November 24, 2007 02:10 PM
Mid Day Open Thread
Worth reading:
Seattle PI: Impeachment: If not now, when?
TalkLeft: Mitt Romney's Willie Horton Moment: Throws Judge Under Bus
Group News Blog: Paid in Full
About Bluegal aka Fran
Executive Producer of The Professional Left Podcast. On staff at Crooks and Liars since 2007. Master's degree from Harvard. Happy wife of Driftglass. Mother of three geniuses. Obsessive knitter. Blogs at http://bgalrstate.blogspot.com. .
Share This Post
Link To This Post
68 Comments
Nice picture of Jonah Goldberg.
Mid-day music:
Leonard Cohen
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fUNmRdlo4FY
The moment Pelosi took impeachment off of the table, is the moment America ceased to be.
IMPEACH POSTER FREE 2 COPY
Not Just 4 Thanksgiving Anymore...
FREE 4 X-Mass POSTER - Jail em All
Get it here,
http://www.RogerART.com
Add U ( Friends Family ) 2 Image, Photo Shop, Copy
Down load, Pass it on... Around
Peace, Love & Later, http://www.pResidentOfPlanerEarth.com
.
I was driving in my car today, trying to stay alive from crazy holiday shoppers, and it occurred to me what we have in this country is "politricks". Is that a coinage?
Matt supports a solution: Confronting Pelosi to make her choose whether to lead, or get out of the way.
Regarding impeachment, it might be that if Democrats cite abuse of power to cut Bush's Presidency short by one year, they'll have to be subject to scutiny the next four years with a Democratic President. Of course, they'll sacrifice their 2006 mandate to do it.
Mike Huckabee's Latest 'Celebrity' Endorsement: Ron Jeremy
The elite have stolen the vote of the people again and again, we are being beat up and jailed for just speaking about 911, How is it our church's are so indifferent to speaking out agaisnt tyrany. My conclution is that the leaders of our church our in bed with the demons they tell us we need protection from. Seperation of church and state my ass.
Bruce Sprignsteen's "Magic" tour is coming to South Florida in April and the radio staions are already hyping it. The irony is, there are NO songs from the CD being played, nor will there be. This CD is anathema to right wing radio and we need to call Clear Channel stations just to request it and bust their balls.
Anyone hear the new Eagles CD as well? "A Long Road Out of Eden" is excellent, the title song, of course, about a soldier in Iraq and the oblivious rich in america juxtaposed throughout. Awesome harmonies as well.
Thanks for the open thread. Gonna pop a cold one and throw on the Eagles.
Peace.
Maelstrom @ 7:
I understand the concern: The DNC is concerned about oversight. Indeed, as both the GOP and DNC should be. But that is what separation of powers is all about: To induce fear, and remind people that there is someone watching them. But consider this: The GOP is not going to be "less confrontation" if the DNC refuses to be confrontation. Rather, the GOP will merely take advantage of the DNC inaction.
The issue isn't whether the President's term is shorter; but whether our Constitution is preserved. The issue isn't removal, but the challenge. The mandate of the DNC isn't 2006, but 1798: The Constitution. Curiously, no one can point to a group that will change position and "backlash" against the DNC for conducting an impeachment investigation. The DNC Membership isn't going to support the GOP; and the GOP Membership isn't going to change. There is no group that exists that is going to "backlash" against the DNC if it dares to do its job. It is an illusion.
Death Star @ 9:
The Church and the US government have no power over eachother. In theory. But it is not appropriate to believe that because the religious have lost faith in America, that there is no hope. There are solutions.
Marcus Aurelius @ 3:
No, there are options to remind the Speaker: She needs to lead; or she needs to get out of the way. America isn't dead. Only some have lost faith -- to the benefit of some -- that something can be done to defend the Constitution. There are options.
ONLY YOU, THE AMERICAN TAXPAYER, CAN FORCE CONGRESS TO IMPEACH THE VICE PRESIDENT AND THE PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA.
Call Nancy Pelosi @1-202-225-0100 and DEMAND IMPEACHMENT.
(DC business hours)
Mike Meyer @ 14:
The way forward is to remind your friends, that unless the Speaker makes way for impeachment, the House can be forced to Confront the Speaker. Either the Speaker leads the way on an impeachment investigation; or she can be credibly challenged as Speaker -- lead, or get out of the way, Madame Speaker.
hadenuf @ 5:
Naw, that one's been in the hip hop vocabulary for quite a while. Edutainment. Lie-Bury where the lies are buried. Etc.
We have to try to impeach or the next repub prez will be 1,000 times worse than W as he is 1,000 times worse than his pops
Maelstrom @ 7:
The danger of not impeaching is that BushCo is putting together a private army and inducting felons and foreign mercenaries into the regular army, people who have no loyalty to the citizenry of the country, and with these forces they could stage a military coup. Of course, this is just one danger presented by a desperate evil administration.
"The moment Pelosi took impeachment off of the table, is the moment America ceased to be".
I happened even before that: America ceases to be (i.e. Democracy no longer exists) when the voice of the people fail to be heard, and that happened when the Supreme Court over-ruled the people in the 2000 election. Sandra Day O'Connor allowed that to happen and in my view she did that deliberately, but we'll never really know what or who coerced her to sell her own country down the river.
Marcus Aurelius @ 3:
It really does make you wonder if the Democrats are complicit.
OF COURSE the Dems are complicit. (thus the term FORCE Congress)
There is a solution. There is a way to confront the House, and get them to pay attention to these issues you are discussing here at C&L.
Mike Meyer @ 21:
Feel free to visit this blog, review the comments, and discuss your solutions to forcing the House Membership to be accountable, challenge their complicity, and find a solution to opening the door to the impeachment investigation. You'll see that the issue isn't one for us to debate or make excuses to do nothing; but for the public to realize it does have options to make the House respond and open the door to an impeachment investigation.
Tucker Carlson sure was a cute baby. Was that his first visit to the web?
kaT @ 18:
A military coup not supported by the majority of its citizens under a, by now, largely hated administration by the majority of Americans, including those in the military, is not gonna go over well.
The problem with this entire scenario is if Bush and the neocons continue to weaken the military to the breaking point, where it consists mainly of top Generals who do the neocons bidding and keep the military at bay with Blackwater.
However, its unlikely under any such scenario there would be any popular support unless the neocons can successfully engineer multiple terrorist attacks and declare a state of emergency long enough to gain their foothold.
Just a friendly reminder: the NSA 'secret' tap room at the ATT POP San Francisco (and dozens of others like it around the country is STILL SEARCHING AND RECORDING ALL TRAFFIC (Internet, phone, cell -- anything digital. which is everything really, by now) over the major backbones of the internet. This AND there are at least two other, still covert, operations that we know of that are somehow involved with domestic surveillance.
If you want ANY privacy AT ALL to your communications, say at least that of a handwritten letter mailed in a plain old envelope, you MUST use encryption regularly. It is far past the time when all citizens just use encryption for chatting, and email as a matter of course. Your browsing history, and WHO you communicate with will still be recorded of course, but there needs to be at least some obstacle (if minor) to rampant abuse. Unfortunately, things aren't super easy to set up, but they aren't exactly hard either. But it is a one time effort -- let's get everyone on board with this. There has to be a certain critical mass for this to work properly and easily...
I was going to include brief directions for proper use of Mac (encrypted iChat, Apple Mail), Windows (Outlook, MSN), and linux (Thunderbird, Jabber/?) but things are NOT as easy as they should be yet. Help is appreciated to spread the word and easy instructions. (OK, in iChat it is a simple preference setting, but the certificate you get from a .Mac account no longer works to send secure email! Bad Apple.)
Here is a speech (unaltered quotes) from Our Dear Leader on the subject. I've arranged them to better reflect the presidents truly intended meaning:
Take a look at this from 2006: An effort within the DNC to remove Pelosi as Majority Leader. This article shows there is some support within the DNC to remove Pelosi that hasn't been addressed.
- Where did this opposition go?
- Now that impeachment is still off the table, despite the majority support for an investigation, are those who opposed Pelosi in 2006 still looking for support to unseat her?
The article shows there are those within the DNC who can be motivated to join the GOP in removing Pelosi as Speaker. Her removal as Speaker would, in theory, clear the last hurdle for an impeachment investigation.
Cute Baby
I listen to progressive radio only. In my town that station just happened to get stuck with ABC as its "news" provider.
ALL WEEK the lead story on ABC News is: How Christmas and after-Thanksgiving sales are going!
Just on this blog alone:
How many of you truly give a shit how sales are going? Anybody? Even mild interest?
God Almighty, I get so angry at this republican bullcrap called corporate news I could scream.
RED ALERT AMERICA: Christmas sales are going just swell.
Lollimom @ 28:
I give a shit about consumer spending because I keep hoping to see it isn't going swell at all. Since our economy is based on at least 70% consumer spending, it seems the best way to get somebody's--ANYBODY'S (hoo-hoo--anybody out there listening?) attention, is to make a point by refusing to spend more than you absolutely have to. I know it's a bad time of year to ask people not to spend at all, but can't these people at least put off buying that 6th t.v. set for a little while?
At least, so far, they can't arrest you for refusing to spend money.
Marcus Aurelius @ 3:
Ridiculous. Apparently you missed the Supreme Court handing an election to the loser, etc.
The Constitution does NOT rest on impeachment. Those powers have never worked, or if they worked in the case of Nixon, which is arguable, they won't work when you have a party in complicity like the current RNC conspiracy, which has DEMONSTRABLY been caught in solid evidence of massive vote-fraud.
Good To Challenge @ 15 "The way forward is to remind your friends, that unless the Speaker makes way for impeachment, the House can be forced to Confront the Speaker."
That's hilarious NONSENSE.
Pelosi was elected unanimously as Speaker. In the entire Democratic caucus there is not ONE vote against her.
IF you were able somehow to remove Pelosi, you would be elevating DLC Steny Hoyer to the position.
I know that strains your underinformed brain, but TRY to understand that.
Good To Challenge @ 26 "Where did this opposition go?
- Now that impeachment is still off the table, despite the majority support for an investigation, are those who opposed Pelosi in 2006 still looking for support to unseat her?"
If you think that Hoyer will impeach Bush, you do not understand what the DLC is.
DLC top players are Hoyer, Feinstain, Emanuel, Schumer, Clinton.
What a bunch of braniacs. Does the DLC want to control the House? Yes they do. Would they be happy to have the Speaker's seat as well? Yes they would. Are they progressives? NO THEY ARE NOT. Would they impeach?
(cough) Are you fucking kidding? (cough)
hope @ 29:
I probably shouldn't have stipulated "on this blog" because here it's mostly informed people who probably do give a shit.
However, with everything else going on in the world (the occupation, loss of freedoms, healthcare, wiretapping, Internet tapping, vice-presidential treason, the average citizen doesn't and shouldn't give a shit how the effin Christmas sales are going.
Headline "news"? Hardly. It's just a relentless effort to keep Mr. and Ms. Average Citizen dumb.
Lollimom @ 33:
Yeah, we basically agree. The only reason I seek out any news about it is that I keep hoping the indicators will be that the corporations find themselves in deep weeds because they have finally screwed us over so much we can no longer or are no longer willing to buy their overpriced products. I guess I've gotten to the point that it seems every other avenue of protest has been shot down. It would be so delightful if a lot of these corporations that back bad politicians got really unhappy over lack of consumer spending.
And I agree, it's an effort to make the sheep fall into line. Report ad nauseum on how much your fellow citizens are spending so you too will get out there and run that credit card to an amount it will take years to pay off. Join us, join us....
History favors the party that seeks impeachment, it does not have to succeed to be effective.
congrats to Kucinich for getting the ball rolling!
lil Bush in training for the next Bush campaign
Gregg @ 35 "History favors the party that seeks impeachment,"
That's nonsense. Look at the Nixon removal. He nominated his pardoner, who ruled after him, replaced for four years by Carter, and then we had twelve years of Reagan and Bush, followed by eight years of Clinton and eight years of an actual Bush coup. If that's 'history's favor,' no thanks.
"it does not have to succeed to be effective."
If you purpose is to blur the lines of reality even further, then you're probably right. It would allow the Republican co-conspirators to spend the entire year next year talking about how Bush lied for our own good. Won't that be lovely.
"congrats to Kucinich for getting the ball rolling!"
With that bill Kucinich helped injure the R leadership, with the assistance of the Dem leadership, which left the vote open long enough for the R leadership to double-back over their traces, confusing and irritating their following.
Beyond that, nothing. Bills have been deep-sixed into the Committees since the beginning of Congresses.
If not now, never.
Not until the Dems grow a pair. And that isn't going to happen.
let the Republican Nazi nuremburg trials began this summer
the world is waiting............
Dear C&L readers who also happen to have friends at Kos,
A while ago, someone asked on Daily Kos: What is it going to take to get a poll on the issue of Pelosi? (You can read more at the link.) Let's review what's happened: To date, there's an effort underway to take action, rather than just take a poll.
1. Daily Kos And State Proclamations
State Proclamations calling for House action, in part, told Kucinich there was broad, growing support for his effort to put his resolution on the table. For example, at this link, you'll see the leadership of Kagro X and others on Kos who well led the first steps on the state level proclamations. It's time to discuss the other options to ensure the Speaker gets a wakeup call, and is reminded that she needs to open all the doors to the Kucinich resolution calling for an impeachment investigation of the Vice President. The proclamations are well known. Look at the number of states which have well discussed state-level efforts to challenge the House to act.
2. Challenging Pelosi To Open All the Doors To An Impeachment Investigation
Today's effort to challenge the Speaker isn't narrowly on whether to impeach or investigate; but what must be done to remind the Speaker that if she refuses keeps the door closed to the impeachment investigation, there's a credible threat she's going to be shown the door. At this link, you'll find a status update, with a sample proclamation with precedents for removing the Speaker; and at this link you'll see how this effort is similar to the previous proclamations. These proclamations call on the House to raise the question over whether Pelosi should or should not be removed, and make way for impeachment.
3. Challenge For the Blogosphere, C&L readers, and others indirectly connected with Dialy Kos
There is discussion in the blogosphere on this issue: Matt, Crimes and Corruption, Katharine, and Lady Broadoak. have raised their voices. Even a Congressional candidate says, "Yes, let's do this." Others have asked similar questions.
What is it going to take to get this effort highlighted in your state legislatures, at your city councils, and in your neighborhoods and the blogosphere? It only takes one thing: You. Please discuss these links with your friends, and encourage others to comment, and raise their views on this issue. Thank you.
4. What You Can Do
Perhaps you (and others who know of Kos readers/writers) may wish to encourage the Kossacks to respond at this link to this effort. Thank you for your support, C&L readers. It is possible for one person -- you -- to make a difference. This happened because each of you individually dared to speak out. It's time to make the Speaker lead on the Cheney impeachment investigation; or for her to get out of the way, and make way for real leadership in the United States House of Representatives: We the People.
John,
Sorry about the duplicate. I incorrectly assumed the first had been removed/did not take.
Ooops, please forgive me.
QuakerDave @ 38:
It has nothing to do with Democratic testicular endowment, and everything to do with the unwillingness of REPUBLICAN Senate co-conspirators to uphold their oaths.
Challenging Speaker Pelosi @ 40 "if she refuses keeps the door closed to the impeachment investigation, there's a credible threat she's going to be shown the door. "
There is no such threat.
She will be Speaker until at least Jan. 20, 2009.
We must all pull together in our time of need, for our government is challenged.
The Republicans are mentally and psychotically challenged,
The Democrats are testicularly challenged.
What to do?
I dunno, I guess we could keep wringing our hands and shooting off our mouths, but that doesn't seem to help.
When is this US going to wake up to the fact that our system of government is totally broken and totally corrupt. There is now no difference between the the Reps. and Dems.......Time is quickly running out..........Impeachment Now!
BUSHKNOCKEDDOWNTHETOWERS @ 45:
When are you going to wake up to how impoverished that malarky is?
The Dem party is not some kind of dog with two eyes and a tail. It has at least three layers, and the Progressive layer is on top. That's better for us than the DLC layer. The DINO layer undernearth, the Blue Dogs, are what you say, Republicans. Even the DLC is not Republican -- though it is corporatist.
The Progressives, led by Speaker Pelosi, the first female Speaker, the first Progressive Speaker in history, is a great boon to our country. Naturally, leftists can't stop atacking her.
You cannot find actual evidence of corruption in any of the Progressives. Certainly there is no evidence of corruption of Speaker Pelosi. But not having enough votes to push processes forward is simply not her fault, but she is your convenient scapegoat. You can call her a Republican, when she has voted against the war and in opposition all the way down the line. She has also stopped the practice of issuing Supplementals to fund Iraq -- but she'll never get credit, because leftists just can't stop trying to get someone else to dive onto the sword. Not because it will save us, but because otherwise you have to deal with having had a COUP, which is what our fine Progressives are being forced to deal with.
Picture of a new Republican intern?
Paul in LA @ 46:
Hey Paul in LA .....Do you really believe that Pelosi is a Progressive????????......The Dems winning Congress just means the K street Riff-Raff sends there checks across the aisle......Pelosi showed her true colors when she said Impeachment is off the table....Fuck HER~!.......SSDD.....
It's no brainer because Senators and Congressmen from both sides of the isle are complicit to all the crimes Bush has committed from Iraq Liberation Act to the Military Commissions Act granting Bush and Company Immunity from war crimes prosecution.
None of which would have passed congress without bi-partisan help.
Convicting Bush would also convict themselves! None of them want that!!!!
Paul in LA @ 42:
Wouldn't it make sense to force the GOP to confront this issue by having a trial in the Senate? If the evidence is overwhelming, but they refuse to convict, that can hardly be called a "threat to the DNC". If anything, it makes the GOP vulnerable.
Who's to say that the GOP -- in those Senate seats -- will retawin those seats if the Citizens of those states say, "The GOP Senators saw the evidence, but refused to convict. We can't trust them."
Why the fear in letting the GOP Senators wrestle with this issue? To say, "They're goint to not do anything" is counting the votes before they're cast.
Paul in LA @ 43:
I appreciate your responses, but your arguments aren't holding up. You appear to rely on faith and personal attacks, not prudence, reason, or solid arguments. I think you can do better. Let's consider the flaws with the apparent assumptions you're making.
1. No basis for statement
You don't know she will be Speaker until 2009. If this is true, there is no reason for you to ever comment on this. You have no idea. In fact, your posts suggest that you're not as certain as you once were. Consider this: It doesn't appear you have a credible response to any of the comments posted in response to you (apparent) non-sensical excuses to give up. The caucus process can be surprising, especially when the DNC and GOP join to discuss -- in private -- the way forward after Pelosi's removal. The DNC might be willing to accept a Speaker to the GOP's liking if this means the GOP will join some of the DNC in ousting Pelosi.
Indeed, there is a way to unseat the Speaker. It requires the GOP and DNC Members of Congress to cooperate. Are you saying that the same GOP -- which voted to support the Kucinich resolution is not going to support the DNC in opposing the Speaker? There's already on the table evidence there's opposition to the Speaker within the DNC: Not only the staffers working, but the open vote.
Overall, you fail to convince anyone that removing the Speaker is impossible. Perhaps not tidy, but what option -- other than capitulation -- is there to ensure the President is confronted on the House floor with an impeachment vote; then on the Floor of the Senate with a trial? Again, that the GOP 'might' not convict is speculative: Let's make the GOP Senators go on the record and force them to confront the issue. Instead of relying on one lone blogger saying, "No" let's make the Congress vote to do nothing. It's their job, not yours to engage in malfeasance. Whether they are subsequently prosecuted for that malfeasance is a door we should keep open; not -- through inaction -- allow them to avoid the issue. They haven't done the American public any favors except betraying them. Same goes for both the GOP and DNC leadership.
2. Illusory Backlash: Failed To Cite Specific Demographics of Group
If you're going to say this is going to "backlash' against anyone, please be specific with which demographic group is going to backlash against whom. There is no group that is going to change their support from the DNC -- and side with the GOP -- those groups already are aligned with either the GOP or DNC. To have a backlash, there must be a change, not more of the same: Excuses. [See #50]
3. Prosecuting Pelosi Outside Removal Decision
There's also a credible threat of prosecution for Pelosi for inaction on impeachment. The way to the impeachment is through the Speaker's office. If she attempts to thwart an investigation, then she needs to be removed, and considered for prosecution in re 5 USC 3331. State AG's have the power to prosecute Pelosi for breaching the State's guarantee to an enforcement mechanism.
Donaldd @ 49:
What they want, and what they are being forced to confront may not necessarily be in their interests. Their problem. That's why there are elections every 2 years: To force this to the table; not use "an election" as the excuse to bury evidence.
Force the alleged rebels inside the DNC and GOP into the open and show themselves. then the States through proclamations can politically pummel them; then the State AGs can prosecute them. They knew the risks. May they have justice. But the rule of law shall prevail, even over the rebels inside the Congress.
BUSHKNOCKEDDOWNTHETOWERS @ 48 "Hey Paul in LA .....Do you really believe that Pelosi is a Progressive????????"
She is a PROVEN Progressive.
http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Nancy_Pelosil
"Pelosi showed her true colors when she said Impeachment is off the table....Fuck HER~!.......SSDD....."
She did show her true colors, when she put an impossible impeachment off the table, and proceeded to do everything possible to rein Bushco in, breaking all Congressional records holding well over 1,000 rollcall votes and moving forward an agenda against the gradient of this coup.
You live in fairie land. In your world you do not have to actually know who a person is, you just take stabs in the dark. Me, I've followed Rep. Pelosi's career for twenty years. She's one of our greatest Americans, and the first Progressive Speaker in US history. READ THE LINK, or continue to live in ignorance.
Donaldd @ 49 "It's no brainer because Senators and Congressmen from both sides of the isle are complicit to all the crimes Bush has committed"
Some are, Blue Dogs and Senate DINOs. The rest of the Dem caucus has OPPOSED ALL THE WAY DOWN THE LINE.
"from Iraq Liberation Act"
Which RESOLUTION was passed in 1998. Pelosi didn't vote on it, but that kind of resolution is not a law. It's a note in the law, and meaningless, no matter how much Bush tries to lean on it.
Why don't you mention the Iraq Resolution, which Rep. Pelosi led SIXTY PERCENT of House Dems to oppose? Wouldn't serve your argument, that's why.
"to the Military Commissions Act granting Bush and Company Immunity from war crimes prosecution."
That law does nothing of that kind. Thirty two House Democrats supported that bill -- One hundred Sixty two opposed (including Pelosi).
None of which would have passed congress without bi-partisan help.
"Convicting Bush would also convict themselves! None of them want that!!!!"
That's bullshit. Make up some better lies.
Challenging Pelosi @ 52 "the States through proclamations can politically pummel them; then the State AGs can prosecute them."
You live in dreamland. The State legislatures' proclamations mean NOTHING, and the AGs are NOT going to prosecute federal officials.
Challenging Pelosi @ 50 "Wouldn't it make sense to force the GOP to confront this issue by having a trial in the Senate?"
They will not confront the issue. They will simply argue that Bush was responding to a national emergency.
"If the evidence is overwhelming,"
It already is. How much of that evidence do you see being reported?
"Who's to say that the GOP -- in those Senate seats -- will retawin those seats if the Citizens of those states say, "The GOP Senators saw the evidence, but refused to convict. We can't trust them."
HILARIOUS. You live in fairie land. If you had any idea how hard it is to remove Senators, you wouldn't make such idiotic suggestions.
"To say, "They're goint to not do anything" is counting the votes before they're cast."
No. It is counting the votes THEY HAVE ALREADY CAST. It is understanding that this is a COUP, and that the R party in Congress is entirely complicit. A political solution that cannot pass is no solution at all.
We need INDICTMENTS, via Special Prosecutors, and Grand Juries. The sooner you get your head out of your rear, the sooner you can join that REAL fight, instead of clinging to Pelosi's skirts as if she is the problem. She's protecting the Constitution by NOT putting it to a vote before a corrupt body.
Sorry, the link in #53 had a random letter added. Here's the correct link:
http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Nancy_Pelosi
You're making baseless assertions, and ignore reality.
Paul in LA @ 55:
1. The discussion of state proclamations -- calling for impeachment, or removal of the Speaker -- send a clear signal to Members of Congerss, "This is our sentiment. Defy it at your peril."
2. If the proclamations "meant nothing," the GOP-DNC cannot exlain why they spent energy attempting to block them.
3. Kucinich, in part, knew he had support for the resolution because of the discussion on state proclamations calling for impeachment.
4. What the AG's have done, and what they could do are not necessarily the same. There is nothing legally stopping them from rosecuting US government officials. State AGs in NJ, MO, ME, VT have sought to enforce state law (in re privacy) against US government and telecoms. State AGs are positioned to do the same. You have no idea what the State AGs may do, but the option for the State AGs to prosecute US government officials is on the table. [Call Jonathan Turley, at Georgetown, and ask him about "Pillar to Post," State AG actions against a sitting President.] It's already been discussed.
Responses:
Paul in LA @ 56:
Response: Agree, and there are two ways to prosecute/enforce teh law One is through impeachment; the other is through prosecutions at either the state or federal level. [Talk to turley about State AGs prosecting a sitting President.]
It's non-sense to awrgue she's "protecting" anything by refusing to -- on the record -- put the evidence before the Senate. Asserting something isn't making progress.
You're free to have your opinion. But I would hope you see the issue: This isn't your issue to debate; this is an issue the Senate GOP needs to be forced to discuss. Please stop making their arguments for them. Besides, it was the GOP that voted to move the Kucinich resolution along: This doesn't mean they're to be trusted; it simply means the GOP may do something surrising in the Senate.
Please stop attempting to make excuses to avoid a trial in the Senate. It needs to go on the record. Making excuses for teh GOP to avoid this issue isn't your job; it's the job of the Senators -- on teh record -- to explalin their votes to their States. As the evidence is presented in teh Senate, the public will have the chance to see whether the GOP Senators are or are not fit for office, trust, and confidence. Make them defend themselves. Don't defend them befoer they've been forced to vote. Thank you.
Paul in LA @ 53:
Your assertion she "did everything" is not supported. Everything would include impeaching, which would bar Bush/Cheney from any pardon.
Also, "eerything" would include blocking funding for an illegal war, prisoner abuse, and Geneva violations. The House has the power to zero-out funds, and compel the GOP to pass Amendments to add money back. ALso, the COmittee Chairs haven't zero-out funds for issues. If the President vetoes a bill with "no money," he still gets no money.
ALso, the House and Senate -- controlled by teh DNC -- has not introduced common bills without Amendments: This would bypass teh requirement to have a conference committee, making teh GOP "threat to block a conference committee" meaningless.
Funding wise, Pelosi has not done all she could. Funding is the most powerful weapon the Congress has to check the President and Judiciary: It can, if it chooses, deny the Courts funding to hear cases, and let prisoners -- falsely charged -- to ever be brought to trial, but freed. Without money, a speedy trial is impossible, and Congress can revent the President from enforcing draconian, abusive laws in the Patriot Act. If Congerss wants.
Paul,
I commend your energy. You make brilliant use of various debating methods. However, they are not working.
At best, you're showing the "best" argument for "not doing something" is based on flawed reasoning. I apreciate that the Senate "might" not convict; but that isn't an issue for the House -- as a body -- to concern itself. Rather, this concern is a political issue, implying that the DNC is putting partisan goals before their legal obligation to enforce the law.
You are correct that the Senators "might" not convict. But that is their choice which the GOP will have to be answerable. Again, it may be "difficult" to unseate a Senator; but it is not impossible. Rather, if it were a "no brainer" that the Senate GOP would "win" -- regardless their vote -- then it means they could, as they did, vote for an illegal war, and face no consequences. That is absurd. Once the public sees the evidence -- when resented to teh Senate at trial -- the public will be able to decide whether the GOP has or has not voted correctly.
However, the DNC's error is to not force teh issue. What does the DNC think, that the public cannot be trusted to make decisions based on facts? What is teh DNC afraid of?
This issue of "what is going to happen" if there is an impeachment: I ask simply, "What are the real consequences if the DNC, upon finding reasonable basis to impeach, does impeach?" The GOP Members aren't going to change their vote; and the DNC Members aren't going to change. So to argue there will be a "backlash" is absurd: A backlash requires a change, not more of the same GOP-DNC support.
Again, be specific with the adverse consequences you believe Pelosi has well defined; and perhaps we'll have a discussion about that. Again, you're making interesting points, but they do not appear to be credible.
Finally, as to the claim that the State AG's will "never" prosecute, how do you know? You don't. They could.
In short, there are reasoanble grounds to remove Pelosi and make way for an impeachment investigation. That the results may be confusing, difficult, or unclear isnot a reason to do nothing; but to force the House and SEnate to confront these issues, not make excuses for them to avoid.
You bring discredit upon your valid points and position when you suggest that others are delusional. No, if others were delusional, they would not be able to have led the nation to oppose this US government using lawful methods: Proclamations, votes, discussions, and citizen action to inspire some in Congress to vote for an investigation.
I apreciate your opposition. You're helping immensely to refine the arguments to remoe the Speaker. Whether she is or is not removed is less important than the simple message: there remains a credible threat that the Speaker could be removed; and Membesr of Congress could be prosecuted for their alleged malfeasance/iaction in re their oath of office. There is no statute of limitations for war crimes; and legislative imunity, when it is absued -- as aepars to be the case here -- can be stripped.
ON the table remain the real threats that Pelosi and others in Congerss could be prosecuted, not just face a chance at removal. Then we move to the President and Vice President. Look at the Calendar: It is 2007. We're still free. And the fight to defend this Constitution against the alleged rebels in Congress and the Executive Branch continues.
The rule of law prevail. Thank you for your speaking out with your views. I wish you the best this Holiday Season, and please keep posting. Your views, opposition, and arguments are valued. Thanks again.
Challenge Pelosi @ 59
Paul: They will not confront the issue. They will simply argue that Bush was responding to a national emergency.
"Response: Then make them go on the record in the Senate."
Meaningless.
"Response: Make the Senators answer. I agree with your assertion: It is overwhelmng. Why the reluctance to ut this question to the Senators?"
There is no point is doing so, and holding a trial that would end in acquital is counterproductive. And the evidence will NOT be shared with the public by the corrupt media.
"Response: You didn't address the issue: If enough people -- voters -- see the Senators are being foolish for not convicting, then the public could swing agaisnt the GOP more."
That's a fantasy. The Senate is designed with only 1/3 standing for election every two years, in any case. But if you think that the public in those states doesn't like their R Senators, then you are simply underinformed.
"Response: No, there has been no trial."
A 'trial' before the Senate is not a trial at all.
"If you want to comment about what you mean by a "coup" go ahead."
I would think that is obvious. The Justice system, the media system, the R political system, the military and corporations, have taken over the country.
"You're acting like nothig can be done. Why do you bother posting?"
Fantasy is not 'doing something.' I protest four hours this week. What are you doing, other than wasting people's time hopelessly upholding impeachment as an option, when the votes are simply not there.
"Response: Agree, and there are two ways to prosecute/enforce teh law One is through impeachment;"
Impeachment and conviction is NOT prosecution. It has zero punishment, other than removal. Impeachment and a failure to convict is certainly not prosecution.
It's non-sense to awrgue she's "protecting" anything by refusing to -- on the record -- put the evidence before the Senate. Asserting something isn't making progress.
"Besides, it was the GOP that voted to move the Kucinich resolution along: This doesn't mean they're to be trusted; it simply means the GOP may do something surrising in the Senate."
Fucking nonsense (about the Senate).
The R did NOT move the Cheney bill along -- they flipped over on themselves given enough time to show their total lack of responsibility for what Cheney has done.
Challenge Pelosi @ 60 "Your assertion she "did everything" is not supported. Everything would include impeaching, which would bar Bush/Cheney from any pardon."
Only upon CONVICTION. A conviction which has only 25 supporters in the Senate.
"Also, "eerything" would include blocking funding for an illegal war,"
Which she has done.
"prisoner abuse,"
The House under Pelosi just passed a bill to restrict interrogations to the Army Field Manual. It failed in the same Senate you think would convict.
"and Geneva violations."
The Supreme Court has already said that the Geneva Conventions are still law. In which case the Justice Dept. should be indicting, but they aren't, because this is a coup.
"The House has the power to zero-out funds,"
The Dem leadership cannot, as is commonly believed by leftists, simply stop the funding of Bush's war by themselves. The R could bring forward their own bill to fund it. What the Speaker has done is to eliminate the use of Supplementals (moving funding back into the normal budget process).
"ALso, the COmittee Chairs haven't zero-out funds for issues."
Chairman Obey has shut off funding by supplemental.
"Funding wise, Pelosi has not done all she could."
Oh my! You mean she's not perfect? Under the circumstances, she has made a lot of progress.
Challenge Pelosi @ 60 "Your assertion she "did everything" is not supported."
Btw, this is a false quotation. I said "everything she could."
Meaning 'within the strategy she, and the leadership, has chosen.'
The strategy has been to NOT draw the R caucus back together by direct attacks, but to try to weaken that caucus by putting reasonable Iraq bills forward (most of which have passed the House), and domestic bills like SCHIP, HHS/VAC and others, which the R leadership opposes, but which have massive popular support. The House also passed GLB additions to ENDA, which was a bitter pill for the R leadership, and divided their caucus.
Those strategies haven't been entirely effective, as Pelosi admits. But it is a reasoned strategy, and the approach you demand would by contrast have strengthened the R caucus and handed the agenda back to them.
Paul in LA @ 55:
You don't know this. And this has nothing to do with whether the House will or will not challenge the Speaker. You're not making a compelling argument.
Paul in LA @ 62:
This argument relies on wordplay, and asks that we accept what Pelosi is doing -- despite its limitations -- as a 'Strategy". No, it's not a strategy, it's flawed Parliamentary tactics that do not stand up to scrutiny.
Aslo, for clarification, we do not accept your premise of what the "strategy" is. It may be true, but you have not well demonstrated that this is a correct retelling of the strategy. In any event. . .
Paul in LA @ 64:
Response: "Entire effective" -- sounds like DOJ staff drivel. "As Pelosi admits" -- where? "Handed the agenda back" -- how? The DNC controls the House, but the "majority" defied Pelosi. That's not handing anything away; that's the majority taking control and telling the Speaker to jump in a lake.
Response: But ignore the above: What is your "characterization" of the "strategy" being discussed/proposed? You're not clear with what you're assuming. Please clarify your assumptions, and subject those to scrutiny in the House for an open debate. Please support the effort to have your concerns debated on the House floor: Either clear the way for a debate on the Cheney investigation; or support an effort to remove all those roadblocks.
Put aside the above: If Pelosi "isn't the problem" to gathering facts, and subjecting the VP to impeachment proceedings (to deny him the chance at a pardon); what "is" the problem/roadblock? How do you define "defending" the Constitution? Is it your view that 'defending' the constitution means using only politically-convenienent options? if so, that is a problem: The purpose of the oath was to bind the leadership to act when ti was difficult; not to use "difficultly with an inconvenient option" as an excuse to do nothing or not find facts. One cannot have taken an oath to have "no" mental reservation; but then permit political goals to justify not using all lawful options, including funding cuts, blocking bills, and compelling the President to use the available resources only for lawful purposes.
"Reasoned strategy" is verbal armor to "justify" not asking: Why haven't all funding options been used to challenge the President?
You have your strategy, others have another.
"Everything she could" would include using all funding options. You're arguing over the form of support for her, not addressing the funding issues. Distraction didn't work. You didn't address the funding options which she has not used.
She, as Speaker, has the power to table any bill; and zero-out funds for anything. She can require the GOP to pass Amendments to add money back. She can also direct -- as she's done with impeachment -- the Committee chairs to sit on a funding appropriation and do nothing. You failed to address these options. Her strategy -- that of not using all funding options -- doesn't appear to be a comprehensive strategy, but one that is narrowly tailored to making excuses, "Oh, we can't do anything. The GOP is not allowing. . ." Baloney. She's making excuses. (BTW: The effort to "redefine" options as "this or that" strategy isn't impressive. You're changing definitions. Using your approach, "whatever happens" is successfully employing a strategy. That's the same nonsense the President argued in re Iraq. Don't do that and expect not to get challenged for the diversion.
But forget all the above, put it aside.
You made an important point: "which the R leadership opposes, but which have massive popular support" -- bingo. You just defeated your own argument on impeachment investigations.
You're asserting that Pelosi's 'Strategy" is linked with (a) popular support; and (b) things the GOP opposes. Fine, let's accept that premise as true. (We're not saying we agree with that; or that it is true) How do you explain your contradiction: On the "successful strategy" you asserted above (linked with popular support, and opposition to the GOP), how do you explain Pelosi's defiance of those two threads: By ignoring the majority; and doing what the GOP wants -- nothing in re impeachment?
The point is this: Paul, you're very good at making logical arguments; you're also very stuck on the idea that impeachment is only "worth it" if there is a conviction. Fine. That is your view.
But there is another view: To clear the road for an investigation, then decide whether to impeach. You're arguing that because the results might not be 100% your way (with a removal) that we shouldn't try. That defies reason. Then what are you "protesting" for: The right and power to make excuses to do nothing, not investigate, not find facts? That's more mindless mob action we've seen since 2001; and a threat to the Republic, which is not a Direct Democracy, but a Representative Democracy.
Again, we're not talking about the Senate, we're just focusing on the simple issue: Why is the DNC-DLC so opposed to open fact finding; and does it not trust the public to filter through the media reporting to review whether the Congress is or isn't doing its job? It appears you are making excuses to not confront -- not because you do not want to confront -- but because you fear the media and GOP might spin the outcome "the other way". If that were true -- that the outcome would be spun -- how do you explain the popular support for impeachment, but the DNC-GOP inaction? It's because the GOP-DNC are spinning inaction as good; while the public knows that confrontation is required: Find facts, force the factions to clash. That's what the framers intended.
I'm not convinced that Pelosi's "strategy" -- as you've defined it -- is a credible retelling. Even if true, she isn't uniting her own caucus, but -- through inaction in re impeachment -- forcing the DNC to side the the GOP who supported the Kucinich resolution.
But ignore that. To what end is Pelosi "uniting" the DNC: For what? She's got the power, the power of the purse, and the power to block legislation. She, for the most part, is not doing this. She's rubber stamping. How's that subpoena power? She's "waiting" for the DOJ to "maybe" cooperate with Congress to enforce a contempt citation. Pelosi doesn't have to wait for the Executive Branch; she can impeach: Something designed to challenge the President when the President will not remove someone.
If Pelosi does not have time to "use all options" then she's not employing a strategy, she's making excuses to maintain mental reservations for lesser objectives, other than the Constitution: For partisan goals, not a full defense of the Constitution. You may disagree, but that is for the Grand Jury to decide: Did the Speaker, as she conducted herself, fully employing all lawful options to enforce Geneva; or did she not use all lawful options -- including funding cuts, investigations, and impeachment -- to clear the way for a challenge? Nuremberg concludes that all options must be used; otherwise that nation is not civilized. Arguably, a pick and choose approach -- while ignoring fundamental fact finding -- is alleged recklessness and malfeasance. That needs to be challenged.
But forget all that. What is the Speaker afraid of if there were an impeachment invesetigation of the VP? Is she afraid of facts? Is she afraid the public will not like the facts? Is she hiding something? What is stopping the other staffers from working on other things? The GOP-DNC have been rubber stamping legislation: What is going ot get in teh way of rubber stamping other legislation -- between the impeachment investigation? That's more of the same. Why is Pelosi asking that we have trust in her strategy, but ignore the times that she's employing limited options; and only focus on whether that strategy "sounds nice"?
She's not being consistent. That needs to be discussed. Pelosi doesn't want to start fact finding. Fine. That's her problem. She wants us to believe she's leading: What? Not based on facts, but ignorance. That's more of the George Bush non-sense behind the illegal invasion of Iraq. One person's war crimes agenda is another person's "strategy". Brilliant. We going to call the Holocaust and Geneva violations a "strategy"? Sure, but it was illegal. Just as inaction on impeachable offenses -- the decision to block an investigation of the VP with a formal impeachment investigation.
The information the House gathers can be used in any other proceeding. Why is the DNC afraid of starting the process? Why not spend US government time supporting what the DNC keeps saying, "But there will be a chance for a trial." Let's see some DNC support for that evidence gathering, not more of the GOP-like "kick the can down the road". Nope, we trusted that argument in 2006, and the public was betrayed. time to have the confrontation. Now. Not later.
Overall, you're not providing Pelosi a good defense. Rather, you're doing the opposite: Showing that she has mental reservations; that she's not using all options; and that she appears to put political goals before her duty to find facts before pursing those policies. That, without mentioning the Cheney investigation, alone is enough to justify opening a direct prosecution of her. By the State AG. Outside Congress, outside impeachment, outside the House. You're undermining your Speaker.
Ooops.
The arguments agaisnt challenging the Speaker are flawed. There is a reasonable basis to challenge the Speaker to open the last roadblock to the Cheney impeachment investigation.
The actions of leaders are subject to public review in the courts, media, and at the voting booth. But they're also subject to public debate on issues of proclamations. This discussion supports the assertion that the House needs to challenge Speaker Pelosi: Either open all the doors to an impeachment investigation; or the House needs to debate whether to declare the Speaker's position vacatn, in effect, removing Pelosi as Speaker to make way for an impeachment investigation. One means to force this discussion in the House is through a State proclamation calling on the House to debate this issue: What will be done to remove all the roadblocks to the impeachment investigation the House previously supported in adopting the Kucinich resolution? The majority have defied Pelosi; Pelosi defies the majority of Americans. She needs to open the door to an investigation; or she needs to be shown the door.
But the issues presented are not just political questions, but issues of criminal law for the Grand Jury to decide. "Trying to" assert one's oath is different than having "no mental reservations"; but "choosing not to use all options," or "blocking other needed options" can hardly be called "trying", but capitulation. That's not leadership, but complicity. None of the points below adequately address, "What will remove all obstacles to an impeachment investigation of the VP?"
No one can credibly argue their doing their moral best when they make excuses not to find facts; then reverse themselves and ask that we believe they have a great strategy. Willful ignorance through active blocking of an investigation is not a strategy, but a weakness in need of a challenge. The GOP since 2001 has relied on ignorance; the DNC is fooling itself if it believes that ignorance about Cheney's actions is a new mandate or a change. No, it is more of the same which needs to be challenged, now before the 2008 election, while there is still time to gather facts while the VP is still in office, subject to impeachment proceedings.
Strategy: Inaction or Action
As an overview to what follows C&L readers, you're going to see something very curious in the following discussion: The examples cited -- that action, despite the risk of a loss, as a defense of Pelosi on one issue -- contradict the premise: That inaction is needed on another issue. Here's the problem with the reasoning: One can't justify inaction on an investigation by pointing to Pelosi's attempts to act on Geneva requirements. She knew there was opposition in the senate, so why are you asking for "opposition" to be ignored in one example, but given attention in another? Because you're picking and choosing. A sign of desperation, flawed arguments, and a weak position. [See "important response" below for details of this central, critical, inherent flaw in reasoning]
Paul in LA @ 63:
The Speaker's removal remains on the table. Please discuss the proclamations calling on state and local officials to seek a House vote to declare the Speaker's position vacant, and clear the way for a vote for a Speaker that will support fact finding, investigations, and full assertion of all options to defend the Constitution.
Some want to point to a "coup" as an excuse to do nothing. But when given power, they refuses to use all lawful options to fully assert power, clash with other factions, and find facts. Either the US government can lead, or it can get out of the way and let others lead. Pelosi isn't leading: She needs to be challenged, forced to clear the way for an investigation of the VP; or she needs to be prosecuted for alleged breach of her oath of office for having mental reservations. Either Pelosi supports using all lawful options to challenge the President -- and making the case she's serious about her leadership position -- or she's part of the alleged rebellion of this President against the Constitution. Pelosi needs to join we the People with the Constitution; and remove herself from the alleged rebellion this President and VP are leading.
The challenge to Pelosi continues. Share this proclamation with your friends and consider these options to defend the Constitution. Let's open all the doors to an impeachment investigation; and, if needed, show Pelosi the door -- now, before the election. The arguments to the contrary, as you've seen above, are frivolous excuses to assent to non-sense. The rule of law relies on reason not folly; the rule of law shall prevail. Good luck.
Comments are closed on this entry