Nancy Pelosi: "You can't impeach a president because you disagree with his policies"

[sabra]

http://www.marinij.com/marinnews/ci_10185801

<snip>

"I don't agree that it's a good idea to impeach the president unless we have a real case against him," Pelsoi said, when asked by the Marin Independent Journal about the criticism during a reception that preceded her talk. "You can't impeach a president because you disagree with his policies. You have to have some high crimes and misdemeanors."

Regarding the effort to cut off spending for the war in Iraq, Pelosi said, "We just couldn't get the votes in the Senate. The House over and over again sent bills to end the war in a finite time and a date certain but couldn't get it past the 60 votes in the Senate. When we have a Democratic president, that will change."

[meegbear]

1. And when we have a Democratic president ...

impeachment will be moot! :grr:

[supernova]

3. This whole thing just runs right over her head!

:grr:

[Kablooie]

89. No it won't. The Republicans will push one through in the first few months. Watch.

[meegbear]

98. Yes, you are correct

[WhoIsNumberNone]

105. Agreed-

The Republicans will start building their case to impeach Barack on January 21st. They will be blaming him when it rains.

[KharmaTrain]

119. But The REAL Crimes Won't

It goes way beyond two political figureheads...this corruption and criminality goes into virtually every branch of the federal government. REAL crimes...WAR crimes...not political ones. And, unfortunately, thanks to "executive privilidge", a DOJ totally compromised and serving as this regime's private attorneys and 33 GOOP Senators, a lot of the truth, the real crimes, remain hidden.

The statute on these crimes don't run out on January 20th...if anything, a new clock and day begins if there's a Democratic administration and larger Democratic majorities in both Houses. Most important is we gain back the Judiciary...where a backlog of subpoenas and other cases need to be addressed...by an INDEPENDENT PROSECUTOR...and then appropriate actions can be taken.

[avaistheone1]

127. Rare opportunity to hear/address/protest Nancy Pelosi IN THE FLESH in person TONIGHT

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=389x3799293

[mmonk]

2. I can't stand when she pretends there isn't a case against

the most impeachable (based on administration actions) President in history.

[supernova]

13. Sadly

I don't think she's pretending. I think she really believes that he hasn't done anything legally wrong.

[1_cali_dem]

25. What about WAR CRIMES?

Maybe he has'nt been convicted..........Was anybody else amazed at how straight faced W was while telling Russia not to violate the sovreign borders of another country?:puke: He Makes Me SICK!!!!!!!

[King Coal]

75. Oh, baloney.

[bdamomma]

47. well the American people or those who are awake

know we have a case for Impeachment, doesn't take a rocket scientist to know that crimes have been committed.

[gateley]

4. But you can impeach him for a blow job.

:grr:

[theoldman]

11. Why a blow job is worse than murder?

Probably for the same reason that adultery is OK if it was done many years ago.

[Freddie Stubbs]

34. Pelosi voted against that

[CrispyQ]

5. Nancy, Nancy, Nancy!

Is the slop that much better at the big boy trough?

Traitor.

[tomg]

6. What's that Nancy?

Oh so "You have to have some high crimes and misdemeanors." Gee, thanks for clearing that up. :sarcasm:

[whistle]

7. Nancy, we know that, Bush and Cheney have committed criminal acts, treason

...and dereliction of duty and those are impeachable offenses

[bemildred]

8. The dissembling continues.

Congress is the sole interpreter of what high crimes and misdemeanors are, as the Republicans so aptly showed 10 years ago. So what she is really saying is that she is unwilling to call any of the Bushites' actions high crimes and misdemeanors, she thinks they are all OK.

[loyalsister]

81. She's saying that there's an argument against it

A bunch of like minded people talking can agree.
But, when legislators and legal scholars, some of which absolutely oppose it begin a discussion, the case for impeachment can be taken apart.
Intelligent individuals who understand how the legislature works and how complex arguments develop in it should be able to comprehend the fact that a pretty strong defense would be quickly mounted.
I really wish people would think this through a little more.

[bemildred]

93. You can make an argument for anything you like.

It's easy. It means nothing at all. Bush has had an argument for every one of his imbecilic moves. I'm talking about HER argument about why impeachment cannot be done. I really wish you would think this through a little more.

[truedelphi]

87. Bought off, paid off by the millions that

Di Feinstein's Husband's war accounts and contracts have brought that couple.

The above is only speculation, but that is how it usually goes in a Banana Republic - money buys the policies, by paying off the politicians...

I remember when we were a fucking great nation. But. Oh Well.

[LeftishBrit]

9. I wish someone had told that to Gingrich and Henry Hyde!

Realistically, I suppose they can't *convict* Bush and Cheney with only 50 Dems in the Senate. Pity!

[bdf]

85. At this point, perhaps they can

Bush is so deeply unpopular that Repubs in Congress with narrow majorities have been given permission to diss him.

In order for the articles to go before the Senate, the House of Representatives has to have brought articles of impeachment. Much as the M$M would hate to cover the House of Reps doing that, they'd have to. As soon as one of them breaks ranks that one gets a bigger share of the viewing audience, so the rest have to follow. It would be widely discussed. The evidence would be analysed. And the majority of Americans would conclude, even before the articles go to the Senate, that Dick 'n' Dubya are deeply evil people who have committed many serious crimes against the American people.

Suppose you were a Repug in the Senate. Some of the shit flying at Dubya is going to hit you. Just the fact that the House passed articles of impeachment is enough to reduce your popularity a lot. So you have a choice. You can do a favour for your old buddy Dubya and absolutely fucking guarantee you lose at the next election. Or you can join in throwing shit at him which might convince some people in your state that you're really one of the good Republicans and not one of the bad ones. Voting for impeachment gives you a better chance of being re-elected so you can carry on in your corrupt ways.

The Republicans, especially the top pols, think only of "what's in it for me?" When Dubya was as the height of his power he was able to hand out favours. Dubya's now a lame duck, and the only favours he can hand out are pardons. But he's going to limit those pardons to the least he can get away with—those necessary to keep people who could implicate him in crimes out of the hands of DAs offering deals for turning state's evidence. Too many pardons might just trigger the very thing they were designed to prevent—Dubya being indicted.

So it's possible, if it actually happened, there'd be a good deal more support from Senate Repugs than they're saying there is when they're asked about it hypothetically. When push comes to shove, it's every Republican for him or herself. If they calculate that they're more likely to be better off by dumping on Dubya, they will.

[truebrit71]

10. Are you fucking mad?...You don't think he's committed any crimes at all?

You have GOT to be kidding, right?

Look, just go and see Congressman Kuicinich...he has some interesting pointers for you...

If you still don't think he's committed a crime, resign and get out of politics..

Good grief, she is about as useful as a kick-stand on a jackass...

[Malikshah]

12. Pelosi, you deluded hack.

You are an embarrassment to humanity.

You *do* know that you are going down in history as a pathetic enabler/co-conspirator right?!?!

[Bobbie Jo]

14. She cannot be that pathetically DENSE.

She needs to come up with a new reason for her inaction. This one is truly pathetic. :eyes:

[1_cali_dem]

28. Yes She CAN!!!!!

This May be a large part of the reason for the desperately low approval ratings she has helped rack up!

[tularetom]

15. How many crimes and misdemeanors does she want?

I don't have time to list them all but it wouldn't be hard to find a dozen or so if she really wanted to.

[Brigid]

32. Exactly.

You got a couple of days, Nancy? We can list them for you.

[bdamomma]

51. maybe she should put her book tour on hold for the American people

to spell it out for her. stupid woman.

[bvar22]

72. d Shultz announced on his radio show yesterday....

....that her book is a HUGE flop.
According to Ed, she has sold only 4,000 copies.
:rofl:

[bdamomma]

121. who has the money to buy her book anyway!

[Winterblues]

16. Remember when she was first elected Speaker and just had to have the biggest , fanciest office?

I knew then and there she was not going to be our champion..:shrug: we get what we deserve I guess.

[bvar22]

56. The cosmetic surgery that stretched her face so tight that...

...she couldn't blink her eyes for a year was another clue.

Nancy parlayed her Congressional seat into a Seat at the Rich White Man Table in 2006.
She has NEVER looked back.

[Solly Mack]

17. so, torture is just a policy and not a crime?

[mmonk]

18. The new purpose of Congress is to make the illegal legal.

They are the king's court.

[Solly Mack]

19. Yep

that means burglary was just Nixon policy and not a crime...cover up...another Nixon policy

Iran-Contra...just another policy

[bdamomma]

52. and gutting the Amendments out of the Constitution is policy

and not a crime, what total BS is she spewing they have no regard for the American people, laws of the land etc. whatsoever.

[Solly Mack]

54. all just policy..albeit bad policy....just policy people disagree with

it's not like he broke any laws....just implemented bad policy

I said a while back that the reason they use the "bad policy" talking point is so crimes can be framed as a matter of policy disagreement instead of what they really are

and if it's bad policy then there's no reason to impeach because many presidents had bad policy...

I said a long time ago


Just part of the cover up

[cascadiance]

20. A congress person that doesn't understand or pretends not to understand lawbreaking should be fired!

Pelosi, you are a lame excuse for a human being! We need a new Speaker TODAY!

[suston96]

21. I see people learned little or nothing from the Clinton impeachment and trial.....

There will not be enough votes in the Senate to remove Bush.

To have an impeachment only for its spectacle is something a warped media would be pushing but not a serious citizenry that needs legislation about fuel costs, a crumbling national infrastructure, senseless wars in the Middle East, and so much more.

Think, people! Think! And remember how our government ground to a senseless halt during the Clinton impeachment and senate trial.

[Bob Dobbs]

26. So let busholini inc. run their criminal enterprise with impunity.

What rule of law?

Pelosi is being blackmailed, but there is no excuse for The People not to demand justice no matter the vote count.

[Two Americas]

108. an analogy

Mommy! Mommy! Daddy is drunk again and hitting us and yelling at us!

Now, children we need to focus on getting things done. Right now it is dinner time. We can't call the police on your father just because we disagree with his behavior.

Mommy! Daddy tipped over the dining room table and is throwing plates at us!

Children, I told you this was just a distraction. Besides, Daddy promised he would leave tomorrow, and by the time the police got here he will be passed out anyway. Right now we need to get things done. So let's get to that laundry.

Mommy! Mommy! Daddy tore up our clothes and poured laundry soap on us, and now he is throwing clothes hangers at us!

Think this through children. Think! All of this is just a distraction. Mommy told you that she has met a nice new man, and in a few months he will be here and will be your new Daddy. Let's focus on that and not waste our time and energy on old Daddy. Right now we don't have enough dollars to throw Daddy out, so we need to work towards having $60. Let's concentrate on that.

A few months later...

Mommy! He's back! And he has a gun!

[HCE SuiGeneris]

110. A question.

How do you feel about the the tactics being employed by PUMAs? Is their course of action reasonable?

[Two Americas]

116. not seeing the connection

I don't know who they are, nor what their tactics or course of action are.

The party is divided. It seems like more of an expression of that than a cause of that to me.

[Ian_rd]

22. Once again, "worthless" is redefined by Nancy Pelosi.

Poor Merriam and Webster can't keep up.

[Mist]

23. What the fuck do they have on her? She's not stupid, so I'll vote for she's

being blackmailed/threatened.

[MrSlayer]

97. Or she's in on it.

The Neos are not just Republicans you know.

[stillcool]

24. Nancy the Sweeper...

needs a better broom or a bigger rug.

[proud2BlibKansan]

27. She's right about the war votes

But it sure would have been nice to have more than a few brave Democrats speak out against the war. They may have been able to change the minds of a few brave Republicans. Of course, we will never know now.

[Triana]

29. WTF!!! - WTF PLANET does this woman live on. Has she EVER READ the Constitution?!

:mad:

[bamacrat]

30. Ask the families of the 7000 plus that have died under his watch if he should stay in office.

Bush lied, its been documented. His administration ordered the firing of many US attorneys based on political affiliation alone, its been documented. They forged a letter linking Saddam to 9/11, and uranium, again documented.

Yet his policies are why we want him out? Clinton was impeached because he lied. The pukes in charge wasted no time either, there were no worries about how it might affect the country.

[Brigid]

31. No, but you can impeach him for . . .

"High crimes and misdemeanors." Or better yet, help President Obama to find the most competent AG he can and then send that AG after these criminals.

[suston96]

33. Instead of spending all this time and energy on useless impeachment talk.....

...get to work on electing more congresspeople, especially in the senate where at least 60 are needed to get anything done.

[Two Americas]

107. it is not an either/or

I don't see how those two things could be seen as mutually exclusive. Bringing criminals to justice, or at the very least bringing the crimes to light, is "getting something done." This notion that "getting things done" and doing what is legal, principled and morally right are somehow antagonistic to one another is a big part of the problem.

I say stop anything from getting done until justice is served. Do you really imagine that by letting the perpetrators walk, and letting their crimes remain largely hidden, and allowing them to write the history on this, that then somehow in that atmosphere of compromise and complicity anyone is going to get anything done for the American people?

We have moved on and gotten over it too many times in the past, supposedly so we could "move on" and "get things done." That is the problem, not the solution. Every time we have listened to the argument you are presenting here it has come back to haunt us.

[suston96]

115. Read my link to the Constitutional Convention minutes....

Impeachment and removal is a political process. It has happened rarely and it turned out to be political each time.

Nixon really broke the law and should have been prosecuted AFTER he left office. But he was pardoned.

Not sure if I linked this on this thread: http://web.me.com/suston96/Site/Blank.html

It is an instructive compilation from the Constitutional Convention in 1787, of what the Founders debated and decided regarding the impeachment and removal of the President and other "officers of the United States".

I have lived through two Presidential impeachments - OK - one and a half - and they are useless and most important, they are extremely partisan.

As was the impeachment and trial of Andrew Johnson in 1868. I feel like I was there but you had better Google that one.

[Two Americas]

117. not following you

I am well familiar with the debates the founders had about this and with the Johnson impeachment and trial.

Of course impeachment is political, probably inevitably so, and yes that is a problem.

Yes it is rare.

Do you advocate removing impeachment from the Constitution? Of course it could be asked "what Constitution?" since it is almost completely inoperative now.

What in our political system and government has not been rendered useless by partisanship? That includes the integrity of elections, the independence of the judiciary and the justice department, the Constitution and everything else.

[suston96]

120. Do you advocate removing impeachment from the Constitution? Yes.

After the electoral college is abolished and the people directly elect their president then only the people by referendum should remove him or her.

Impeachment presently involves "any official of the United States" but there could be other ways to "remove" malefactors in office.

Involving the partisan Congress in the process is unacceptable. Involving the media and the fringies therein is dangerous.

Inoperative Constitution? Mostly so. I advocate, but with great reluctance, a Second Constitutional Convention.

That's a whole other elephant in the room.

[Two Americas]

122. OK

In the meantime, why should we not advocate impeachment? That is what this is about, not whether or not impeachment will happen or would be a good thing, or whether or not the Constitution should be re-written.

It would seem to me to be a very bad idea to advocate tossing the Constitution and starting over at a time when it is already under such relentless assault.

[suston96]

123. Why not advocate impeachment? Sure, go ahead. "Grand Inquest"......

........A book written by the late Chief Justice William Rehnquist. "The play's the thing....." and all that. Such an inquest will accomplish more than an actual impeachment and trial.

Most of the Constitution has to do with the framework of government. Most of that will not be "tossed" but reconstituted minus all the flaws.

The Bill of Rights is the most controversial part of the Constitution. That has to be rewritten in 21st Century prose, style, and emphasis - with unquestionable specificity.

We will not be starting over. We will always be a republic except that we will have more participation directly from the governed rather than from officials selected by partisan political ideologies and destructive demagoguery.

[Two Americas]

124. I am lost

The Bill of Rights is the problem? What do you find wrong with that?

[suston96]

125. The Bill of Rights was an afterthought by Madison because......

....some of the states would not ratify the new Constitution without a Bill of Rights. Only 10 articles? No right to vote. No right to life. Many others.

Here is a real Declaration of Rights - adopted 8 years before in Massachusetts. http://www.mass.gov/legis/const.htm

It is the oldest living, working Constitution on the planet. Uh, it's been amended over 100 times. Now that is what you call a living, working Constitution.

For example, the very First Article:

Article I. All men are born free and equal, and have certain natural, essential, and unalienable rights; among which may be reckoned the right of enjoying and defending their lives and liberties; that of acquiring, possessing, and protecting property; in fine, that of seeking and obtaining their safety and happiness.

Changed to:

Article CVI. Article I of Part the First of the Constitution is hereby annulled and the following is adopted:-

All people are born free and equal and have certain natural, essential and unalienable rights; among which may be reckoned the right of enjoying and defending their lives and liberties; that of acquiring, possessing and protecting property; in fine, that of seeking and obtaining their safety and happiness. Equality under the law shall not be denied or abridged because of sex, race, color, creed or national origin.

The US Bill of Rights was the source of many lawsuits starting in the mid 20th century when the "rights revolution" started, due to the vagueness of its language.

[Two Americas]

128. I see

Very good, thanks. I am familiar with the Massachusetts Constitution.

[pokerfan]

35. Can someone please send her the articles of impeachment?

Nancy must have been absent last January,

http://kucinich.house.gov/NEWS/DocumentSingle.aspx?DocumentID=93581

[Leftist Agitator]

36. I sincerely hope that Cindy Sheehan beats this useless fucking tool.

Nancy Pelosi, you are a traitor of the highest order.

[paparush]

37. V . . O . . M . . I . . T ! ! ! ! !

[Jakes Progress]

38. No? Well maybe we can

kick a self-serving, neocon-licking, fake Democrat out of office because we disagree with her craven behavior.

[CanonRay]

39. She is a blithering idiot.

Go Cindy Sheehan!

[TheWatcher]

111. NO SHE IS NOT.

She is a traitor to this nation, and an enabler of War Criminals.

It's time to call her on what she is.

[slipslidingaway]

40. Obama Pardons Bush - There will be no accountability....

we've been told by Pelosi, Obama and almost every other candidate and member of Congress.

:(

http://www.blackagendareport.com/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=715&Itemid=34

"There will be no need for George Bush to pardon himself and his fellow criminals. Barack Obama promises to let the "W Gang" off, scott-free, when he takes over the White House. Impeachment? Heavens, no! "That is not something I think would be fruitful to pursue because I think that impeachment is something that should be reserved for exceptional circumstances," says Obama...


"So this is an area where I would want to exercise judgment -- I would want to find out directly from my Attorney General -- having pursued, having looked at what's out there right now -- are there possibilities of genuine crimes as opposed to really bad policies. And I think it's important -- one of the things we've got to figure out in our political culture generally is distinguishing between really dumb policies and policies that rise to the level of criminal activity..."


...Cass Sunstein is a friend of Obama, a law professor at the University of Chicago and new husband of former Obama aide Samantha Power. Lately he has been the Obama campaign go-to-guy on the issue of Bush criminality. Sunstein's job is to tell us to shut up and let Obama let Bush off the hook.

Sunstein is also nervous about pursuing the law breakers. The professor thinks that only the commission of "egregious" crimes ought to be considered for investigation. The argument can be made that any crime emanating from the White House is egregious in and of itself. But Sunstein considers that point of view to be overly "emotional." He thinks that outraged citizens ought to just chill out and accept government torture, spying on citizens and lies used to start wars. "So I guess I'm saying that emotions play an important role in thinking about what the legal system should be doing. But under our constitutional order, we go back and forth between the emotions and the legal requirements, and that's a way of guaranteeing fairness. And as I say, very important to have a degree of bipartisanship with respect to subsequent investigations ."

[clear eye]

61. Not to mention stolen elections - n/t

[slipslidingaway]

68. Yes...add it to the list :( n/t

[wiggs]

62. !!!!

We definitely need more exclamation points from congress and media

[slipslidingaway]

69. It is really sad to watch this spectacle and see so many people

remain silent :(

[wizstars]

80. what a load of pelo--I mean sh1t

(they're pretty much synonymous)

[Franc_Lee]

100. H-e-l=-l-o, Bush has already pardoned himself and his entire administration

--> simply Gooole -> Bush pardon's himself and his administration

[wiggs]

41. It is CERTAINLY not just Nancy...lots of dem power brokers and dem leaders are

behind this. It speaks to a much larger, sad, frustrating dynamic in which left and right are not that far apart in the effort to "strengthen" the United States through empire building, corporate dominance, control of information, and paring of the middle class in favor of ultra rich.

This is the focus of our government now, including but not limited to Pelosi. I get the feeling that any apparent dem victory is simply a crumb thrown to the majority of voters to keep us under the impression that we have a functioning democracy.

Our system of government, media, elections, foreign policy, etc are the way they are because it is INTENDED that they be that way by the rich and powerful from both sides of the aisle. You can be sure that Nancy is speaking for a lot of people in her statements; just not us or the general public. I can't explain events of the last 8 years any other way.

It's not about left vs right like they would have us believe.

(Yesterday: an appeals court decides that government officials can't be prosecuted if it can be argued that they are carrying out duties of their jobs???? And what's with dem leaders not taking much of an interest in a highly suspect FBI story about an ANTHRAX attack on dems? And where are the recriminations of Lieberman's McCain propaganda from yesterday regarding a VERY flammable Russia/Georgia conflict? Oh...and the administration talked about planting nuclear material in another country and actually did forge letters in order to accelerate war)

Sorry...poor attitude today.

[slipslidingaway]

53. !!!!!!! n/t

[Baby Snooks]

42. The Empress serving the Emperor...

I hope her constituents remember all of this in November and vote for anyone but her. If they do return her to office, people who respect the rule of law and believe in democracy should boycott San Francisco to acknowledge their total disregard for rule of law and democracy.

She is not a Republican but she is not a Democrat either. She is a Republicrat. The new party. The party of the Bushes and the Clintons.

[bdamomma]

43. oh she is really out of touch

"you have to come up with high crimes and misdemeanors" Hey Nancy wake the crap up, what about the 35 articles of Impeachment by Dennis Kucinich??? remember him???

[Individualist]

44. Nancy the Enabler

is obviously taking her marching orders from DLC. In a just world, she would eventually be tried for aiding and abetting.

[leftofthedial]

45. Oh. I *see*.

So if Nancy's boyfriend george has a *policy* of committing treason and ignoring the law, then it's okay.

I understand.

[book_worm]

46. But Nancy, aren't we supposed to impeach a president who destroys the constitution?

[Kitsune]

48. ....remind me why I vote for these people?

Seriously? -__-

Christ.

[Senator]

49. Nancy The Nazi -- Sergeant "I See Nothing" Schultz

• ...The USSC ruled in Hamdan that Geneva 3 had been violated -- illegally (US CODE: Title 18,2441. War crimes) -- for three years.
  
  
• ...The FISA judges ruled that the regime was in violation of the FISA laws.
  
  
• ...The arrogation of monarchical, "unitary" executive power -- applied via Rule By Signing Statement -- is the Highest Misdemeanor imaginable.
  

Her Failure to Impeach (simply to formally object/accuse) is a High Crime. Worse than any of the regime's. Yes, worse. Simply put -- would you prefer a few criminal at large in your town, or a completely corrupt police force?

Impeachment remains our ONLY moral, patriotic option.

We CAN still force it in spite of Madame Squeaker. Just keep talking impeachment to anyone you can.

And if you are still making any excuse or wasting effort on anything else -- including (genuflect) The Sacred National Election Horserace -- then you (yes, you personally) are part of the problem, not the solution.

--

[cliffordu]

50. Did this fucking idiot go to college?? Isn't there a copy of the Constitution around

the Senate someplace??

Fuck me. I'm thinking we need to vote this meatbag out of office. Vote for Cindy!!

[Tennessee Gal]

55. I see nothing. I hear nothing. I speak nothing.

The essence of Nancy Pelosi.

[BlooInBloo]

57. If his policies include torture you can, you worthless piece of shit.

[Hidden Stillness]

58. This is Absolutely Insane; What the Fuck is She Waiting For?

Even if you COMPLETELY IGNORE the Iraq war, just a quick run-down of events, off the top of your head, will give you a number of crimes that are (WERE) impeachable: Fired many ( and a larger number apparently than has been covered) U.S. Attorneys during an Administration, because they would not prosecute innocent Democrats just before elections--illegal--or obstructed and then dropped ongoing investigations of guilty Republicans for massive bribery and corruption rings (Duke Cunningham, Jerry Lewis of Calif., etc.). Exposed the name of a current undercover CIA agent, (Valerie Plame), endangering the lives of anyone associated with her--treasonous. Turned much of the armed forces generally from a public Government institution under the watch of Congress, to a hugely wasteful set of corporations with Republican connections; billions of dollars missing, and services contracted for not provided. Turned the General Services Administration (Lurita Doan) from an agency that checks and approves contracting, to a center trying to get Republicans elected, with meetings for Republicans only. Had several members directly refuse requests, then subpoenas, to testify before Congress (Rove, Harriet Miers, etc.) and many others who never answered questions, "could not remember" anything (Alberto Gonzales, on and on). Refused to provide documents, e-mails, etc., as ordered. Interfered with, threatened, and fired Inspectors General who provided them with budgetary or scientific information they did not want, and censored final reports.

This is just off the top of my head! All these things are impeachable offenses, and if you remember, they impeached AND IMPRISONED the very much hated Spiro Agnew during Nixon's first term, for tax evasion and corruption/bribery. WHAT ELSE has the entire Cheney/Bush Administration been, but an endless stream of money-laundered corporate-profit connections, all illegal and treasonous?

[Dukkha]

59. THIRTY FIVE articles of Impeachment

are you really that fucking clueless Pelosi?

[spanone]

60. so torture is now just a 'policy' issue, eh nancy pelosi?

[Solly Mack]

63. Yes. Crimes by government officials are just policy disagreements

Wouldn't want to criminalize politics would you?

Was that Lott or Delay who said that? I forget which right-winger...they all seem to run together

[librechik]

64. Exactly! I don't agree with TORTURE as our policy--IT IS A CRIME

prosecute him for making that our policy Nancy, or be an accessory to that crime FOREVER!!!

Don't you want to save yourself from that at least? I know you don't care about the rest of us.

If you do impeach, you will go down in history as a hero, not a criminal. GET A SPINE AND HURRY!

[El Pinko]

65. What a worthless jackass she is. It has nothing to do with "disagreement"

I am not a pacifist. I fully support military intervention when it is called for - IE when the US or her allies are being attacked or threatened, we may need to use military force.

That was not the case with Iraq, not even in 1990 or 1998, and it certainly was not the case in 2002.

The issue is that POS Bush created the illusion of a threat from whole cloth with distortions and outright fabrications. That is a lie, and a crime, since it resulted in the needless deaths of thousands.

But Obama's no better on this issue...

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

[autorank]

66. She's not an idiot. She's deliberately misleading the public by

avoiding the truth.

Let's make it simple for Nancy. Here are equivalent #'s for the U.S. population derived form
Iraqi deaths and children orphaned:



So next time you cozy up to Bush, ask him about this. We were lied into a war, 4000 plus U.S. soldiers
are dead. All this human carnage occurred due to civil chaos triggered by the illegal war.

IF THIS ISN'T A CRIME WHAT IS?

[warren pease]

67. Two more chances to tell her in person what a great job she's doing...

It's pretty rare to get close enough to her to do much more than flip her off. But she made a serious tactical error by making personal appearances all over the country shilling for her book -- which supposedly has something to do with empowering women, if you can stand the irony.

Tuesday evening, a crowd of furious peasants showed up at a Pelosi book signing in LA. Harsh words, serious charges and non-negotiable demands to impeach the bastards. Details in this GD thread from yesterday. She was apparently a bit rattled by the level of outrage and anger. So that's good, and fun for the whole family, too.

There are only two more of these opportunities for direct confrontation left. Her publisher's website lists the following book signings, the next tomorrow evening in San Francisco.

8/14/2008 Cowell Theater Fort Mason Center, Pier 2 San Francisco, CA 94123 415-643-3400x11 7 pm

8/20/2008 Tattered Cover Bookstore 1628 16th Street Denver, CO 80202 303-436-1070

Enough with email petitions, useless phone calls and faxes. She's not going to let her white house pals down and she doesn't give a damn what the people want. For one thing, they're all obscenely rich members of the same elite club and social stratum and it's just plain rude to impeach your friends.

And there's that little matter of signing off on torture when she was briefed by the CIA in 2002, making her an accessory after the fact to Bushie's war crimes. Impeachment proceedings would certainly open up that line of inquiry and the outcome might be a bit unpleasant.

It would be nice to assume she'll be nailed by the Justice Dept. or the ICC for those crimes, but let's be realistic. There are no penalties for anyone who advances the objectives of the Bush International Crime Syndicate.

So she might as well get an earful from the people for once. Particularly from those in her district tomorrow evening at Ft. Mason. I'm assuming Cindy's attending. I'm assuming the crowd will project a level of open hostility usually reserved for serial killers and republicans.

I hope she takes note of all that outrage and starts to get a little nervous that Cindy may pull off the upset of the century and send Pelosi's useless ass somewhere she can't do any more damage.

Thanks to those in LA who nailed her to the wall. Thanks to those who go.

And if you decide to attend, dress appropriately. Catcher's gear or a modified version of NFL linebacker chic would be a good model.

Thanks for giving a damn and best wishes for scaring the shit out of her,


wp

[suston96]

70. See, here is the problem - nobody knows what "...high Crimes and Misdemeanors" are.

In fact, the Constitution is pretty vague about a number of things.

Supreme Court Justices have bragged that "the Constitution means whatever we (the Supreme Court) say it means".

In the same vein, Congresspeople have bragged that "...high Crimes and Misdemeanors" are whatever the House of Representatives decides they are.

Sorry, folks, that ain't no way to run constitutional justice.

I made this compilation during the Clinton impeachment. Tells what the Founders said and debated during the convention of 1787:

http://web.me.com/suston96/Site/Blank.html

Make your own conclusions.

When the Soviet Union collapsed and a new Constitution was being written for Russia (with our help) they established a Constitutional process which included a pre-impeachment panel that would determine what violations their president had committed BEFORE such a process was started in their legislature.

That's what we need. Leaving it up to a partisan House and Senate makes impeachment what it actually is - a political instead of a legal process.

[Runcible Spoon]

71. ()*)(^&#*$^&*%@#_

Fuck you Nancy.

[Franc_Lee]

101. Hey! Nancy pelosi proved herslf to be ineffevtive and must be replaced ASAP...!

[CrazyDude]

73. Agree on impeachment, disagree on war funding

Would this government probably shutdown? Yeah, but all Pelosi needs is her majority, not even the Senate, to block funding.

[Dogtown]

74. We should feel privileged

that the Ruling Class bothers to lie to us.

[magellan]

76. Not surprising from the woman who signed off on TORTURE

n/t

[elehhhhna]

77. We need an opposition party in this country, NOW!

[Swamp Rat]

78. Yuck!

[vanboggie]

79. Madam Speaker can't read

She needs to take some time off her useless book tour and read Kooch's articles of impeachment. What mother would want her daughter to rise to useless power like Pelosi did anyway?

[DFW]

82. She's right

"You can't impeach a president because you disagree with his policies"

True enough.

However, there ARE a few high crimes and misdemeanors worthy of mention............

[GreenPartyVoter]

83. *tears hair out*

[riverdeep]

84. Two words-

Ron Suskind.

[Karenina]

86. But you CAN impeach him for BREAKING THE LAW.

[appleannie1]

88. Nancy, grow a brain. This is not about someone disagreeing with

his policies, it is about the constitutional laws he has broken and the unwarranted deaths of over 4000 of our citizens because he thought it was okay to lie us into a war.

[lonestarnot]

90. WTF is wrong with this clueless freak?

[eppur_se_muova]

91. Nancy, if you can't lead, and you won't follow, just get the Hell out of the way! nt

[sakabatou]

92. Hey Pelosi...

I'm gonna give you this vehicle because you deserve it:

[Phredicles]

94. She belongs at The Hague next to Commander Lovely Man;

Complicity, thy name is Pelosi.:grr:

[glitch]

95. There must be a very good reason why she is willing to make a fool of herself this way.

The whole damn world knows about the Bush/Cheney administration's high crimes, exactly who does she think she is convincing with this spewage?

[Usrename]

96. She's Lieberman in a dress.

She's Zell Miller.

She's a buffoon.

[Franc_Lee]

99. Why I ask you, would Cindy Sheehan be worse as the house speaker, that's mind boggling...?

[Franc_Lee]

102. disagree with his policies? - man does she ever need to be bootd from her

job, complete failure! She actually thinks she's fooling us.

[tavalon]

103. You do have a case, Nancy

You are choosing to be willfully ignorant on that point. I would like to know why?

[WinkyDink]

104. She never heard of Valerie Plame.

[calimary]

106. You most certainly CAN, nancy dear.

Go back about ten years and study what happened to Bill Clinton - how it was nothing less than voter nullification the republi-CONS were after. They couldn't defeat him at the polls, so they decided to hound him every step of the way, make his life miserable, probe every orifice they could find on him, and keep investigating and harassing and persecuting and digging until they finally found something that would stick. They resented him for having the nerve to throw their precious george bush senior out of office one term too early - because he was ENTITLED to two terms.

She is the biggest disappointment in the Western World.

[moondust]

109. Go back to sleep, Nancy.

We'll let you know when the sun comes up. :eyes:

[judasdisney]

112. I M P E A C H P E L O S I

[Kablooie]

113. I guess this means that, at least, she disagrees with the policy of treason.

[bdamomma]

114. vote this woman out of office please

[Supersedeas]

118. sounds like Nancy Disaster buys the entire Unitary Executive theory

[Toasterlad]

126. Christ, How I Hate That Broad.