"Nancy Pelosi Is An Accomplice"

[orleans]

randi had jonathan turley on her show again monday. the interview begins about 35 minutes into the show. (monday december 10, 2007)

download it from www.whiterosesociety.org
http://www.whiterosesociety.org/Rhodes.html

Randi: let’s go back to what you once told me; I think it was a week or two ago where you told me that you believe there was some sort of unwritten sort-of-a handshake/wink/nod between the republicans and the democrats when it comes to impeachment of this president.

Turley: there’s no question about it--it’s well understood on capitol hill that nancy pelosi and others have assured that the president will not be subject to impeachment and that’s one of the reasons why they’ve been avoiding confirmation of crimes: the two most obvious being domestic surveillance (without a warrant) and torture. If either of those facts are confirmed it would trigger a series of events and it would require them to do exactly what they promised they wouldn’t do--which is to look at impeachment. But it would also, as we know now, embarrass many democrats who were aware of this stuff. One of the interesting things about this administration is how skillful they are because if you look at electronic surveillance and torture--both of those cases clearly are criminal. But once they started, anybody with a J.D. could see that they were about to do something criminal. So what did the bush administration do? They brought in democrats and essentially co-opted them by giving them information. So when they revealed to these people that they were torturing people they did it in 2002 when they knew that no democrats wanted to look weak on terrorism. But as time went on, those same democrats could no longer come forward because they would have to explain why they waited so long. It’s a brilliant move.

(randi recaps, jonathan recaps and adds more)

Randi: nancy pelosi is an accomplice, unfortunately john Rockefeller is an accomplice, bob graham is an accomplice, jane harmon is an accomplice, porter goss is an accomplice, senator pat Roberts from Kansas--they have just become criminal accomplices to the crimes of the president. Which are war crimes. They’re big crimes.

Turley: we have a clear base for alleged crimes. In the normal case this would go very swiftly to a grand jury. But these democrats, as you’ll know--with the exception of joe biden--have all called for a justice department investigation.

Randi: yeah, the justice department should investigate the cia because that always works out well.

Turley: you’ve got two things with the justice department: they’ll adopt the most narrow possible view of their own conduct and they will move at a glacial pace. It’s absolutely bizarre to think that the justice department should review a case in which high ranking officials ranging from the cia to the white house and including possibly the justice department itself could be indicted. If this isn’t the case for an independent or special council then I don’t know what is.

(more back and forth)

Turley: …something is fundamentally wrong (not just in our system but in our culture) when our leaders commit heinous crimes and then conceal them in joint agreements from the people they represent

[orleans]

1. more turley quotes

"this is much much more serious than what started watergate"

"i just find it other worldly that so many people would know about this--including democratic members--and not do anything"

"nothing makes sense about what the democrats have done in the last couple years on torture or electronic surveillance. every time the white house has gotten close to melting down on the issues the democrats have stepped in and saved them...it's breathtaking to believe that these members were told suspects were being tortured in 2002 and spent five years--5 years--sitting by as we all debated who could be criminally charged and never mentioned that they knew people were being tortured by american agents"


"once again, as with harman, as with rockefeller, and potentially as with pelosi herself, the question is not whether you were upset--the question is what you did about it. rockefeller and harman have been saying "look, there's nothing we can do, we can't reveal anything." so what exactly is your function? that would mean if they witnessed the president putting a bullet in someone's head that they would have to stand there quietly? of course that's not the rule of the intelligence committee. if you see a crime occurring, a crime can't be classified--by definition. it cannot fall within the area of legitimate classified data. and so, what you have are all of these democrats who are told of not just the electronic surveillance program (which was unlawful) but now torture and said nothing at the time or over the course of years in which experts came forward and said "yeah, water boarding has been classified as torture since the spanish inquisition." "

[sce56]

103. Now you have to understand Harmon is the keeper of the Aerospace defense contractor dist in congress

I live in her district and the Military Industrial Complex is all around here to include USAF SpaceCmd! She is bought and paid for by the companies making a killing in the war on terror!

[balantz]

108. That's pretty telling.

[Nutmegger]

2. R&K

Hello orleans. Thank you!

[Lint Head]

5. Great post.

They don't want to upset any political 'butt hole buddy' holiday plans.
These criminal assholes should be in jail and nobody is willing to do the dirty work.
:dem:

[roguevalley]

54. yet there are people on this board who still defend pelosi. may she

burn in hell.

[LeftCoast]

55. Far easier to hate Pelosi than it is to find 16 republican Senators who'll vote to convict

[proud2BlibKansan]

96. And if Pelosi would put impeachment BACK on the table and let the investigations happen,

there would be no need to go begging for 16 Republican senators. There is more than enough evidence to support impeachment. When the American people see it, they will DEMAND impeachment. But without an investigation, 90% of Americans will never know of the crimes this president has committed.

[LeftCoast]

177. The American people are demanding we w/draw from Iraq too

How's that working out?

Expecting 16 republican senators to vote for a conviction from this congress is faith-based reasoning at best.

[cascadiance]

121. There are 22 of them that face having to be reelected in 2008!

A lot of them could take a hit if they don't do the American people's will! Dems didn't have a supermajority to ensure impeachment of Nixon, but he knew his goose was cooked then too!

[LeftCoast]

178. Far more would fall if they had an impeached president from their party.

Try finding 16 of them that will vote for conviction. Won't happen.

[cascadiance]

182. Hmm... I suppose they wanted Carter to win back in the 70's then...

... which is why they said then that they'd vote to impeach... No, the logic doesn't hold. If they put themselves on the side of this president they WILL go down for many people the more this president gets exposed. Perhaps they can be persuaded to persuade Bush to resign if impeachable offenses are found, like Republicans did with Nixon then. It WAS Republicans that helped get Nixon out of office too. They knew when the writing was on the wall. If we don't hold back, we could force the same issue here. Now Democrats may ALSO lose seats because of viewed complicity with this president too.

[LeftCoast]

184. It's difficult to compare the aftermath of Watergate with a hypothetical but

Dems trounced the republicans in the midterms following Nixon's resignation and Ford never won election to the Presidency.

I don't see how helping to get Nixon out of office aided the Republicans.

[cascadiance]

186. The point is, if they were just concerned about partisan politics and winning reelection then WHY...

... did they work with the Dems to say that Nixon should resign or be impeached. Why is it different then from now, when we probably have FAR MORE criminal acts committed by this president. One could argue that far more of them might have lost reelection bids if they'd fought the Dems then. They are now just as vulnerable to getting voted out of office as they were then too.

What's different? Except the Democrat's complicitness this time and the Blue Dog Democrat traitors...

[proud2BlibKansan]

95. Amen

[BeHereNow]

189. Amazing, isn't it! I'm with you- may she burn in hell

with all her complicit, traitorous friends
from BOTH sides of the aisle.

BHN

[Mythsaje]

3. I've said my piece on this subject

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=389&topic_id=2442135&mesg_id=2442135

[ixion]

4. and you are spot on

:applause:

[Skidmore]

6. Blackmail most foul. What were these people thinking?

They are all deserving of condemnation and criminal charges for the pillaging of our Constitution. For years, I've been saying that what has been happening did not pass the smell test.

[Solly Mack]

7. ...

"They brought in democrats and essentially co-opted them by giving them information. So when they revealed to these people that they were torturing people they did it in 2002 when they knew that no democrats wanted to look weak on terrorism. But as time went on, those same democrats could no longer come forward because they would have to explain why they waited so long. It’s a brilliant move."

Yes, it was...

[orleans]

18. ...yes it was. n/t

[KittyWampus]

30. And Turley has no fucking proof of anything you just quoted. It sure sounds good,

especially when it fits your little preconceived script.

I will say this one last time- YOU are the ones enabling Bush right now.

You've just accepted the Rove assertion that Congress and Democrats knew and signed off on it.

[Solly Mack]

35. blah blah blah blah blah

[bonito]

63. LOL n/t

[Truth2Tell]

45. He doesn't have proof of a quid pro quo

or of an "actual" agreement. But the facts simply speak for themselves. The admin did inform these Congress scum in 2002. And they did do nothing. Those are facts.

These are no longer my leaders. These are not real Democrats. Criminal scum.

[L. Coyote]

72. You are lying. Those are not the facts.

In 2002, only Pelosi was informed. Harmon in 2003. And that is when this all started. Harmon demanded the legal opinions and the Junta refuses to give it up. Harmon and Pelosi DID SOMETHING, they started this whole thing by insisting on seeing the opinion. What does Bush do. He won't let you see Harmon's letter. Those are the facts, contrary top your "real facts" a la Bush.

Why don't you get behind the real Dems. The ones who demanded the legal opinions, the ones who objected to "enhanced interrogation" and refused to accept the junta's flimsy legalese.

Damn right they are not your leaders. You are on the other team, standing up for Bush and the junta. You have called the Honorable Speaker of the House (and probable first woman President of the United States), Rep. Nancy Pelosi, an unspeakable insult and defamation. You have shown your color.

[Truth2Tell]

75. You're damn right I insulted the so-called leadership

but you are dead wrong about who's team I am on. It's Pelosi and Harmon and the rest of the sell-out blue Dog appeasers who are on the team of the Bush fascists - not to mention their apologists around her like yourself. It's this kind of excuse making that has enabled these thugs to get away with this shit for the last 7 years.

So they "demanded legal opinions." Whoopdie fuckin' doo! In private - by sending mildly worded letters. Then they fucking did nothing for 5 years!

I'd say it's you and them who have shown your Bush-enabling true colors. Fascism's little helpers.

[SIMPLYB1980]

185. Thanks Coyote for some sanity.

[L. Coyote]

68. You are so correct. There are too many Bush Junta enablers aiding and abetting the crimes

right here on DU. It does not matter if they are gullible or naive school brats, or worms drawing a big paycheck to infiltrate the left, or drawing a paycheck because an R politico gave them a good government job so the taxpayers can foot the bill to infiltrate the left, it is all the same when we read it here.

This is why the Rs have survived this long. They go to any length to corrupt the system, including paid infiltration of the left.

[roguevalley]

94. prove it wasn;t true. the proof dagger cuts both ways, I will trust

Jonathan over most any day

[defendandprotect]

111. Nonsense . . . do you see any investigations going forward? On wiretapping ?? On torture???

On impeachment --- ???

No one has any proof of anything in the end ---
Will the sun rise again on Thursday?

The history of this administration is impeachable ---
Wiretapping -- impeachable
Torture --- impeachable
Bankrupting the Treasury -- impeachable
Corruption and warprofiteering --- impeachable

[magellan]

31. Indeed it was

This is what storing up all that dry powder gets the Dems. One spark and whoosh boom.

[MonkeyFunk]

8. so does Turley provide any evidence

of this so-called deal? Or just the assertion that "it’s well understood on capitol hill that nancy pelosi and others have assured that the president will not be subject to impeachment..."

Is that like "some people say..."?

[puebloknot]

170. No, that's like Nancy Pelosi said, before she was even installed...

...as Speaker: "Impeachment is off the table."

[TheMadMonk]

187. Nancy has assured the WORLD that impeachment is off the table...

...that in order to maintain her stance she'd damned near have to vote against it if it ever reached the floor past her.

When faced with highly suggestive evidence of wrongdoing they refused to look.
When offered proof absolute they ignored it.
Even outright confessions have been ignored.

They are complicit, they are bought off, they are being subject to extortion and blackmail, and some are piously waiting to get their "snow white" hands on the helm. There are no other credible explanations for the behaviour of the Democratic Party, both in opposition and in majority.

Offered opportunity after opportunity to break wide open a conspiracy that's been growing for over half a century they have elected to do nothing. They have repeatedly elected to do nothing.

[Perry Logan]

9. Democrats attacking Democrats. A surefire road to victory.

[The Stranger]

11. When "Democrats" start joining the torture crimes, they lose their status as "Democrats" in my book.

Call them what they are -- War Party Neocons.

And fucking get rid of every single one of them now -- like yesterday.

[KittyWampus]

27. You've no proof, nor does Turley, of your assertion Dems joined torture crimes.

All that you and too many other DU'ers are going on is one unattributed bit of bullshit put out by the WaPo.

And that was pretty well shown to be a Rovian hitpiece.

You are enabling Bush yourself.

They are desperate to try the "Dems and Congress approved this" and you are gullible enough to fall for this.

[hfojvt]

43. but elected Democrats suck

We have to purify the party until we are left with only the absolutely pure and flawless, which, I guess, would be Dennis Kucinich and 500 'true' DUers. Only the totally self-righteous and pure can be in our party. I guess I shouldn't say 'our' since I am not pure and self-righteous enough.

[Truth2Tell]

46. No, we just need to get rid

of the complicit criminal scum. They are not real Democrats.

You are ignoring the proof. These are undisputed facts. The admin told these scumbags about the torture. No one disputes that. They did nothing. No one disputes that. It doesn't require a written agreement or even an unwritten agreement for those facts to stand on their own. It's complicity.

We need to take back our Party for ourselves. Real Democrats don't sit by and allow torture - so these Congress scum are not real Democrats. Simple as that.

[The Stranger]

76. Jonathan Turley is not the "WaPo." He is a professor at George Washington University Law School.

To claim that standing up against torture and requiring ones party to do the same is somehow "enabling Bush" is absolutely fucking laughable.

[defendandprotect]

119. Has Speaker Pelosi denied that she was told about the torture --- ????

[defendandprotect]

117. Aren't we talking about DLC-Democrats . . . ???? And how many here are pro-DLC?

[natrat]

13. please why would you want these people in power anyway?

because they have a D next to there names? These people are very far from democratic ideals and if you care about the party you would see there is no place for people like this.

[OnyxCollie]

61. Authoritarian personalities need not be right-wing exclusively. nt

[defendandprotect]

120. Authoritarianism is the driving force of the right -- of fascism.

[OnyxCollie]

175. The Authoritarians

The Authoritarians

Bob Altemeyer, Associate Professor

Department of Psychology, University of Manitoba, Winnipeg, Canada

In North America people who submit to the established authorities to extraordinary degrees often turn out to be political conservatives, so you can call them “right-wingers” both in my new-fangled psychological sense and in the usual political sense as well. But someone who lived in a country long ruled by Communists and who ardently supported the Communist Party would also be one of my psychological right-wing authoritarians even though we would also say he was a political left-winger. So a right-wing authoritarian follower doesn’t necessarily have conservative political views. Instead he’s someone who readily submits to the established authorities in society, attacks others in their name, and is highly conventional. It’s an aspect of his personality, not a description of his politics. Right- wing authoritarianism is a personality trait, like being characteristically bashful or happy or grumpy or dopey.

[defendandprotect]

190. Wrong . . . Even J. Edgar Hoover used to refer to "totalitarian Communism" ---

in other words, Communism may be a lefty idea --- but it was kept in place by authoritarianism . . .

Basically, the USSR was a fascist state ---

[L. Coyote]

67. Because they are our elected Representatives, chosen by the People, and because

they are working day and night on oversight, holding the Bush junta to account. That is why we have arrived at this point, where they have to attack the President-to-be, Pelosi.

[defendandprotect]

123. We did not vote for Pelosi; that's an inside deal ---

WHERE are they holding Bushco to account --- ???

Signing statements --- more than a thousand of them --- ?? corrupting our laws as they are passed?
The CONGRESS is responsible for seeing that the laws they pass are carried out in the SPIRIT AND INTENT WITH WHICH THEY ARE PASSED---!!!!

Wiretapping--?

Getting us out of an "illegal" war --- ???

TORTURE . . . in violation of our own aggreements ---
and for which the world hates us and we hate ourselves --- ????

Maybe vote stealing --- ???

Lying us into a war --- ???

Warprofiteering ---/cronyism --- ???

Bankrutping the Treasury --- ?

Politicizing the Justice Dept -- ???


Do you understand the levels of corruption and crime we may be facing---?
The Drug war is phony as can be ---
It can't go forward without the cooperation of high officials in government --- !!!

Do you understand the links to Iran-Contra and money-laundering --- ???

These are criminals running government --- and we need to have representatives in power who
act like they know that --- !!!

It's also a mistake not to have 9/11 information --- as an "inside deal" --- linked to the
regular threads. We have government by violence --- and we are entering a period of fascism
because that violence hasn't been investigated --- from JFK onward ---

[defendandprotect]

118. OK -- agree --- but Democrats understanding what may have already happened ---

have to have a back-up plan --- a Plan B ---

please work that thru your minds --- and start discussing it here ?


WHAT IF . . . you have to vote for a DLC candidate?

WHAT IF . . . you recognize that the party leadership is working for the corporate wing?
Including the MIC ---?
As someone points out, Pelosi's area is is heavily military contractors --- ???

[orleans]

17. there are those who would walk all over our party for power and a paycheck

just as so many neocons are taking down the republica party.

in both cases it's fucked.

[defendandprotect]

124. We have a "corporate wing" of the Democratic Party in the D L C --- !!!!

[Joe Fields]

21. So, if Bush stuck a D beside his name, you would support him?

[harmonicon]

64. victory in what?

what use is a victory when you've won nothing?

[D23MIURG23]

98. On the contrary...

if Republicans had kept thier critical thinking and held their own accountable, maybe their party wouldn't be sinking in its own shit.

We can go that way too if we behave like a bunch of blind authoritarians.

[defendandprotect]

115. Yep --- let's get there BY ANY MEANS . . . . !!!!

No --- we're not playing GOP games and expecting members and reps to be robots ---
We're expecting members and reps to be normal, spontaneous, thinking people --- who react ---
as individuals ---

[deacon]

10. She's terrible- a terrible leader. n/t

[Stinky The Clown]

12. I generally like Turley, but never forget .........

..... he pushed hard to have Clinton impeached.

[defendandprotect]

125. OK --- that's a huge strike against Turley . . . . that we should all keep in mind ---

[mmonk]

14. K&R

A kick until the thread becomes a shouting match.

[IsItJustMe]

15. Who the hell is Turley, and why should I buy into what he is saying? Was he there? Does he have

any facts to back up what he is saying?

NO

Any fool can have an opinion and any fool can jump on a band wagon based on bull shit.

Until there are real facts about this, all the rest is just conjecture. I have seen no facts about any of this.

[mmonk]

16. Background on Turley.

Professor Jonathan Turley is a nationally recognized legal scholar who has written extensively in areas ranging from constitutional law to legal theory to tort law. He has written over three dozen academic articles that have appeared in a variety of leading law journals at Cornell, Duke, Georgetown, Harvard, Northwestern, and other schools.

-snip-

Professor Turley is a frequent witness before the House and Senate on constitutional and statutory issues as well as tort reform legislation. Professor Turley is also a nationally recognized legal commentator. Professor Turley was ranked as 38th in the top 100 most cited “public intellectuals” in the recent study by Judge Richard Posner. Turley was found to be the second most cited law professor in the country. Professor Turley’s articles on legal and policy issues appear regularly in national publications with over 500 articles in such newspapers as the New York Times, Washington Post, USA Today, Los Angeles Times and Wall Street Journal. He is on the Board of Contributors of USA Today. In 2005, Turley was given the Columnist of the Year award for Single-Issue Advocacy for his columns on civil liberties by the Aspen Institute and the Week Magazine. Professor Turley also appears regularly as a legal expert on all of the major television networks. Since the 1990s, he has worked under contract as the on-air Legal Analyst for NBC News and CBS News to cover stories that ranged from the Clinton impeachment to the presidential elections. Professor Turley is often a guest on Sunday talk shows with over two-dozen appearances on Meet the Press, ABC This Week, Face the Nation, and Fox Sunday.

Professor Turley teaches courses on constitutional law, constitutional criminal law, environmental law, litigation, and torts. He is the founder and executive director of the Project for Older Prisoners (POPS).

-snip-

http://jonathanturley.org/about/

[L. Coyote]

20. I've heard Turley wander off the truth road in this kind of talk setting.

He is a scholar and when writiong is erudite. But, he has made see leaps too. One must look closely at the conversations and take the context into account.

[KittyWampus]

23. Your post on Turley neglects the point he provides ZERO facts when he trashes Dems whilst spinning

his yarns.

This is the second time in about a month Turley has been on Randi trashing Pelosi and Democrats with NO FACTS.

All he does is make up crap that sounds plausible to those who ALREADY BELIEVE the worst about Pelosi etc.

[Lerkfish]

69. I'm interested what theory you have that is more plausible.

Here's what we know:
they WERE informed. we ARE torturing. there has been NO action.

I"ll sit back and see what theories you come up with that are more plausible.

[femrap]

92. WHY is Pelosi sticking to this

'impeachment is off the table?' I don't understand...I know she says we have better things to do, but I don't see how anything but saving our Democracy and Constitution could be more important.

Turley offers an understandable reason, but it's just a guess, an opinion. For all I know, the neocons have threatened physical harm to family members. Or it could be that Pelosi is listening to those STUPID Dem consultants...what's his name...Schrum?

I don't know why Impeachment is off the Table...that's all I want. That's the only way we'll be able to reduce the number of troops in Iraq.

Or as a Dem congressman from MA said, W says he'll bomb Iran if impeachment is started. Who knows?

[defendandprotect]

126. Turley has been on with Randi twice ....in regard to the same subject --- "no impeachment deal" ---

[The Magistrate]

73. And Cut His Public Teeth, Sir

As a cheerleader for the Starr and the House Republicans against President Clinton.

My memory runs long for such things, and conditions my reactions to his attempts at blaming Democrats for the actions of Republicans....

[Joe Fields]

97. I've read his remarks, and nowhere did I read where he was

attempting to blame democrats for the actions of republicans. Neither is he letting democrats off the hook in their acquiescence and possible collusion.

It seems to me that the democratic leadership's actions speak for themselves. I really don't need a Johnathan Turley to point out what looks to me to be obvious.

[defendandprotect]

128. OK -- let's take Turley out of it ---

That still leaves us with Pelosi having PERSONALLY told us all that "impeachment is off the table" --

From what I can see, few agree with her ---

Why would she do that recognizing that there is a laundry list of impeachable offenses---???


Pelosi is also on the intelligence panel ---
Are we denying that she was told about TORTURE . . . ?????

Someone was told about TORTURE ---

Are we denying that Jay Rockefeller was told about TORTURE --- ????

Has anything happened to stop this torture --- no -- we went all the way to learning about RENDITIONS!!! And we're still trying to unravel all of that --- !!!

Where are we on wiretapping?
It's anti-Constitutional --- that is why we have the FISA laws . . . they're letting them break
the law, technically . . .

to the degree that it is done under FISA ---
which also provides for corporations coming to FISA if they are approached by government to do
something illegal ---

Where are we on this except covering for the administration and the corporations????


So -- do we need Turley --- I don't think so ---

[L. Coyote]

77. Here is a fact. Pelosi and Harman said, "HELL NO" and where is that legal opinion?"

Here is another fact. The junta refuses, to this day, to show the legal opinion to Congress, even to the intel chairs.

Here is another fact. The junta went ahead with "enhanced interrogation nonetheless, over the objections of Harman and Pelosi.

Here is another fact. The junta is keeping Harmon's letter secret, and will not let you know what was asked for or objected to.

Here is another fact. The Dems have ongoing oversight hearings, both public and behind closed doors, into interrogations and prisoner treatment and human rights.

Pelosi and Harmon started this way back when, and now the majority status has enabled oversight.
The reason this is an issue TODAY is because the Rs are under scrutiny.

Does anyone NOT see why this hit job is going down?? The hit piece targets the very people who,
by challenging the junta, started the opposition to "enhanced interrogation" as deemed "legal" by Bushco.

Up is Down and Down is Up. Keep believing that, and you regurgitate pure crap!

[defendandprotect]

131. Pelso must recognize as we do that Busco can't produce the "legal opinion" ---

Then . . whose back is to the wall?

Pelosi or Bush --- ? Why doesn't Pelosi move simply on that?

And, the intelligence committee must have some kind of backing --
they are told so that if anything really wrong is going on, that Congress can intervene ---

They aren't told for no purpose ---

And same for Harmon --- if they are not responding --- where is Harman to warn us that something is wrong---???

Late last night I did see a hearing on C-span --- I don't think it was Congress --- wee hours ---
on TORTURE --- I'll try to find it via C-span.

However, the idea that by implicating Pelosi this administration redeems itself is ridiculous ---
nor by implicating Jay Rockefellere ---
It simply confirms that they did what they should have been doing --
informing the intelligence panel ---
but it looks like they may have also separated them out --- and limited the number they briefed?
Anything like that should also get a "NO" ---

[onenote]

81. more than anything else, Turley is a shameless self-promoter

[stlsaxman]

104. that's becoming clearer and clearer to me each time i hear from him...

thanks for tour succinctness, onenote.

on edit- but i did like the part where he says- "with the exception of Joe Biden..." ;)

[L. Coyote]

19. I call BULLSHIT

Randi is often full of it. She is a free-wheeling talk show host, and she goes off reality road all the time.
That is fine on a talk show, especially given the juxtaposition of Rush Limbaugh in that media.

But, it is important to keep that in perspective, especially when the wrath is misdirected and simply without factual basis.

What remains to be determined is what did the Bush junta actually inform Congress.

FROM: Bush Junta Lied About War Crimes to The World, the Courts, ALL Except Pelosi - That's LOL Moranic
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=389x2444290

I think I found THE way of summing up the torture revelations.

It really is this simple. Bush has been lying, lying, and lying some more. He lied to the American People, to the World, denying the USA tortures and his war crimes.
The Junta has been busy lying too, to the courts about torture and about the evidence of the war crime, about the existence of video tapes of waterboarding.

What are the legal consequences of the perjury to the courts and the obstruction of justice. These revelations may overturn the cases against Zacarias Moussaui and Jose Padilla, not a small consequence, and the repercussions just spread from there to all cases where interrogations occurred.

So, Bush's lies were covering up perjury and obstruction of justice, and evidence of torture and war crimes. What else? The evidence was also sought by the 9/11 Commission. No doubt there is more to come still. Major players like Harriet Meirs were involved.

That is a brief summary of the import of what this newest scandal entails. Very serious and numerous crimes leading right to the President of the United States, and very impeachable crimes at that.

NOW, who would like to claim that, with all this lying going on, someone was running over to Capital Hill to fully inform Dem leaders about all this impeachable criminality? Come on, step right up and claim this moranic distinct. Own this idea! Anyone? Oh, come on. WA Post? Anyone at all?

I just transcends all reason to think that the Bush Junta, like faithful Catholics, were confessing their crimes against humanity to Dem leaders, admitting their perjury, obstruction of justice, war crimes, admitting all the lying, admitting impeachable offenses to Pelosi, Harman, Rockefeller.

Anyone falling for this scenario truly, truly deserves the distinction of being called a moran. :rofl:

[EFerrari]

26. I usually agree with you but can't on this because the Democrats

are not acting like people who have been lied to. If they thought, as you do, that they had been lied to it would be their chip to play.

[L. Coyote]

36. They are acting like they were lied to. But, instant gratification is elusive in politics.

Watch and see. I'm expecting to be hearing from President Pelosi before long, given the new flood in the swamp of lies.

[EFerrari]

39. Have you heard what Jane Harmon has to say? I can't find anything

although she was on the radio yesterday, iirc. Rockefeller isn't backing an independent counsel and Nancy's statement was sort of pallid.

[L. Coyote]

49. She is seeking declassification of her letter of protest. Bring it into the light, she says.

We need that attitude from the President who invokes State Secrets about how many time Jack Abramoff visited the White House!!

[EFerrari]

51. Good. I'm glad to hear that. They need to get their response

together. It's probable that they're planning how to manage this problem for the next year, too, because it doesn't look like a story that will go away in a week.

[Truth2Tell]

47. Sticks and stones L. Coyote

name calling won't change the facts. You can stick your head in the sand and rationalize till the cows come home, but the facts are the facts.

These Congress members were told about the torture in 2002. They themselves do not dispute that.

They did nothing about it. That also is indisputable. They had many avenues open to them, but they chose to do nothing.

These facts stand on their own. One needn't believe Turley's yarns about some "agreement" to understand the stand-alone facts.

People who sit by and allow torture are not real Democrats. No one is dividing the Democrats here. No one is criticizing Democrats. These people are no longer Democrats. They have crossed over to the dark side. They are lost.

[L. Coyote]

50. Wrong. First check your facts.

Pelosi was briefed in 2002, others later, and not about "torture" as you write. They were briefed about interrogation techniques, the details of which briefings remain secret and too nebulous to make your assertion. The briefings are likelier Obstructions of Congress crimes that about "torture." Torture is a crime.

You write, "They do not dispute that." They don't read your posts, my friend.

[magellan]

52. Check YOUR facts

Harman's classified letter to the CIA was in protest of the interrogation techniques they were using. Please explain how that couldn't be about torture.

[Truth2Tell]

53. If "waterboarding" was in fact

not mentioned, and the WaPo got it wrong - why hasn't Pelosi made an unequivocal statement to that effect? Certainly there is no legal barrier to her making a public statement to the effect that she "was never told of waterboarding." That would violate no law, nor would it jeopardize any potential investigation. But she has not made that statement. And I'm certain she doesn't need to read my posts to know this is an issue of concern to people right now. Her silence speaks volumes. Until she refutes the WaPo story, I will believe it. And please, don't tell me you plan to start calling waterboarding an "interrogation technique" instead of torture now, cuz that would be off the deep end.

[L. Coyote]

79. If Pelosi is now expected to respond to all the BULLSHIT, she needs a staff of 20 for DU alone!

We all have Pelosi's definitive statement and those of her staff. But, hey, ignore them and say she has not responded. That is called either lying or ignorance of the facts. Here refutation is right in the WA POst article. You should try reading it, maybe.

[Truth2Tell]

84. She doesn't say she was not told about waterboarding in the

WaPo article. I suggest you read it. And responding to a story by the Washington Post that makes such serious accusations is not exactly "responding to all the bullshit." It's what any politician would do immediately if the facts were wrong.

[L. Coyote]

86. Again, try to keep up. She has responded. Do your homework.

She has responded since the WA Post article. You should know the facts before you make false assertions.

[Truth2Tell]

88. Link? You assert, you link. n/t

[Truth2Tell]

91. OK, I read her statement

Here:

http://speaker.gov/newsroom/pressreleases?id=0439

And you lied. She does not deny being told about waterboarding. She simply says "...in the fall of 2002, I was briefed on interrogation techniques the Administration was considering using in the future." And then says "Several months later... Jane Harman, was briefed more extensively and advised the techniques had in fact been employed." No mention of waterboarding whatsoever. But the WaPo says she was briefed on it - and she does not deny that.

She also says that she "concurred" with Harmon's protest letter to the CIA about the techniques in early 2003, whatever the fuck that means. That's the extent of the actions she took to thwart this illegal activity being carried out in our names. That's it. No use of the other tools at her disposal. No mention of this law breaking to the American people - despite the fact that she could have legally spoken up. Just concurrence with Harman's toothless protest letter.

No one disagrees about these facts. They speak for themselves.

[L. Coyote]

135. Let's try to be real. She does not deny going to the moon either. Did she go?

That is the logic you are asking us to accept.

Fine, believe whatever you want.

[youngharry]

70. I call bullshit on your disinformation

Your post is one of the most egregious pieces of disinformation I have ever read on any blog. YOU DO YOUR HOMEWORK AS YOU ARE IN DENIAL AND HAVE OBVIOUSLY BEEN SENT HERE BY THE GREAT DEMOCRATIC LEADERS THAT CONTINUALLY CAVE TO BUSH AND REFUSE TO BRING ABOUT IMPEACHMENT---PELOSI, HOYER, EMANUAL & ROCKEFELLER.

[L. Coyote]

80. And, do tell us what is disinformation in it?? Easy to say, without further analysis!

[youngharry]

74. bullshit on your disinformation

Your post is one of the most illogical rants I have read on any blog. It is nothing more than disinformation. You obviously have not understood what was done between the Bushies and the Dems or you have been sent here by the Democratic leadership that has so well defended the Constitution, the Troops and the American people. Pardon me, but the Democratic Leadership are all in violation of their oaths of office, they ignore the Constitution, the Geneva Convention and International Laws of Humanity and you expect me not to believe that they aren't complicit with Bush. What cave did you crawl out of?

[defendandprotect]

133. Disagree re Randi --- she is usually very on the button --- good intelligence ---

AND . . . KEEP IN MIND . . . this Turley conversation/subject began on MSNBC with Keith Olbermann.
THEN, Randi picked it up ---

You're doing a fair amount of spinniny yourself here ---

Bush LIED about Iraq --- and how many Democrats hung him out to dry---?
No -- they voted to give him an open field to press an "illegal" war against Iraq ---

And, evidently we all know about Bush's LIES . . . but Pelosi doesn't --- ???

She wouldn't be wary of meeting him on intelligence matters, without the full group?

Moussaui --- ???
That case pretty much proves that WE knew about 9/11 --- !!!

They haven't convicted anyone --- except Saddam, of course, did hang --- !!!

What about the Democrats who were involved in the 9/11 sham investigation --- ?
They've pursued nothing ---
They stayed as far away from evidence as possible ---

Glad that you agree Bush is "impeachable" but sadly Pelosi is going to disappoint you --- !!!

And, boy, this is a ton of spin ---

QUOTE:
NOW, who would like to claim that, with all this lying going on, someone was running over to Capital Hill to fully inform Dem leaders about all this impeachable criminality? Come on, step right up and claim this moranic distinct. Own this idea! Anyone? Oh, come on. WA Post? Anyone at all?

I just transcends all reason to think that the Bush Junta, like faithful Catholics, were confessing their crimes against humanity to Dem leaders, admitting their perjury, obstruction of justice, war crimes, admitting all the lying, admitting impeachable offenses to Pelosi, Harman, Rockefeller.
UNQUOTE

No -- presumably this was to intelligence panel --- and not all of them???
Again --- if Pelosi and Harman and Rockefeller haven't yet learned that Bushco lies,
then we certainly have the wrong leaders.

And now anyone who's considering this story is wearing a "tin foil hat" --- ??

[KittyWampus]

22. This is the SECOND time Turley was on Randi flinging shit he has no proof of, trashing Dems

[defendandprotect]

134. I, for one, requested that they go back to this subject --- and I made sure . . .

THIS subject was raised here ---
though, first time around, it was ignored ---
or not understood --

So, thanks to those who pursued it ---

[orleans]

159. trashing dems? turley has been talking about the crap bushco has been

up to for what? a year? two years?

we've all been trying to figure out WHY IMPEACHMENT IS OFF THE FUCKING TABLE

he's not "trashing dems" imo

i believe he is standing behind THE CONSTITUTION as MOST of us around here are trying to do and figure out what the fuck is going on in congress that is allowing bushco to GET AWAY WITH FUCKING MURDER

[notanotherday]

24. Go Randi GO!

This is what I love about real DEMOCRATS, we put country above politics. And if our people did the wrong things, we point it out.

[ProSense]

25. Turley: "The fact that Democrats may have known about this since 2002 is a shocking revelation."

The fact that Democrats "may have known about this since 2002 is a shocking revelation."

Did he say "may have" been an accomplice?

He doesn't really know does he?

What BS!

[notanotherday]

28. actualy we DO KNOW. that the use of water boarding was told to Pelosi a long time ago.

And only recently has that been made public.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/12/08/AR2007120801664.html?nav=rss_email/components

"n September 2002, four members of Congress met in secret for a first look at a unique CIA program designed to wring vital information from reticent terrorism suspects in U.S. custody. For more than an hour, the bipartisan group, which included current House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.), was given a virtual tour of the CIA's overseas detention sites and the harsh techniques interrogators had devised to try to make their prisoners talk.

Among the techniques described, said two officials present, was waterboarding, a practice that years later would be condemned as torture by Democrats and some Republicans on Capitol Hill. But on that day, no objections were raised. Instead, at least two lawmakers in the room asked the CIA to push harder, two U.S. officials said.

[KittyWampus]

32. No, you don't know. And it's sad that you already swallowed that mouthful without realisingo

where it came from.

[ProSense]

33. No you don't know !

Just revealed via this BS story. No you don't know and that's why he said "may have."

[notanotherday]

37. Yes, we do, the Pelosi and others are spining it. There needs to be a special prosecuter to invstig

Who knew what and when.

Do not be a stooge or blinded by partisan politician looking only to cover their asses.

[ProSense]

40. "stooge or blinded by partisan"

As opposed to a moron believing anything the MSM says even when it doesn't add up?

Insulting people doesn't change the fact these posts are being made by those ready to swarm on any piece of BS negative reporting about Democrats.

They are illogical!

[defendandprotect]

136. This is untrue --- Pelosi comes in and tells us "no impeachment" --- we're wondering WHY?

[ProSense]

139. What is untrue? You're wondering why so she is an accomplice?

Does that make sense?

You'll find the facts here and here.

[defendandprotect]

146. No -- the CIA doesn't impeach presidents -- the USHR does . . .

And, for what has occurred BEFORE this latest round ---

Pelosi should be impeaching this president ---

Rather, she took him off the hook ---

A president as unpopular as Nixon!!!

[ProSense]

149. What does

impeachment, when many other Dems have said they don't have the votes, have to do with being an accomplice to torture?

[defendandprotect]

152. What does the CIA torture program have to do with Pelosi taking Bush off impeachment hook?

Same thing ---

Yes, if Pelosi was briefed and didn't conduct a whistleblowing within Congress, then she is an accomplice to this torture ---

Too many of them are benefiting from warprofiteering --- and it looks like Nancy may also be in that loop?

And/or --- they can't stand up to it ---

[ProSense]

156. No it's not the same thing. Faulty logic.

Impeachment is off the table because of votes. Others like John Conyers and Bernie Sanders have said it.

What happened when the House voted on impeachment?

If you could get the House to move on impeachment, it then goes to the Senate.

Despite the circus thinking, you need 67 Senators to vote to remove from office. There are 50 Democrats.

You are talking as if the Republicans and media wouldn't make a mockery of the trial and as if the outcome is certain removal from office.

The House could impeach Bush, but unless 17 Republicans vote to convict him and remove him from office, you're stuck with him. Then what?

To equate that with condoning torture is a stretch.

Now: war profiteering?

[defendandprotect]

157. You have a failed president; a failed Iraq war; criminals in charge ---

and we can't pull off an impeachment because it wasn't a sex scandal?

The public was against impeaching Clinton's penis --- they did it anyway --- made a mockery of
impeachment!!

My guess is that there is either an agreement -- or a threat involved in Pelosi's keeping
impeachment "off the table."

Granted we do have the "blue dog" problem --- who's speaking out on that?
Who's fighting that problem; ensuring that we get liberals/progressives elected---?
Not Pelosi --- she's part of the DLC -- part of encouraging blue dogs --- !!!
DCCC turning money over to get blue dogs to run against liberals/progressives --- !!!

Meanwhile, the MSM smell money -- that's why we're seeing some shift in coverage ---
they will have to go to Dems for approval of their "wish list" ---
and they want to be on the side of power.

And, certainly I'm not "equating impeachment with torture" --
You simply haven't gotten what I am saying to you --
You put forth an argument which meant nothing ---
And when I reversed it for you, you still didn't get it ---

Warprofiteering ---
Pelosi evidently has an area heavy in military contractors ---
we also don't know what her wealthy husband invests in right now ---

or how right-wing she may be re military -- she voted to let Bush go ahead re Iraq --
and has refunded his war for him -- a president at the lowest ends of popularity --
after an election which was clearly about stopping this "illegal" war!!!
Had she no hint Bush was lying??? Really???

Feinstein also seems to have a husband invested in warprofiteering ---
how many others?

Don't you think about this?







Again --- one has nothing to do with the other ---
Offering CIA/torture evidence doesn't vindicate Pelosi --
presumably she was told -- at a more or less private meeting ---
no objections were voiced.

[orleans]

163. faulty logic

you just said it--

"impeachment is off the table because of votes"
"The House could impeach Bush"

MAKE UP YOUR MIND!

[defendandprotect]

195. No . . . that's what YOU said . . .

We do have a "blue dog" problem . . . which Pelosi isn't going to help with because she is DLC ---

However, moving on impeachment would bring the word to the public ---
have the public understand the highly criminal actions of this government ---

Putting it on the record is essential --- standing against it is essential ---
If GOP wants to support criminal behavior, let them do it ---

Get it on the records ---

All of it ---

The "blue dogs" would fold given the record ---
I'd take a chance on that --

Other arguments are based on fear ---

[orleans]

196. i agree. i was quoting ms. "prosense" when i said "faulty logic"

seems that you and i have totally been on the same team throughout this thread.

thanks for your support.

[defendandprotect]

197. Sorry -- I still on occasion get confused with the way these threads are laid out ---

but -- good to be with you!

[orleans]

198. no problem. and thanks for kicking the thread

:evilgrin:

[orleans]

161. complicit. accomplice. pick your poison.

they fucking KNEW. THEY KNEW. and pelosi did SHIT because the dept. of justice & cia told her torture wasn't illegal??? (unless you think water boarding isn't torture...)

and when harman wrote the letter saying "um...stop..." pelosi thought, yeah, they should stop.

jesus. what's the repercussions for you if you don't report a CRIME when you become aware of it.

what was the repercussions for THIS ENTIRE FUCKING COUNTRY when our reps don't report a war crime when they have been made aware of it???

Pelosi Statement on Washington Post Report on Congressional Briefing of Administration Interrogation Techniques

Washington, D.C. -- Speaker Nancy Pelosi issued the following statement on a report in today's Washington Post about a congressional briefing on Administration interrogation techniques:

"On one occasion, in the fall of 2002, I was briefed on interrogation techniques the Administration was considering using in the future. The Administration advised that legal counsel for the both the CIA and the Department of Justice had concluded that the techniques were legal.

"I had no further briefings on the techniques. Several months later, my successor as Ranking Member of the House Intelligence Committee, Jane Harman, was briefed more extensively and advised the techniques had in fact been employed. It was my understanding at that time that Congresswoman Harman filed a letter in early 2003 to the CIA to protest the use of such techniques, a protest with which I concurred."

http://speaker.gov/newsroom/pressreleases?id=0439

if pelosi "concurred" to harman's letter (even tho pelosi had no further briefings) then why the fuck didn't pelosi write her own letter several months before?

and is that what you do when you see a crime? write a goddamn letter to the person who is committing it, asking/suggesting them to stop?

what a load of bullshit!

[orleans]

160. um...people in his profession (lawyers) tend to use the term "may have"

as they use the term "alleged"

such as: these war crimes bush is alleged to have approved of

duh!

it's a qualifier--such as innocent until proven guilty

[ProSense]

29. Oh, another thing

remember these guys: the actual criminals?

[magellan]

34. No one's forgotten them

But from your protestations, it appears you couldn't be relied upon to report a serious crime you had witnessed.

[ProSense]

38. What serious crime? Randi: nancy pelosi is an accomplice.

Yeah that's serious reporting!

The crime is torture, lying, destroying evidence, not viewing a 30 min. virtual video that no one including WaPo knows the content of.

Report: They saw a video. Someone said it was of something. They are guilty.

What BS!

[magellan]

41. The crime that was serious enough to warrant a classified letter of protest from Harman

You know, the letter of protest Pelosi says she concurred with?

[ProSense]

44. You mean

this?

[magellan]

48. Yes. That includes Pelosi's statement. n/t

[L. Coyote]

82. Harmon protested the "enhanced interrogation" and asked toi see the legal opinion.

That is how all this started, because the Dems said, HELL NO and show us your legal justification.

And, the Junta still will not show the legal ruling to even the Intel chairs!
That is when this confrontation with Dems opposing the Bush torture started.

Damn, are people really so thick-headed, or just paid to keep up the smoke and mirrors. :rofl:

[Name removed]

150. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[magellan]

162. Um no, the "Dems" didn't, Harman did.

So far, she's the only one who says she lodged an official protest -- back in 2003. And for five years the whole thing was kept quiet. Until this past week.

They had the ability to raise this in debate on the floor and didn't.

You think this is funny. No fucking wonder our country is in the state it's in.

[orleans]

58. and when you witness a crime and do not report it--are you totally

innocent?

let's pretend:
your friend kills someone and video tapes the murder. your friend shows you the tape and asks you not to tell.

do you report your friend?

if you don't--what does that make you?

[ProSense]

93. Who said she witnessed a crime then?

And why are you ignoring that she concurred with Harmon's protest after the briefing that occurred only six months later? In fact, the only thing we know about Harmon's protest is that she warned against destroying tapes.

[orleans]

112. i thought she saw it on video.

why wasn't it reported?

i don't know who she/the committee/the gang of 4 would report it to--

but to write a letter to those perpetrating the crime doesn't seem to do shit does it?

like if you wrote your friend (what i was referring to before) and said "i don't think what you did was right"

what fucking good would that do?

[ProSense]

113. You thought wrong! n/t

[orleans]

164. she was briefed. so YOU THOUGHT WRONG.

[defendandprotect]

137. Pelosi was on the Intelligence Panel = oversight duties ---

She's aware of the Geneva Accords which we are party to --

The PRESS went out of its way --- probably knowing or guess full well --- that Rumsfeld would be pulling some crap like this to ask him over and again . . . are you working within the Geneva Accords . . . and he gave some wise ass answer.

It seems rather clear that they let Pelosi know that they were "waterboarding."

That's against the Geneva Accords ---

Pelosi should have then acted as a whistleblower ---

We also know that this TORTURE info has been floating around DC for years ---

At least three years ago, Congress saw a lot of the videos, photos --- and were shocked.

The world is shocked ---

Let's move on this === !!!

[ProSense]

143. The facts are there

and you are completely ignoring them for your own narrative.

[defendandprotect]

145. Did you think that said that Pelosi wasn't informed of Torture ???

Congratulations to Harman, however --- for having "serious concerns" and moving on it ---

Sy Hersh has been telling us --- in every humanly possible way --- about TORTURE for years now --
We saw the first photos from the prisons years ago, now ---

The Congress saw the videos --- photos and film --- years ago ---
Barbara Boxer, for one ---

We elected a Democratic majority to deal with these criminals --- to STOP them --
to impeach the TORTURERS . . .

to STOP the stolen elections ---

to STOP the signing statements ---

to STOP the criminal activity ---

[ProSense]

148. Did you think it did?

Did you?

[defendandprotect]

153. Obviously, not . . .

You're presenting CIA torture info as though that proves that Pelosi wasn't briefed . . .

Didn't know about violations to the Geneva Accords --- ???

Are you saying she wasn't briefed about torture?

It seems clear that she was --- in a small private group ---

[LeftCoast]

42. I'm calling BS on the Pelosi hate unless someone can show me how we convince 15 republicans

plus Joe Lieberman to convict in the Senate.

This Senate will not convict Bush.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=389&topic_id=2446980&mesg_id=2446980

[eagleswing963]

57. Well how do we send a message to ALL the Senate Republicans?

Lets face it bitching does nothing!

And sending email on mass to these douches may do nothing either, but its better then bitching!!

Anyone have the emails of all the Senate Republicans?

[rateyes]

62. We convict by indicting and putting them on trial.

How difficult is that to understand?

[LeftCoast]

179. Pretty difficult to understand.

What in their past behavior makes you think that for this one thing they'll vote the right way?

We can put them on trial in a court of law and get a much better chance of conviction. There is zero chance in the current Senate.

[bonito]

66. Step one is the House we only need 219 there

[onenote]

83. and you can't get 219 at the moment.

That's the rub. There are easily more than a couple dozen Democrats from red-leaning Districts who are unlikely to support impeachment unless they that doing so is responsive to what their constituents want -- and right now, is safe to say that in those districts, there is not that much support for impeachment. (The most recent ARG poll on impeachment shows that among all voters, only around 1/3 support impeaching and removing chimpy from office. An almost equal number doesn't think chimpy has done anything wrong. And the 1/3 in between are split between people who think chimpy has abused his powers, but not to a point that is impeachable (9 percent) and people who think chimpy has committed impeachable offenses, but still shouldn't be impeached (21 percent).

Most telling, even among Democrats, there is a 50/50 split between those that support impeachment and those who don't (even if many of them agree impeachable offenses have been committed).

http://americanresearchgroup.com/

[bonito]

102. Check out this article

I think if we all rally behind this, the party as a whole will benefit, as an indy I can see it.
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=389x2449844

[youngharry]

78. Convicting Bush

The point is not necessarily to convict Bush, but to bring impeachment proceedings against him and Cheney. America needs to see the record that only a thorough letters of impeachment can bring to light. Let America convict him in the election of 2008.

[LeftCoast]

180. I'm not willing to let them walk away from their crimes

Impeachment without conviction = exoneration.

[defendandprotect]

138. The GOP would have to respond to a public who may want to impeach Bush --- ????

[orleans]

165. yeah...that fucking constitution is hardly worth it

[LeftCoast]

181. That doesn't tell me how we're going to find 16 republican senators

:shrug:

[Caretha]

183. Here's how we find 16 republican senators and more

We start the impeachment hearings, investigations and congressional testimony. The public will be exposed to the grisly pictures and facts about how we have tortured prisoners, illegally spied on Americans, been lied to in order to invade and occupy another sovereign country, and subverted the laws of the US. I have enough faith in the American people to believe the hue and outcry of the citizens of this country will overwhelmingly be for impeachment when all this is exposed.

Impeachment can't and shouldn't happen without all of the above.

I'm fucking sick and tired of people that seem to think they can tell the future and count the votes before the process is completed. They need to leave DU and join a psychic network forum instead.

[orleans]

188. oh left coast--you don't need any senators to impeach

[Warren Stupidity]

199. This is not simply a matter of impeachment.

Impeachment is indeed a political affair, and it might not be wise to start such proceedings without absolute certainty that you could succeed. I disagree with that view, it fails the Nixon test, but it is a legitimate view. However we are discussing here specific violations of law, heinous felonies, war crimes, crimes that rise to the treaty level of 'crimes against humanity'. It is quite simply as if there were clear and compelling evidence that a murder had occurred in the white house (vince foster except real evidence not complete bullshit) and our party leadership's reaction was to propose and support legislation making murder by the executive branch legal, not to initiate impeachment proceedings and demand a concurrent independent consul investigation into felonious activities in the executive branch.

Crimes have been committed. Serious crimes. Crimes that if they are not dealt with through our legal system will have established a new and dangerous political precedent: granting the executive branch essentially unlimited power, power without oversight, power without constitutional limitations. Why you and others are fine with that, fine with the abject capitulation of our supposed opposition party's leadership in this matter, remains a mystery. I question your motives.

[eagleswing963]

56. I think its time to email the "speaker"

Flood her email box with "Its time to impeach him" messages.

Anyone have her address? I'll be glad to do it!

Worse case is she ignores them.

[orleans]

59. she's BEEN ignoring them. n/t

[balantz]

60. If they're not complicit then impeachment would be the proper

course of action, like soon, whether or not there are enough votes in the senate.

[defendandprotect]

140. [e-mail]

[harmonicon]

65. well, no shit

There was no wink or handshake - she fucking said on national television that she'd never impeach these scumbags. As far as this torture shit goes, who fucking cares? There weren't other crimes that she and others were complicit in? For God's sake, they passed laws that are contrary to the country's constitution!! Hot damn..... are people actually getting mad now, or will we forget about this in a week and get back to talking about "winning"? I'll say it again, and I'll get flamed again. Every senator who voted for IWR is a criminal. Still, look who we ran as candidates in the next two elections: the same people who sold us out and disgraced us in the first place. If anyone is surprised by any of these "new" revelations, I have no idea what world they've been living in for the past 5 years.

[Lerkfish]

71. consistently, its the same group of people that want us to ignore these things

I'm just sayin.

[Enthusiast]

90. I have something to say..........................

I seldom have anything to say. Didn't Pelosi say that impeachment was off the table? In light of the horrible abuses the Republican Party perpetrated on the Clinton Administration, over essentially nothing, how could Pelosi have said such a thing? Impeachment isn't a choice, or flight of fancy, you impeach when it is right to impeach. Why is Pelosi protecting the Bush Administration? I am very suspicious of Pelosi's motives. I want some goddamn answers!

[Lerkfish]

100. good luck with that

apparently, we're not allowed to ask such impertinent questions.

Let's ask the DUers who blanch at the audacity to ask such a question to answer the question.

first rule of lies: see who objects the most to investigation. There's your guilty party

[balantz]

101. So far there appears to be some silence on that matter.

I'm rather new to paying attention to these matters and am learning about how our government works, but even for an ignorant person some things obviously don't make sense. I can't see any reason why Congress isn't chomping at the bit to impeach THE WORST ADMINISTRATION IN HISTORY. There are crimes commited that must be answered for. What the fuck gives here?

[harmonicon]

132. just change one word

make that "the worst government in (US) history". The Congress has been part of this mess all along. We foolishly looked the other way at what was going on in all levels of government and in both parties to focus on Bush. Like so many others, I thought with the Democratic landslide last election there would be real change. How wrong I was. So many bills contrary to the US constitution were passed, so many bills to fund an illegal war of aggression against international law. The Democratic controlled congress is only guilty of *fewer* crimes than the Bush administration. How could they implicate the Bush cabal without also implicated themselves?

[harmonicon]

129. exactly

I'm afraid you don't have to look too far for answers though. I don't think there is some conspiracy here. The powerful people in government are part of an elite class and they will always look out for their own before they do anything for the likes of us.

[defendandprotect]

141. Obviously, the DLC wants to ignore a lot of this --- !!! Including corp warprofiteers ---

[balantz]

85. Would somebody please explain to me why impeachment

is not, nor has ever been pursued by this Congress?

[Lerkfish]

87. simple: either complicity or gross dereliction of duty

either one. There is no third choice

[balantz]

89. Okay.

Anyone else have a good explanation why they haven't aggressively pursued impeachment? Not even in tough talk?

[Disturbed]

99. When Pelosi announced: "Impeachment is off the table." I knew

right then that the Busholini Regime would get away with all of their crimes.
I lost all hope of the Dems in Congress to stand up for the U.S. Constitution.

[defendandprotect]

142. Because of $$ interests --- corporations making $$$ from war --- and MSM making $ from war ---

War creates a lot of watchers for MSM ---

[onenote]

193. becuse the public isn't demanding it

Virtually no one ran for election in 2006 on a campaign that made an issue out of impeachment and of those that did, most lost (although they probably would've lost anyway). Recent polls show that even among Democrats support for impeaching and removing chimpy is only at around 50 percent and overall its at around 34 percent.

Moreover, Democrats from red-leaning districts aren't going to support impeachment if its a purely partisan effort -- even the clinton impeachment effort started with the support of 31 Democrats.

Do I wish the facts were otherwise? Sure. But you asked why Congress isn't pursuing impeachment not whether they should.

[ProSense]

105. Look

more http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=389&topic_id=2450665&mesg_id=2450665">facts.

[specimenfred1984]

106. Logged in just to ignore

buh-bye

[Name removed]

107. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Imagevision]

109. Talk-talk-talk, that's all it'll ever be, it's all it will ever amount to, face it we're screwed

Pelosi sold us out before she took delivery of her new plane.

[HowHasItComeToThis]

110. WOULD WATER-BOARDING WORK ON THEM???????????

[BigBearJohn]

114. HOW MUCH MORE CAN THE FUCKING DEMS BE EMBARRASSED? I'M RED IN THE FACE AS IT IS!

As my grandfather used to say --

YOU CAN'T MAKE CHICKEN SOUP OUT OF CHICKEN SHIT NO MATTER HOW HARD YOU TRY.

No matter how many pretty frames you put on this picture, the truth is obvious.

[HughMoran]

116. She may be feckless, but...

we will find out soon enough who was an accomplice. Blame the Dems first, as so many are wont to do here lately, is not helping at all. I agree with the poster a few up from me.

[KingFlorez]

122. I find all of this very suspect

Right after the revelation of tapes being erased and Bush getting caught in a lie about Iran, all of the sudden this story about Pelosi comes out. The sources who made this claim chose to remain anonymous, for all we know the anonymous sources could be Republican operatives.

[EFerrari]

127. But she didn't deny it.

:shrug:

[balantz]

130. That's the thing I wonder about.

[deacon]

176. And with her crediblility already is shambles- she didn't lash out. She made a 'statement' .

She is dragging the democratic party down in a huge way.

[defendandprotect]

144. Is Pelosi denying that she was told about the torture program . . .

is she saying she was duped -- lied to --- anything ????

[L. Coyote]

151. Read what she has said, and what her staff have said.

[defendandprotect]

154. I've read it and basically it says nothing ---

and I think we should demand answers ----

[peacetheonlyway]

147. ANSWER THIS QUESTION: Why is Justice Department Only Place to go

why is Justice dept. only place to go do to prosecute the crimes tehse folks commit against other americans?

don't we have local police and local law enforcement in the areas where the crimes were committed (such as New Jersey where AT&T was doing the wiretapping) and Miami where the cuban jurisdiction for guantanamo would fall?

can't we ask a local police offer to arrest bush/cheney next time they are in Miami?

why is this so fucking hard.

answer me this question?

[defendandprotect]

155. Have you heard any Democratic candidate call for a Special Prosecutor --- ?????

[orleans]

158. didn't biden? n/t

[orleans]

169. well, biden called for one for the destruction of the cia tapes

WASHINGTON -- A Senate Democratic leader said Sunday the attorney general should appoint a special counsel to investigate the CIA's destruction of videotaped interrogations of two suspected terrorists.

Sen. Joe Biden, a Democratic presidential candidate and chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, cited Michael Mukasey's refusal during confirmation hearings in October to describe waterboarding as torture.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/12/09/AR2007120900457.html?hpid=sec-politics

[Baby Snooks]

166. Accomplice?

She is more a co-conspirator than an accomplice. Congress for the most part has committed treason against the American people by not abiding by the rule of law as set forth in the Constitution.

I cannot fathom anyone in her district voting for her again unless they are just completely bereft of common sense. Some believe this will all serve the Democrats well in the 2008 elections. It does not simply because has allowed further erosion of the rule of law as set forth in the Constitution. We now have an executive branch that stands above and apart from the law. That is not what the Constitution set forth.

Nancy Pelosi is a disgrace to her office and to everything the Constitution stands for. As is most of Congress.

[Solar_Power]

191. co-conspirator is correct

[bjobotts]

167. What possible National security risk was involved that this committee should honor secrecy

[bjobotts]

168. Look at all the comments.Pelosi et al actions now making sense, huh?

It was just so mind boggling why the speaker would not act and why she pulled impeachment off the table before anyone even suggested it. Now it makes sense.

[WakingUpUSA]

171. When is the Speaker of the House

going to speak about these allegations? Curious minds want to know.

[orleans]

174. she has

Pelosi Statement on Washington Post Report on Congressional Briefing of Administration Interrogation Techniques

Washington, D.C. -- Speaker Nancy Pelosi issued the following statement on a report in today's Washington Post about a congressional briefing on Administration interrogation techniques:

"On one occasion, in the fall of 2002, I was briefed on interrogation techniques the Administration was considering using in the future. The Administration advised that legal counsel for the both the CIA and the Department of Justice had concluded that the techniques were legal.

"I had no further briefings on the techniques. Several months later, my successor as Ranking Member of the House Intelligence Committee, Jane Harman, was briefed more extensively and advised the techniques had in fact been employed. It was my understanding at that time that Congresswoman Harman filed a letter in early 2003 to the CIA to protest the use of such techniques, a protest with which I concurred."

http://speaker.gov/newsroom/pressreleases?id=0439

[autorank]

172. Yep. K*R Very nice one! n/t

[orleans]

173. (thank you) n/t

[ProSense]

192. Questions

here.

[L. Coyote]

194. RawStory: Intel Chair "was kept in the dark about severe interrogations"

Former intel chair: CIA tape affair part of 'an ongoing pattern' of Bush administration cover-up
David Edwards and Jason Rhyne - Dec 13, 2007 - http://rawstory.com/news/2007/Sen._Graham_CIA_tapes_an_ongoing_1213.html


The former chairman of the Senate Intelligence Committee says he was kept in the dark about severe interrogations of suspected al-Qaeda terrorists taped by the CIA, and calls the episode just another example of the Bush administration's "covering up" of unwanted revelations.

Former Sen. Bob Graham (D-FL), who chaired the Senate Intelligence Committee from 2001 to 2003 -- the period during which the CIA has admitted to implementing waterboarding and other severe methods on two high-level detainees -- says he was never told by the agency that such tactics were being employed.

Appearing on CNN's American Morning, Graham was asked about a recent story in the Washington Post which cited officials claiming that four members of Congress, including now-Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi, had been thoroughly briefed about the techniques being used.

But if that briefing did occur, it didn't include him -- and it certainly should have, said the former intelligence chairman.

"I was briefed on a number of other activities that were going on after 9/11, but not on this issue of the use of torture to gain information from detainees," said Graham. "Not only should I have been briefed, but the entire committee been briefed."

As described by the Post, most of the briefings heard by the so-called "gang of four," which consists of the chairman and ranking member of the House and Senate intelligence committees.

"The only basis for what they called these covert gang of four briefings is where the president has indicated there's an action that's being undertaken for which the United States wants to have deniability," said Graham. ...............

.......................

[Warren Stupidity]

200. Kept in the dark?

It has been bloody obvious since at least the abu ghraib story broke (and to anyone paying attention, much earlier than that) that we were torturing prisoners in complete disregard of international treaties. The assertion that 'they didn't know' is absurd.

Come to think of it, an entire year has gone by with our 'opposition party' leadership in control of all committees in both houses. Where exactly is the investigation into abu ghraib? secret (or not so secret) rendition? Systematic torture of prisoners? Huh? Where is part two of the investigation of the run up to the Iraq war, the investigation into what exactly happened to produce the bogus 'intelligence' touted by the white house as justification for the war?

The evidence is hard to miss. In fact it is impossible to miss. Complicity is the only reasonable conclusion.