Does Pelosi have the guts to start impeachment hearings?

[Radical Activist]

People keep arguing that we should sit on the impeachment issue until Democrats win Congress. Frankly, I don't think hearings will ever happen unless Democrats keep demanding a real investigation. If the truth comes out, that will help us win the midterm elections. I don't know how people expect to win without talking about any issues.

But my question is this. If Pelosi is unwilling to call for a serious investigation and hearings now, is it truly reasonable to believe that she will aggressively pursue the impeachment issue if the Democrats take control of Congress? It seems likely to me that she will continue to be safe, "reasonable" and inactive about the issue, like she is now, even if she becomes Speaker. Personally, I'm tired of empty promises from Democratic leaders who never deliver. Past behavior is the best predictor of future behavior.

[Dr.Phool]

1. In a word

No.

[Zeke]

5. I See Your NO...

And raise you: Hell, No.

Even if the Dems control congress,
Pelosi won't do it. She's really
not a good leader for the Dems
to the whole country.

She waffles on issues now,
and so looks like a weak
woman, which is what the GOP
wants her to look like, so
they can keep pushing their
all-male-we'll-protect-you
facade.

She's not a good leader choice for the Dems.

[IndianaGreen]

34. Pelosi won't support impeachment

She and Reid gave us Kaine for the bland SOTUS response, so I don't see her as taking any leadership role in an impeachment of our dictator.

[Selatius]

2. Impeachment is not possible without having Congress

We'd need to pick up 6 seats in the Senate, and we're not talking about the House here. I could see Democrats picking up 2, 3, or 4, but not 6.

[Radical Activist]

Is impeachment possible WITH a Democratic Congress?

Realistically, will they do it. Or, are you giving people false hope? If they don't call for it now, then why should I believe they'll call for it later? Either way, impeachment will require the support of at least a few Republicans.

[Selatius]

6. Talk to Harry Reid.

That's the same answer Dean gave to the press when pressed on the question of whether Democrats in the Senate will filibuster Alito's nomination. For that matter, also talk to Pelosi.

[frieguy]

9. Actually, the Senate doesn't matter so much...

... from the beginning of the process. Impeachment happens in the House, only. The investigation happens in the House.

Impeachment won't happen, I doubt that an investigation will ever happen. But if it did, if Bush were impeached, and he was sent to the Senate for a vote on removal from office, it would take alot more than six seats in the Senate to convict him of anything and remove him.

Everyone is so serious about an investigation into impeachment, but too much energy gets wasted on it. It amazes me. Oppose policy, oppose ideals, replace seats in the House and Senate with aggresive hometown campaigning. Stop bills that should be stopped, introduce bills that need to be introduced. Oppose the war in Iraq on ideals about the war and the conduct of the war. Come up with better, realistic plans for the end of the war.

But wasted energy is lost time. Lost time could mean lost opportunities to replace those seats so sought after.

[Selatius]

11. I believe the House impeaches, and the Senate holds the trial

If the trial is to take place in the Senate--and I believe this is how the process works--then it is important that the Senate be under Democratic control because they vote on whether impeachment articles passed by the House hold merit.

[frieguy]

13. Yup

and a two-thirds vote is required to convict in the Senate. That's a bit more than 6 more seats. But the impeachment process itself can take years... independent investigators and all... I'm just saying the House is more immediately important. But, it won't happen anyhow. Energy and political fury should be focused elsewhere.

[orleans]

39. i can't help this...

"the impeachment process itself can take years... independent investigators and all"


right. why bother? i mean, 60 MILLION dollars on a BLOW JOB was really worth it. why the hell should we demand the same bang for our buck just on illegal wiretaps, illegal wars (do you hear the iran drumbeat? it's getting loud and clear isn't it?), incompetence (fema/katrina just offhand), election fraud, plame and missing emails (about plame and "jeff gannon?") hum...


ok. sorry. i know that's not what you're saying. it was just my initial reaction. is the democratic party afraid that if they start saying the I word that the american people will think: "shit! we already went through that impeachment crap--i don't want to go there again" and vote republican just to avoid another starr report?

maybe the dem leaders need to start TELLING THE PEOPLE WHAT THE HELL IS GOING ON AND WHY BUSH NEEDS TO BE IMPEACHED. maybe they should start saying it, then shouting it over and over: let america know they know this government is corrupt. let america know that this shall not be allowed to continue.

just a thought.

[calimary]

17. Yes. The House delivers articles of IMPEACHMENT to the Senate.

Then, a trial is held on those articles, in the Senate. If the House can agree on, and assemble, articles of IMPEACHMENT against a sitting president or whomever, that person IS IMPEACHED. THEN, the clincher is - to try and convict in the Senate. If that second step is accomplished, it puts the period on the sentence of IMPEACHMENT, and that person, so convicted, can then be REMOVED FROM OFFICE. That's where the republi-CONS fell short with Clinton. They could get him impeached, alright. But their efforts stalled in the Senate because the Senate failed to convict. Therefore, they were left with no leverage or authority to remove Clinton from office - which of course was their ultimate dream and biggest disappointment. And they accuse US of trying to fuck with the system because we "couldn't do it at the ballot box"!

Nevertheless, they accomplished impeachment for Clinton, and that will stay in the record books even though he was tried in the Senate and NOT convicted/removed. If we get the House back, that's probably what we'll wind up with as a result - bush IMPEACHED but tried (assuming the bad guys hang onto the Senate) and not convicted. So bush then would also be saddled with IMPEACHMENT for all history, but not removal from office. We'd have to be satisfied with simple IMPEACHMENT. But that might be enough. After all, we also have a score to settle (at least in my mind), because lies about cheating on your wife do NOT measure up to such draconian punishment - the way lies about why we have to go to war, multiple scandals, cronyism, compromising national security, several thousand violations of federal law and the Constitution, and just plain ol' incompetence ARE INDEED sufficient grounds. MORE than enough, in my opinion.

[Radical Activist]

22. All we really need is the full truth to be revealed in public hearings.

The result will be a landslide for Democrats in the next election. The conviction vote doesn't even need to happen. Not speaking up allows Bush to get away with what he's doing.

[ProudDad]

36. It takes 67 Senators to remove from office

That ain't gonna happen but the House hearings would be great to have take place.

[cali]

3. She can't start impeachment hearings

She can call for them, but she hasn't the power to start them. She and every dem in the house could howl for Impeachment hearings from now until doomsday and the repubs would still stonewall. Howling without results would only make dems look more impotent.

[Radical Activist]

4. Would howling for impeachment really have no results?

I think it would make all the Republicans who refuse to investigate look like crooks complicit in the lies. That will help Democrats in the '06 election.

I know she can't start impeachment hearings. What I'm questioning, if you read my post, is if she would even start hearings if she could.

[cali]

7. I think if dems take the house

it's a real possibility. First, they'd hold meaningful inquiries into bushco actions. That would take months.

[kurth]

12. So do we impeach Bush and Cheney "together", or separately?

Cheney is the greater evil, but the Constitution says the House can only impeach the president. As everyone knows, if Bush goes, Cheney gets the job...

It'd be so nice if these two criminals could be tried together.

[SeaBob]

30. Impeachment

Whether you impeached one or both of them would depend on how the charge(s) were written up. Theoretically it would be possible to impeach his entire cabinet

[ProudDad]

37. Wrong

The house can vote articles of impeachment for the president, vice-president, Justices of the Supreme Court -- anyone in the executive or Judicial branches.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Impeachment

[kurth]

42. Thanks for the correction

My constitutional law is rusty. I know a few federal judges have been impeached and removed, but I'm not sure if any vice-president or cabinet officer has ever been impeached. They just got fired or quit.

[MrBenchley]

43. Appalling how many people on this board

seem utterly ignorant of what we used to call "civics", isn't it?

[Sarah Ibarruri]

8. Would she be the only one voting for impeachment?

The rest of the Congress is too terrified, I think.

[SeaBob]

31. Impeachment

The whole house would have to vote then the person charged would be tried by the Senate

[Neil Lisst]

10. She lacks the power to call hearings.

When your party doesn't control the House, you have zero ability to start any kind of investigation. But even if she could, Pelosi is not the leader to do it.

The fact that she and Reid are the party leaders in both houses of congress is a testament to how far into the ditch congressional Dems are right now. She's a terrible leader, and so is he.

It would be nice to get people in leadership positions who don't look and act like someone's great-grandparents. I can't imagine anyone under 50 even listening to either of them.

We need leadership in their 40s, young 40s, if we're ever going to reach the under 40 voters the way we need to in order to win big.

[Coastie for Truth]

14. Serious CONSTITUTIONAL question of moving too early

Fifth Amendment
No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offence to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.

The operative clause is

nor shall any person be subject for the same offence to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb

Without Democratic majorities in both houses - we would lose before 2006. So, we lose - and then come back and try Bush again in 2007. If we do that, does

nor shall any person be subject for the same offence to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb

kick in?

It's not what you think - or what I think - or even what Jennifer Van Bergen thinks. It is what Chief Justice Roberts, Justice Scalia, Justice Kennedy, Justice Thomas, and Justice Alito think.

And being political whores - as they showed in December 20, 2000, they would say that

nor shall any person be subject for the same offence to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb

is applicable.

[ISUGRADIA]

19. Even if so you can impeach a second time on different charges

[Coastie for Truth]

21. Interesting Point

I am not sure if the jeopardy attaches for "every thing actually charged" or "everything that should have, would have, or could have been charged.

Meanwhile - a fascinating read, Jennifer Van Bergen's "The Twilight of Democracy: The Bush Plan for America."

[radio4progressives]

26. hmm. By wilikers, it appears you have just made a very Critical Point!

Very Important point.

Helloooooooo comrades!!! check it out!!! i never saw this!!

[ISUGRADIA]

28. I've done a little research and the opinion is mixed but and a big

BUT it would appear on its face impeachment for the same crime may be unlikely but possible and not double jeopardy. Why? Because impeachment itself does not preclude a trial for the crime the president is convicted on. For example, let's say Nixon had been impeached, convicted and removed from office for Watergate crimes. He could have been convicted for the same crimes in criminal court (as I believe some governors have been after impeachment at the state level).

See section 20 in the link below.

http://essential-book.org/books/impeach/

[DeaconBlues]

15. Nope

The Democrats don't have the guts to say openly that Bush lied, much less call for impeachment.

[radio4progressives]

16. she blocked resolution from california progressive caucus calling for

impeachment.

so the answer would be, uh. No.

[calimary]

18. And that means, then, that we give up?

Hardly. Besides, taking back the House in November would change EVERYTHING about the operative equations. Including THAT. Because you can bet there will be fresh new blood, and new anger against bush and the republi-CONS that will come in with all those new Democratic faces. And I daresay there will be some who will actively campaign on IMPEACHING bush or otherwise holding him seriously accountable. Their arrival will also embolden such friends as Conyers and McKinney and McDermott and Waters - who are already up for it. Furthermore, taking back the House puts JOHN CONYERS in charge of the House Judiciary Committee. And Holy Peter Rodino! THAT'S where IMPEACHMENT hearings begin.

[AtomicKitten]

23. Investigations would begin in earnest WHEN the House is taken in 2006.

The Rs have flatly refused to investigate any of the outrages perpetrated by this administration, and there have been many. I have no doubt that that is the first thing that would occur.

Armed with the findings as ammunition, you betyerass she would call for impeachment.

[Radical Activist]

24. Why should I believe that?

When she won't even call Bush a liar or demand that Republican leaders hold investigative hearings, why should I believe she'll suddenly become a new person if the Dems take Congress?

[ProudDad]

38. To play a little Devil's Advocate here

What would happen if she did what you're asking.

Since the pukes are in charge of everything --- Nothing would happen.

She's keeping her powder dry. There are enough great progressive Congresspeople saying the I and L words to keep the subject in the public eye. Nothing will come of it until the Dems can take back the House.

[AtomicKitten]

27. Power. It's all who holds the power.

There are many questions to be answered from 9/11, WMD, CIA leak, Katrina, warantless wiretaps, and on and on. It's unfinished business. The Rs have refused to do their duty and provide oversight. There is NOTHING the Dems can do in that regard because they don't have the power.

But when they do, and they will (all power is cyclic), the Dems will do their job. With the information gleaned from the investigations, I have no doubt impeachment hearings will begin.

And Fitzpatrick's investigation fits right into this.

In order to reverse the damage done, it must be exposed.
It's all who holds the power. No more Mr. Nice Guy like after Iran/Contra.

on edit: believe what ever you want. I choose the above.

[radio4progressives]

25. I sure hope you're right, and I'd damn welcome it!

:applause:

[Justice Is Comin]

20. Her aggression

of the facts is like a lion with one leg.

[SeaBob]

29. Nancy P

She would not be the one to start the proceedings, It would have to be john Conyers. He is ranking democrat (minority memner of the House Judiciary Committee. That committee is where impeachment proceedings start

[Independent_Liberal]

32. She said she wants to solve everything "electorally."

Just her way of doing things. I like her. I think she will pursue impeachment as Speaker of the House.

[GetTheRightVote]

33. Yes, yes, yes, she sounds more then ready from what I have been

reading of late. Just needs the power of numbers and votes on her side when it all comes down .....

:kick:

[ProudDad]

35. If the Dems regained the House

It wouldn't be Pelosi's call.

It would be the Chairman of the Judiciary Committee -- John Conyers to convene hearings on the question of the Impeachment of the president and vice-president for High Crimes and Misdemeanors.

I would love to see that hearing in January of '07...

[iconoclastNYC]

40. I don't think she has the power.

They can't have hearings without the majority. That's why the best we can do is have forums in the basement.

[ncteechur]

41. I don't think Pelosi matters. She ain't no Tom Delay.

I think the dems lik Conyers would say

"Nancy, I understand your point about impeachment and blah, blah,
but frankly, I don't care. We are going to have hearings and we are
going to subpoena and if that leads to articles of impeachment, well
then the SOB is going to be impeached. Get behind it or get out of the way."

We assume that if we take the majority, then Pelosi will automatically become the Speaker of the House. I'm quite sure there will be several who would want that job. Wouldn't they hold a vote.
Minority leaders is not the same as Speaker

[oasis]

44. "Past behavior"? When was Pelosi majority leader? (eom)

[AndyA]

45. It all depends on the Dems getting the majority

And they can't do that without honest ELECTIONS. With the electronic voting machine scandal, HOW can the elections be honest?

The process of voting MUST be dealt with FIRST. Without honest voting, we have NOTHING, just more of the same, a lot of Repugs who didn't really win the election.

Take a look at Ohio - no way to challenge the outcome it would seem. This in my opinion is the #1 issue that must be addressed before November!

[Douglas Carpenter]

46. not until John Conyers is Chair of the Judiciary Committee after this Nov,

If the Democrats take the House this November

10 members of the Progressive Caucus would become chairmen of committees

John Conyers becomes Chairman of the Judiciary Committee

https://www.democrats.org/page/contribute