lines with politicians. I ask myself what did that "really mean?" ;) And, as I've said, perhaps I'm just optimistic? But, I shall remain so until I have no other option.

[Ghost in the Machine]

52. I'm glad you can remain optimistic through all of this. I used to be able to

but the recent events have really just blown me away. I'm not a defeatist, not by a long shot. I hold out hope that we, as a nation, can survive this assault on our Country and Constitution, but I personally feel it's going to get worse before it gets better now.

The rats are cornered right now, making them more dangerous than at any time during their misadministration. They have nothing to lose, Absolutely NOTHING to lose, by pulling a false flag attack, suspending elections and Congress, then attacking Iran. They do have everything to gain, though.

Time is of the essence, and we don't have much of it left.

[snappyturtle]

68. I like the way you think! Time is of the essence. n/t

[AntiFascist]

78. So, then, the Constitution is not worth it if you can't succeed??

In other words, the Constitution is only as strong as the Congress is capable of defending it. Our system of government, as defined in the Constitution, has endured and been celebrated for over 200 years only to come down to defeat by a Congress that isn't willing to even stand up to this challenge?? Not only will the "terrorists" have succeeded in causing permanant damage to our government, but our elected leaders won't even try to fix the problems while they can.

[mmonk]

35. Which means if according to our crystal ball,

the republicans won't go along with conviction in the Senate, we won't proceed and have him impeached in the House.

[rodeodance]

16. The you never know comment was made in May and more definitive comment

was made in OCTover. of 2006.



seems to me she went from an elusive maybe to a NO

[mzmolly]

19. I don't think so. She's on the record.

Color me a cynic or an optimist, but I think Nancy made calculating political statements.

[rodeodance]

24. click on the articles in the IP and see for yourself

[mzmolly]

28. I've heard her comments, I've read them here.

I am of the impression that it's strategy. :shrug: She said clearly "we don't know where investigations will lead..." She wants to feign outrage with the rest of the nation when we can no longer deny the outrageous crimes of this administration. "Gosh, I hadn't planned to support impeachment, but this is just too much..." Nancy Pelosi insert future date. ;)

[rodeodance]

29. What I am saying is that more closer came the election the more clear ly

she said NOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO

[mzmolly]

31. Well when the investigations take us to where she knows they'll lead it will be

YEEEEEEEESSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSS. She can't say no, she took an oath to defend the constitution.

[rodeodance]

67. but she only if we can succeed. She will count the votes.

[mzmolly]

70. Impeachment itself is a success. I've come to realize that.

:)

[mzmolly]

89. dup.

delete

[madamesilverspurs]

100. Oath to defend the Constitution?

Didn't Bush swear an oath to do the same? So far, his "defense" has involved ignoring subpoenas, more lies, blatant obstruction of justice in blocking testimony of people who no longer work for him, and generally thumbing his nose at Congress. Pretty much what we would expect from someone who thinks the Constitution is "nothing but a damn piece of paper." Problem is, we are holding the Democratic leadership to a higher standard than that. As well we should.

[mzmolly]

114. As well we should.

Welcome! :hi:

[Cameron27]

27. Thank you,

Nancy's too smart to frame this as a "never happen" issue. Context has to be considered.

[mzmolly]

33. Thank you for the reply.

:hi:

[Warren Stupidity]

32. I am so tired of contrived bullshit.

"House Democratic Leader Nancy Pelosi promised Wednesday that when her party takes over, the new majority will not attempt to remove President Bush from office, despite earlier pledges to the contrary from others in the caucus.
“I have said it before and I will say it again: Impeachment is off the table,” Pelosi, D-Calif., said during a news conference.

Pelosi: Bush Impeachment `Off the Table’ Published: November 8, 2006
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=post&forum=389&topic_id=1336397&mesg_id=1336397


Pelosi: Impeachment 'off the table'

RAW STORY
Published: Monday October 23, 2006


Print This Email This


In an interview with CBS's 60 Minutes, House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi (D-CA) pledged that impeachment of President George W. Bush was off the table should Democrats gain a majority next month.

Pelosi speculated that Republicans would "just love" the "waste of time" such proceedings would be. "Making them lame ducks," she concluded, "is good enough for me."

http://www.rawstory.com/news/2006/Pelosi_Impeachment_off_table_1023.html

Democrats Won't Try To Impeach President

By Charles Babington
Washington Post Staff Writer
Friday, May 12, 2006; Page A06

Seeking to choke off a Republican rallying cry, the House's top Democrat has told colleagues that the party will not seek to impeach President Bush even if it gains control of the House in November's elections, her office said last night.

Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi (Calif.) told her caucus members during their weekly closed meeting Wednesday "that impeachment is off the table; she is not interested in pursuing it," spokesman Brendan Daly said.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/05/11/AR2006051101950.html

This is from John Conyers's website blog, dated November 15, 2006:

We need to put aside any thought of anger or payback. Instead we need to focus on identifying and correcting abuses and pass legislation which serves the interests of the American people.



Having devoted a considerable amount of time and attention to detailing the many abuses of the Bush Administration, I firmly believe that we have brought these matters to the attention of the American people and the mainstream media, and that their verdict was reflected in the elections on November 7.



As many of you also know, I have agreed with Speaker-to-be Pelosi that impeachment is off the table. Instead, we agree that oversight, accountability and checks and balances – which have been sorely lacking for the last six years – must occur. I have nothing but respect for those who might disagree, but that is where I come out.

http://www.democrats.com/node/11050

And on and on and on and on.....

Google is not your friend here.

[mzmolly]

37. So you look to "headlines" for truth and context?

All you've proven is that the media "bit," the political spin, as did some here apparently. In fact, one of your links contains the quote I noted above and follows up with another point...

Democratic-controlled House would launch investigations of the administration on energy policy and other matters. She said impeachment would not be a goal of the investigations, but she added: "You never know where it leads to."

GOP activists seized on the remarks to warn potential donors of Bush's possible peril if Democrats pick up the 15 net House seats they need to become the majority. The National Republican Congressional Committee republished The Post's Sunday article in a letter to supporters and donors that stated: "The threat of the Democrats taking the majority in the House this November is very real."

I believe her statements were political in nature. Conyers didn't spend months preparing to chuck it for Nancy Pelosi. His values have not changed overnight.

Indeed google is "not your friend here."

[Warren Stupidity]

39. No I take people at their word and their deed.

Pelosi has stated repeatedly and unambiguously that 'impeachment is off the table'. Conyers, the champion in the House of impeachment before the election, has stated unambiguously since the election that impeachment is off the table. There is no impeachment proceeding going on. There have been no statements from any people in the House leadership, nor any actions by any of that leadership to indicate otherwise. You have grasped onto one very thin straw, and from that you have built an entire haystack of hopeless bullshit. Sorry, but that is the way I see and I sincerely hope that events will in fact prove me wrong and you right.

[mzmolly]

42. And I took her at her word when she said "you never know where the evidence will take us..."

Of course I think she did know. But... ;) I also understand that politicians speak a different language, that they are politically calculating if they are to survive.

I do feel that your thought process can't be too heavily criticized as you believe what you were lead to believe.

And, as I've said, it's highly possible I'm wrong, but I too HOPE that I'm not. :hi:

[Ghost in the Machine]

54. It's useless to try to reason with people that don't want to reason.

It's just like all the Gore-bots that think "I have no plans of ever being a candidate again"... means that he is going to run.

I can sit here and say that "I have no plans of ever becoming a preacher"... what "I have no plans...." means is exactly that. I have no plans. Period. I'm not planning on it, therefore I never give it a second thought. I don't mull over the possibilities that there may come a day when I might think about it. It's a moot issue that doesn't even rate a second thought.

People will see what they want to see, and believe what they want to believe, no matter what facts to the contrary you present them...

[mzmolly]

63. I don't think anyone "thinks" he's going to run, I think many HOPE that he will.

Myself included. No need to be insulting, huh?

[Ghost in the Machine]

65. If pointing out a fact is insulting, then I apologize..

You have every right to hope for whatever you want, no matter what the circumstances are surrounding it.

I keep hoping for a plane to fly over and drop bales of money and/or marijuana in my yard, but it ain't gonna happen.

To each his own, I guess...

[mzmolly]

69. Well if you had a history of planes flying overhead dropping money and weed

unto your lawn, I'd not critique that "hope." Gore has run for President before and he's not ruled it out.

Again, you choose to be condescending. There is no need to do so.

[Forkboy]

81. MMMMMMMMMMMMMmmmmm....money and weed.

Oh...sorry...what was everyone talking about?

:evilgrin:

[mzmolly]

85. LOL,

:hi:

[LittleClarkie]

94. Why does Pelosi get nailed but Conyers mostly gets a pass?

He was the one pushing it, and now he's cool with it being off the table. So why aren't we after Conyers with pitchforks, calling him a coward.

[Peace Patriot]

34. I was giving her the benefit of the doubt for a long time. I don't underestimate

the visible and also presently unseeable difficulties of dealing with this fascist junta and its extremely dangerous leaders. But the "benefit of the doubt" got real hard to maintain with the Congressional approval of the ESCALATION of this war, and their larding Bush and Cheney with another $100 billion of our non-existent money for more killing, with the recent resolution on Iran, and a number of other actions of the current Congress, added to past actions of our Democratic leadership, including their wholehearted support of non-transparent vote counting in machines run on 'TRADE SECRET,' PROPRIETARY programming code, owned and controlled by rightwing Bushite corporations.

If Pelosi WANTED a majority of real progressive, anti-Iraq War Democrats in Congress, why didn't she long ago start fighting this Stalinist voting system? ("Those who vote decide nothing. Those who count the votes decide everything." --Josef Stalin.) I mean, it's a no-brainer. Democracy 101. And IF the Democratic leadership had alerted the voters, and fought this fascist/corporate coup that occurred in our voting SYSTEM, we might have had a fighting chance to oust Bush/Cheney in 2004, and to elect a REAL Congress in 2006.

Nope. They DIDN'T WANT an antiwar Congress. On the contrary, they colluded to pull the counting of our votes out of the public venue, into tech cubicles at Diebold and ES&S--two corporations with very close ties to the Bush Junta and far rightwing causes. And, frankly, I think they threw the 2004 election, because having these scary criminals in the White House makes Corporate Democrats look "progressive."

I was trying to withhold judgment of the more seemingly representative of our leaders--people like Pelosi. Maybe they're scared. Maybe they're being blackmailed. Maybe they've been personally threatened. They have a lot of responsibility in a very tricky and dangerous situation. Maybe they didn't see it coming. Who knows? The Democrats are a mixed bag of good intentions, stupidity, corruption, collusion, and ambition. It's hard to judge them collectively (--as compared to Bushite Repig worms, who are easy to judge collectively). But it is also impossible not to draw certain conclusions from what they collectively do. And when you add up THAT list--non-transparent vote counting by rightwing Bushite corporations (--not a peep out of them), re-funding the war WITH NO CHANGE OF POLICY to promote a big ESCALATION of the killing, and--incredibly--going along with Bush's set-up of Iran for similar mass death, invasion and occupation--it's difficult to avoid the conclusion that we, the People, have been sold down the river by both parties.

She said it: "Impeachment is off the table." And my question to Pelosi is, WHAT table? And who was invited to sit at it?

At first I thought it was an under the table deal on Iran. "You don't bomb Iran. We won't impeach. And get rid of Rumsfeld." It's still possible that it was, but it is looking more and more like something else--more like Kerry's position on the war during the campaign. "Put us in charge. We'll do a better war." The policy of "no war" is NOT "on the table."

56% of the American people opposed this war from the beginning (Feb. '03)--a substantial majority that has now grown to an overwhelming 70+% no-war mandate. That substantial majority and this overwhelming mandate have both been thwarted. And so much more has been thwarted--shredded, destroyed, irrecoverable. Lives, so many lives. Our financial solvency. Our emergency preparedness. Our environmental laws. The rule of law. Food safety. Millions of jobs. Control of our public airwaves. Our reputation in the world. Seven years of lost effort to stem global warming. Ethical standards. Open government. The right of habeas corpus. Protection against torture and inhumane treatment. Laws against domestic spying. Election transparency. Our right to vote--the main means we have of changing things. Many fundamental principles of our Constitution. Maybe some of it is recoverable, and I am ever hopeful in the American people. I really am. Their resistance to relentless, 24/7, fascist propaganda and war mongering has been astonishing. And I still feel that we don't have much choice except to work within the Democratic Party as the vehicle for change. But we shouldn't be naive about it. Our leadership is NOT representing the great, peace-minded, progressive American majority. They are instead trying to OUTMANEUVER--not to mention demoralize and disenfranchise--that majority.

[mzmolly]

45. I am comforted by the fact that the media is chattering about impeachment now.

Pelosi will have no choice but to heed the will of the people, and the people are losing patience. Hang on PeacePatriot, it's getting better. :hug:

[Peace Patriot]

59. I'm sure WE are getting better--We, the People--but I'm not at all sure our

government, or our party leaders, are. Where is the evidence for it? They just ESCALATED the war! They just endorsed Bush's setup for MORE war--now with Iran. And the most telling thing of all is that they have done NOTHING--absolutely nothing!--to insure transparent vote counting next year. It's July. Even if they mandate a "paper trail" and a lousy stinking 2% audit, at this point--while cementing Bushite-corporate controlled "trade secret," proprietary programming code into the system on a permanent basis--there is little hope that state and county election officials can or will comply in time for the primaries.

HOW can they have dragged their feet on this FUNDAMENTAL of democracy--transparent vote counting? We don't want to believe it. I don't want to believe it. But this is COMPLICITY.

So, yes, it's up to We, the People, and I am confident that we will fix it, in time--a long hard battle at the state/local level. I just hope we have a country left at the end of that battle.

[EFerrari]

44. I hope you're right and I fear you're not.

She or her office gave Conyers the talking point "we'll impeach them at the polls in 2008". Which makes no sense coming from Conyers because he knows exactly how messed up our elections are.

[mzmolly]

46. Lets say that I feel the same. I hope I'm right and I fear I'm not.

Have a great night Sfexpat, I'm checking out for a while because the kiddo demands some time.

:hi:

[EFerrari]

50. Lucky kiddo!

:hi:

[mzmolly]

47. STEPPIN OUT FOR A WHILE GANG. Thanks for the great discussion.

:hi:

[Time for change]

48. What do you do when they won't respond to Congressional subpoenas?

What is there to investigate?

That was one of the things that Nixon was impeached for.

[mzmolly]

62. Yep, and that is happening all over again. I don't think this congress wants to go down in history

as the Congress that abdicated it's Constitutional duty?

[Time for change]

66. I sure hope you're right, but it seems to me to be taking way too long

[mzmolly]

75. Nixon's took a year to get started?

So, we're right on track. ;)

[Time for change]

83. Bush crimes are far more numerous, egregious, and obvious than Nixon's

[mzmolly]

99. Agreed, and that actually makes it more difficult in ways.

It's not a matter of gathering evidence about ONE major issue.

[Elspeth]

49. Thank you. The Watergate hearings took over a year before articles of impeachment

were drawn up. Hearings started in April of 73 and Articles of Impeachment were drawn up in July of 74.

We're only 6 months into this, folks.

[EVDebs]

107. But Watergate needed threads to investigate

we know where the money trail leads except for the cover 'black money' trail. The prostitution case(s) will unravel that part of the story,

"It's all part of a growing ongoing investigation into corruption in defense and intelligence contracts, which already has sent former Rep. Randy “Duke” Cunningham to prison and, legal sources say, may threaten others in Congress and the CIA."


http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/12634250/

Note that this story is over a year old now. And that in the recent DC Madame case both ABC news and NBC news crack investigative teams dropped the ball, since the Vitter case was revealed by Larry Flynt's Hustler/Dan Moldea investigations.

Hmmm. Who are these 'others' in the Congress and CIA ? Is pressure being put onto them in order to silence them ?

[creeksneakers2]

51. I agree

And "off the table" isn't the same as saying it will never be done. It only means that nothing is presently being considered about impeachment.

[rosesaylavee]

64. Well its either strategy as you suggest

or incredibly stubborn stupidity possibly mixed with paralyzing fear. I don't know how she could have gotten to where she is if its the latter. I prefer and hope its the former too.

Good post.

[ecstatic]

72. So she never said "off the table?" If not, where did that meme emerge?

How could everyone have been so wrong? And if we were wrong, then why haven't the impeachment proceedings begun?

[mzmolly]

73. She said off the table, but "gee we'll see."

Politics my friend. As to the proceedings, they have begun in the form of hearings. :hi:

[Gelliebeans]

74. Thanks mzmolly

let me add another K&R

[mzmolly]

76. Thank YOU Gelliebeans.

:hi:

[Pushed To The Left]

79. K & R! "You never know where it leads to.."

I'm definitely pro-impeachment, and I'm confident that investigations can lead to that even if that isn't the goal. It makes sense to investigate, discover the offenses, and then go for the impeachment based on that.

[tiptoe]

80. K & R pins the matter down "JC's published report makes perfectly clear where it should lead...

...- full accountability for multiple crimes and misdemeanors for the President, Vice President and his administration."

[mmonk]

82. I have also heard it is a waste of time, we've got more important things,

and "let's ask a real question" in the debates. This is as real as it gets.

[mzmolly]

87. Indeed, people can't be blamed for believing the "move along" mantra.

The attempt I feel has been to mislead and catch em with their guard down. But, only time will tell. I think they were hoping that Bush co. would be more inclined to testify if they "thought" we weren't 'really' going to do anything. Turns out they didn't bite. ;)

[The Cleaner]

84. She'd better hurry the hell up then.

We are all just one "national emergency" away from martial law and Bush literally taking over our government.

[DirtyDawg]

86. The Problem With Impeaching....

...the bastards is that, one, it would immediately galvanize the Repugs - even those that may otherwise might be ready to turn on these vermin - and perhaps even make some start to feel sorry for geedubya...and second, say we do force bush/cheney out. Somehow they would manipulate the deal - cheney steps down first, bush names a new, perhaps even reasonable, repug replacement, they then get 8-12 months to calm the waters and give repug politicians a chance to be able to save their sorry asses before Nov '08.

I say let Conyers, et. al., have their way with them...let bushco continue to do and say stupid things and - assuming we survive the next 16 months - maybe we will get virtually every repug out of office, or at least put the fear of God (aka 'damn I might not get re-elected') in 'em to the point that they'll become a bit more sane.

[GeorgeGist]

88. So far it has led to ...

NO impeachment hearings. That much everyone REALLY knows, including Nancy Pelosi.

[mzmolly]

90. Yeah, that generally comes later on.

About six more months if we look to the Nixon hearings.

[SharonRB]

91. Thank you. n/t

[understandinglife]

92. Recommended. And, inherent contempt is the lever.

Peace.

[Jackpine Radical]

93. Oh, what the hell--

One more rec never hurt a good thread.

I've argued along these lines myself at various times. I keep thinking, and hoping, that they're playing a fairly sophisticated game here, thinking several moves ahead. And it has always seemed to me that the best way to get to impeachment is to just calmly keep digging & exposing things until the public screams for it. If the politicians go in too obviously looking for reasons to impeach, they will immediately be seen as self-serving and partisan. If, on the other hand, they just go in to do a normal and prudent job of investigating things and start digging up bodies, that's a whole different story.

[Applan]

97. And the public are beginning to scream for it

Given that the American public are woefully misinformed about the issues, it is surprising to me that 54% want Cheney impeached and only 40% don't. With Bush the numbers are 45/46 so even there, those who expressed an opinion half say yes.
As you rightly point out, as more and more crimes are unearthed, more and more people will wake up until eventually the politicians will hear the screams.
Let's not forget, with Clinton, only 36% of the public favoured impeachment.
http://www.cnn.com/ALLPOLITICS/stories/1998/12/17/impeach.poll/

[mzmolly]

98. This is my hope.

Thanks for the rec. :hi: If we're wrong on this, we'll have to form an "apoliticalunderground.com" ;)

[jaysunb]

103. wish I could rec your post....

I guess I just did. LOL ! :thumbsup:

[bjobotts]

108. Then Pelosi should have said nothing, Not loudly proclaim it

Are we supposed to believe what she said but think she didn't really mean it.
If she had said nothing about on/off the table, then we would all be more than willing to let investigations take us where they may. But Pelosi led us to believe that she will not hold Bush/Cheney accountable.

I lose faith either way because either way it was not a smart thing to say.

[AZBlue]

109. K&R! And thank you!!

Thank you for clarifying the situation. A much-needed post!!

[HughMoran]

111. Much appreciated by the reality-based liberals on this board

I can't stand it when people put words in another persons mouth.

[flashl]

112. What about section 603 of Jefferson's Manual?

I distinctly recall reading where a state can introduce impeachment charges to Congress and I remember that Vermont followed through on the resolution and took it to Washington. So, supposedly, under Jefferson's House Rules the US House of Representatives Vermont's resolution is suppose to HALT all other business until the issue of impeachment is dealt with.

What happened to Vermont's resolution?

[mzmolly]

116. That's an excellent question.

I checked http://www.vtimpeach.com and can't find any info on the progress?

[eridani]

113. Since she's in the direct line of succession--

--she is absolutely the LAST person who should advocate impeachment.

[AtomicKitten]

115. something I've argued for a while and thanks for punctuating it

the cart goes after the horse ...
investigations first

[Prisoner_Number_Six]

117. "You're either on the bus or off the bus."

-Ken Kesey

(in "The Electric Kool-Aid Acid Test" by Tom Wolfe)

Simple, isn't it- that is, if you WANT it to be...

[mzmolly]

120. You're either "seeing" where investigations lead or your not.

Pelosi can't table the Constitution. That's simple too.

[Prisoner_Number_Six]

121. Pelosi's one alone standing on the fringe of MANY TOGETHER.

Tell her THAT.

And while you're at it, remind her the Constitution belongs to US, not HER. She simply does not have the right to ignore the will of the people.

[mzmolly]

123. Agreed.

And, I dont think she has any intention of ignoring the Constitution.

[Imagevision]

118. Pelosi last month; "as I've previously stated impeachment is off the table"

[mzmolly]

119. As I stated last year "we'll see where investigations lead..."

She can get out of that pretty easily.

Man I think I want to rename the thing I set my dinner plate on after all this "table" talk. ;)

[Zensea]

122. On or off the table, it doesn't really matter either way at this point

The clock is ticking.
If there isn't impeachment by the end of October (and I seriously doubt there will be), there will be no impeachment.
It will be too close to the start of the primary season.
I'd almost venture that it's already too late now.
The sheer logistics of it mean this.
Once hearings start and Congress gets wrapped up in it, it would probably take two or three months at least.
That would make it October already.
They don't have the votes now.
I find it hard to imagine anything changing that significantly to create the votes between now and then.
Once October ends it's the holiday season and then the primaries and these people will all be very busy with something other than impeachment.
I think it extremely unlikely that Congress will get involved in impeachment at all if they haven't by 2008.
Once the 2008 election season starts that will be the focus.
I kind of suspect it already is.

Everyone is going to have to content themselves with getting these thugs out of office the good old fashioned way -- elections.

At least that's the way I'm reading it.
I wouldn't mind being wrong about this, but I think it's essentially a fantasy to think it will happen otherwise & I've had enough fantasies in my day.
I try to avoid them in the political realm.

[yurbud]

124. the investigations are going at a glacial pace and licking around the edges