Glenn Greenwald broke this yesterday morning, but it's still news
you'll want to hear. Pelosi not only came out for criminal investigations into the Bush administration, she insists Democrats did not know about criminal activities:
In an interview with Rachel Maddow ...House Speaker Nancy Pelosi repeatedly advocated the need for criminal prosecutions, not merely fact-finding. She even directly criticized the proposal by Sen. Pat Leahy for a "Truth Commission," on the ground that such a Commission would improperly immunize lawbreakers and thus foreclose prosecutions:
MADDOW: This is something that liberals have really been pushing. And you have stated your support for John Conyers convening an investigation into potential lawbreaking in the Bush administration.
PELOSI: Absolutely.
MADDOW: You've been outspoken about contempt of Congress charges related to the politicization of the Justice Department and that investigation. You have been less specific about how Congress should proceed on warrantless wiretapping and torture. Why is that? . . .
PELOSI: Senator Leahy has a proposal, a Truth and Reconciliation Commission, which is a good idea. What I have some concern about though is it has immunity. And I think that some of the issues involved here, like the services part, politicizing of the Justice Department, and the rest, they have criminal ramifications, and I don't think we should be giving them immunity.
Pelosi then acknowledged that the FISA bill passed by Congress in 2008 was flawed in many important respects, but said that the "part of the bill that was positive" was the requirement that the Justice Department's Inspector General investigate the NSA eavesdropping program and issue a report (due this Summer) as to the scope and legality of Bush's eavesdropping. About that comment, Maddow asked Pelosi whether she would favor criminal prosecutions if, as many people expect, the IG Report concludes that the warrantless eavesdropping was illegal:
MADDOW: Then in terms of your report, if the inspector general report that comes out this summer suggests that there has been criminal activity at the official level on issues like torture, or wireless wiretapping, or rendition, or any of these other issues...
PELOSI: No one is above the law. I think I have said that.
MADDOW: ... you support a call for a criminal investigation, potential investigation.
PELOSI: Absolutely.
That's pretty definitive.
Maddow then repeatedly, and rather relentlessly, asked Pelosi about how much she was told about the Bush's use of torture and about the warrantless eavesdropping program and whether her having known about those programs was an obstacle to investigations and prosecutions.
Pelosi's answers were largely evasive, but she was very emphatic -- I believe for the first time -- in claiming that while she was told by the CIA about potential "enhanced interrogation techniques" in "the abstract," she was never told that these techniques were actually being used. She also claimed that she put up "very strong resistance" to the NSA warrantless eavesdropping program (I've never seen any evidence of such resistance at all; the only letter from Pelosi that was disclosed was one from October, 2001, which merely raised a concern over whether the NSA had presidential authorization for the program, not whether the program itself was illegal).
But what matters here is that Pelosi insists that nothing she nor any other Democrat knew or did poses an obstacle in any way to full-scale criminal investigations.
Login or Register to post comments.
" and I don't think we should be giving them immunity."
forgive me if i don't see any action coming anytime in the future from "off the table" nancy.
Ms. Nancy's ability to bend like a Harry Reid in the wind.
with all that botox and all...
Does Pelosi pay her property taxes? Or does she get around them like Rahm Emanuel?
subthread, what exactly?
Where I was glad to hear her say that on television.....I would rather she say that on - say, "Situation Room" or some program such as that( if she would ever be asked to be on those)...we all know, as much as we really love Rachel, that only a 'select' group listen to her.
Given that, I am still angry with Pelosi...especially for that 'off the table' although I have wondered if that might have given the B/C bunch just enough 'length' of rope to hang themselves even better. If, IF the Democrats can get their act together, that is.
Nice that she is finally so adamant that 'investigations begin'...I'll believe that when I see it. I really don't know how much more 'evidence' Pelosi thinks they need to prosecute.
We just have to keep after them, as well as this new administration.
'off the table' was because we all knew nothing would have happened because the senate did not have a majority. We are still short but at least now we should try to stop anybody of the bush administration to get another job in any future WH.
The situation room hasn't got the integrity to ask Pelosi such questions. Or maybe they will change and gain back some credibility.
...that if she doesn't follow through on what she said in the interview that California voters will let her know about it. New house leadership in 2010?
We shall see...
..of whether she follows through on investigations, etc., she'll probably be voted on because she took impeachment off the table. Poor judgment on her part is not a strength to be running on.
That's already been tried. Since Nancy went all "off the table" and stuff, she was challenged by Cindy Sheehan, who only got 16% of the vote. Pelosi got 71%. So you see, San Francisco likes things off the table too.
I pray to the god of [Deleted. Please don't advocate violence at this site. Site Monitor] on that useless whatever-the-hell-she-is.
Palin/Pelosi in 2012. Behold the power of uselessness.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Tq37WSg9ESg
......but on THIS website, don't you DARE insult a frequent poster!
Have a nice day, posters.
(previous poster since 2003...3,2,1...you're banned! Monitor)
[That's pretty funny, when you consider this blog didn't exist in 2003. Site Monitor]
Don't hold yer breath.
I'm really happy to hear this.
I have a question. Is this the FBI's jurisdiction? Why don't THEY investigate? Why do we have a commission every time a major high level crime is suspected?
Has a commission ever ended in indictments or prosecution, or is it a parallel justice system for the powerful and rich?
I take back my first line. I listened to the second part of the interview. Political double speak.
I don't know that that was a flat out denial by Nancy, but that was a great job by Maddow.
They need to get the new DOJ up and running. Maybe by end of summer...
On the Commissions Like the Imfamous Warren and 9-11!
attaching the Obama propellers to your tin foil beanie? Won't it interfere with the Conspiracy Channel broadcasts?
They have Obama Propellers?!?!?!
Friggin Sweeeeeet!
was making fun of his economic advisers when he dubbed them "propeller heads."
My larger concern is not fashion, but functionality. Can I show my support for his economic plan (or empathy with its intent) yet still decry his failure to have drawn and quartered his predecessor and all his issue? Must it be all or nothing?
how can she say this with a straight face:
*****
in claiming that while she was told by the CIA about potential "enhanced interrogation techniques" in "the abstract," she was never told that these techniques were actually being used.
*****
give me a break. how could she *NOT* know those techniques were being used? dope smoking private sector minimum wage workers knew those techniques were actually being used! EVERYBODY knew those techniques were being used!
I mean, its great and all that she's doing her job now? but she should have been doing this kind of investigation and tough talk as far back as 2003 for cryin out loud.
this is just a PR stunt to try and salvage her position in 2010
.....when Pelosi got the briefing. It's entirely possible those techniques were not yet being used. Give Pelosi a break, please.
Nope, I won't. Especially not after that embarrassing little performance behind Obama the other night.
I LOVED it. And the fact that Joe Biden was seated next to her made it even more worthwhile.
If only you were in some sort of position of power over these last two years. Surely you would have looked into it, right?
Indeed.
This is only about 4 years too late, but, if she means it I welcome the change of heart. Unfortunately my butt seems to be a little smokey atm, so I'm not gonna start holding my breath. If they can stall it a little longer they'll be forced by the statute of limitations to "move on."
This is what Pelosi is missing.
She is as complicit as the man that hands an arsonist a road flare.
What a great link leadership. Thanks,
What an intensely powerful moment for Kucinich. I never saw that. He definitely had the crowd's support. he was the only guy that did not speak in rhetoric and had a sincere look on his face like he believed what he was talking about, not just acting.
As I mentioned before, Pelosi said her hands were tied. Who tied them? She did. Kucinich spoke on principle, not political expediency.
...but I don't think there's a statute of limitations for international War Crimes.
Blink "...absolutley..." Blink ...
We need that guy from Lie To Me (the RL version) to watch that interview :)
Bet he would have a field day with it.
In fact I bet if a guy like that exists he should come on Olberman or Maddow's show as a regular.
Edit: turns out the character is based on a guy named Paul Ekman. You hooo Rachel, get this guy to watch your interview!
zzz
what I don't want to hear at this point.
Like the 9/11 commission, a huge success at... well... covering up the truth.
The Iran-Contra put criminals in jail....ahhh.... no... it gave a platform for the extreme right war hawks criminals like O. North and permanently fixed him as 'legit'.
Yeah, that Warren Commission really caught the crooks.... well not... an other cover up.
What do these all have in common? A Bush.
No commission, just get a special prosecutor with balls.
[Deleted. Don't advocate violence at this site, jokingly or not. Site Monitor] already.
Pelosi and her feminist fellow travellers would object to the prosecutor being uncut.
The site monitor was nice to leave part of your comment!
Wait a sec Nancy, Kucinich's hands weren't tied. He seemed to have enough evidence to move forward, you refused to listen. Why were your hands tied and his weren't?
Who tied them? You?
Perhaps Shirley MacLaine quietly loosed his knots while they gazed at the stars.
EXACTLY......Like I said in the above post....what more evidence do these (especially her) need to prosecute for crying out loud! How many times HAS Kucinich been up on his feet and ON RECORD in Congress about all the stuff these people have stupidly ignored.
fwiw, I just spoke to Whitehouse's office...and even mentioned about Nixon, Iran-Contra, etc..(like he doesn't already know)...and the staffer was patient and let me talk. At least I was able to resist yelling, as I feel wont to do whenever I talk to anyone there.
Sometimes I feel even when we call, and write, no one wants to listen.
kucinich has provided every opportunity for action in the house. and pelosi has used her power to PROTECT the bush crimes. she and the other dem estab figures are complicit in bush crimes.
pelosi's statement now, about supporting a criminal investigation, is about as relevant as ricky's "joke" above... yet, funnier
The Kucinich class and the criminal class.
..talk is cheap! ACT
I agree. What in the world is Congress waiting for? It is not as if they have to scrounge around looking for evidence that the Bush administration was one of the most corrupt in the history of the United States. There are a number of books which have laid out the case for impeachment, such as The Case For Impeachment by Dave Lindorf and Barbara Olshansky, which should be able to assist Pelosi and her colleagues in prosecuting Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld, et al. Barack Obama does not help the situation when he bizarrely states that he desires to "look forward" instead of actively pushing for the prosecution of the Bush administration.
But then this is also the same person [Obama] who is now hesitant in pushing for stem cell research, even though he campaigned on this issue, as he is now backtracking on his pledge and saying that he wants to wait for Congress to take the lead on this issue. Apparently Obama is rather selective on which issues he wishes to emphasize from his bully pulpit. And while he vacillates, my wife continues to wait for a cure that would relieve her of the misery that she and others are suffering from the affliction of Parkinson's disease.
Please, erroll, get that through your head.
They are tools of corporate hegemony, through and through, and will ALWAYS act to protect the Status Quo, until instructed to do otherwise by the Owners--the elites, plutocrats, and oligarchs.
Nothing "changes" until and unless they stipulate where and when and how...
NO IMMUNITY FOR THOSE WHO ORDERED TORTURE!!!!
Senator_Leahy@leahy.senate.gov
She's heard enough of the wiretaps to know nuthings ever gonna happen ...
LOL. She listens to the chatter on the Top secret Twitter.
Boy what I wouldn't give to be a fly on the wall on every conversation happening all at once.
/snark
mean wiretaps of her.
!
I say march em' out to the firing squad. No need for investigations anymore, just use the constitution to deal with em.(I was listening to Hillbilly Whine down at the dollar store today, sorry)
Hillbilly's talking about commonsense with a southern twang here in central PA, sigh. "We don't twang up here dumb ass."
she showed the same concern she has for that endangered mouse!
the house speaker alluded to the fact if she indeed disagreed with anything that was going on and/or said she was unable to speak about it. i guess the rules of "national security". this has been what i've been saying that BUSH/cheney through addington/yoo have three steps ahead of anyone. NOW maybe it will start to unravel.
..like we're playing the role of Charlie Brown to Pelosi's Lucy?
.
this crap on TV so people think . . wow, der really gonna do sumptin.
person in government was kept in the dark on matters of this importance?
Do you take me for a credulous tool of the same sort as Pelosi and Reid?
It defies belief.
But what matters here is that Pelosi insists that nothing she nor any other Democrat knew or did poses an obstacle in any way to full-scale criminal investigations.
Bull-shit.
At most, there'll be ANOTHER "blue-shit" panel report which will exonerate EVERYBODY.
The fix is in (of course, the fix is NEVER not in!).
The Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence. Each chamber has one. These committees perform the Congressional oversight of secret intelligence, and they're not allowed to share what they learn with other members of the Congress or the general public. Pelosi isn't on that committee now, and AFAIK, she never has been.
I'm surprised you don't know about these committees because they were in the news when Bushco's domestic wiretapping came to light.
who traded in her tie dye and sandals for fast track politics.
which makes her too old to be a boomer. Woody is a boomer.
She's four years older than the oldest Boomer.
more impressive two years ago. Now, not so much.
much ado about nothing! had kucinich been elected president instead of a republican lite, palosi could have been told to go fly a kite, and bush would be setting in the docket waiting for the death sentence to be handed down by twelve honest men, cheny would have allready been been swingging for his part in 911 and the bankers would be next on the list of trials for incompitence, its a small world after all,
You mean the same bankers Obama pledged ANOTHER 250 Billion to THIS morning?
from CNBC headline article
"Any additional request to Congress would come on top of the $700 billion financial bailout program enacted last year to deal with the overhang of toxic mortgage debt that is hindering banks' ability to lend and worsening the recession."
exactly
Curtilingus
Are you saying that Obama has the audacity of pledging $250 Billion more to the big corporations on Wall Street? Unfortunately, given the millions of dollars that Obama had received from the financial/insurance/pharmaceutical companies during the presidential election, this news should realistically come as no surprise at all.
Agent of hope? For Wall Street, much less so for Main Street.
its concidered a fair rate of exchange for a lobbiest to donate one million dollars to a politician and recieve one billion in returns, thats called a tidy little profit by the banks!
I think the argument for the bail out says it all. The financial system has decided that they are too needed to fail. Translated this means: give us all your cash or we will destroy you. Sounds a lot like a divorce. Think of this as an alimony payment. The rich elite are jumping ship. None of this money is going to stay in the United States. The wealthy elite have already packed up their factories and moved to China. Now we have to pay them bribe money to leave quietly. They are taking the house with them. Not becuase they need it. They are just being spiteful. It is time to bury our pride and sleep on a friends couch. A few months from now; after realty completely sinks in; the only thing left will be bitterness on our end and spitefulness on their end. The financial system is our crazy ex-wife that took us through the cleaners. It happens.
"and pigs would be flying"
they are flying !to italy!
unfortunately they made the world Kucinich lives in.
He apparently was given an opportunity to leave the world they made the night he saw them over at Shirley's but either was not given the power or lacked a desire to communicate a desire to leave. Thus Dennis is complicity in this world even if he did not engage in acutally making it himself.
What an ideal world. Especially where we keep the wimmen folk off the jury so's we can be sure Bush gets the death penalty!!
of bullshit
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YbN_MAUbLPM&fe...
C&L has inadertently clipped the rightmost portion of the video.
See it all here, on YouTube:
Nancy Pelosi Tells Rachel Maddow: Prosecution of Bush Officials is On the Table
Wasn't it her duty as Speaker to open any investigation into criminal wrongdoing by the President? She's only coming to this conclusion now? What a joke! If she was serious she would have done something in the last two years instead of waiting.
She's a joke and needs to go as Speaker.
this is more pathetic posturing by nancy.
Pelosi has NEVER done anything about the Bush Admin crimes. I don't believe her. She is bullshitting us and trying to placate.
I'll believe Pelosi when I see something.
But either way, I'm glad Maddow is trying to hold her feet to the fire.
She says all the right things, yet can't close any deals. Same for that speech impeded blowhard Conyers.
Just to play devil's advocate is it possible they didn't pursue impeachment, because they planned on criminal charges being raised? The Constitution allows for charges to be brought against impeached officials (limited to removal from seat), but does federal law precedent practice this?
because it would require real courage to pursue it.
Courage is something NONE of these people possess in any significant quantities.
GUTLESS is the single most important job qualification for a Congresscritter; that, and knowing on which side your bread is buttered, and by whom...
God I would love to think that the Democrats are that savvy and plan cunningly, but I don't think so. For one thing it requires them to be on the same page. I think the page they were reading was about holding onto power.
The unwillingness to impeach had CYA and political expedience written all over it.
......The unwillingness to impeach had CYA and political expedience written all over it.......
You're wrong. You might have a point had Obama not chosen Joe Biden for VP. But they knew way back in 2005 that they were going to investigate and prosecute the Bush Admin. Not impeaching them allowed Bush/Cheney to continue digging their hole.
it is possible, but hardly probable. like me becoming a multi-billionaire.
in the face like a bag of cold sand dollars.
The Democrats found it politically useful for Bush to stay in power. He was incredibly unpopular and completely crazy. Everyday that he remained in office more and more people turned from the Republican Party. What would of happened if they impeached him? The Democrats would of undermined the usefulness of Bush as a means of attaining power. Punishing Bush is a risky proposal for them. The fear that Bushco could return will be the theme of their next election.
If they had succeeded in removing Bush, then there is the problem of Cheney, and finally the problem of Pelosi...... What would have been left by then?
America needs oil, civilization needs oil, and morality is....at best.....inconvenient!
After all that, the oil providers would still be king. She would have done the morally right thing IF the nation had survived so our middle name is now hypocrisy and maybe that's good enough for a hypocritical nation that instigated a world wide depression!
Yeah, i'll believe it when i see them in jumpsuits. Nice effort though, Nancy.
Why is it that I don't believe a damn thing she says?
Nobody with the cognitive acuity greater than a sand-dollar would credit Pelosi even if she were saying her name...
.
Did y'all notice in Nazi Palooser's interview, she admitted to accepting a promise of secrecy concerning TORTURE and SPYING?
Key phrases:
I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic
I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same
I take this obligation freely, without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion
I will well faithfully discharge the duties of the office
... At no point does the Congressional Oath of Office state that they will be silent on matters of TREASON, THEFT, MURDER or TORTURE even if authorized by the president of the USA, NO?
Q U E S T I O N:
When Nazi Pelooser was briefed about "TORTURE"... er, possible methods to be used, but not confirmed at that time, to have been used against prisoners, why didn't Nazi Pelooser press the issue as to the possibility of these methods having been used?
Rachel asked the big question to Nazi's retort, "Well, we were never told that these methods were being used..."
"Well, did you ask if they WEREN'T being used?"
... crickets...
... AND NONE DARED CALL IT TREASON!
.
What if some of what she said about not being able to speak to anyone about it is true?
I can totally see how hostile the bush administration could be behind closed doors.
Maybe she actually feared for her freedom.
Just sayin...
...I think we spend a lot of time second-guessing people we otherwise support, yet do we really know what they are up against, especially in the scenario from the last 8 years? God knows what kinds of threats were leveled at any who opposed the Bushies; Democrat, Republican, Independent...whoever. "Step out of line and we sick some hand-picked, sycophant, wet-behind-the-ears, eager-beaver attack dog from the DOJ on your ass". Just for example, I mean.
but that is no excuse.
no. excuse.
protecting themselves as they sell out the country and the constitution is hardly a defense.
they are in a co-equal branch of the govt. they don't need the executive branch's permission to conduct themselves as the constitution requires.
this is last I checked a democracy. Her job is to defend the constitution of the United States, not protect her ass.
If she did not want to deal with threats, she was free to drop out and leave room in her place for someone willing to do their damn job.
The office of the Speaker of the House is not Pelosi's birth right you know?
In principle, I agree with both of you. Can't say much more than that.
I think I am just ruminating about how dirty a business politics seems to be and what kind of people it takes to even want the job.
Do they come to power through a grassroots popular movement; or, do they come to power by being a team player with the Corporate Elite?
I do not think it is possible for a person to make it that far into the system without accepting the bribes; making them controllable by the Corporate Elites.
I bet Bushco (the Petroleum Industry) has a video tape library of most elected officials taking bribes.
I figured my question would start a debate...but I think, and I hope I don't sound like I'm trying to be everyone's pal here...but I honestly think, that Bonkers, Samson, Tyler, upchuck, and even myself, all make good points.
But I think upchuck made the best point...bushco HAD to have had something on the Dem leadership, or was convincingly threatening enough to cow the Dems into line.
Whatever the case may be, there MUST be accountability.
And by accountability, I mean criminal prosecutions.
Nazi Pelooser is a COWARD!
If she wasn't, she would have spoke up about SPYING on Americans and of TORTURE WHEN it was happening.
Q U E S T I O N:
What do you call a person who takes an oath of secrecy to a man over her public Oath of Trust to the People and the Nation?
.
you would call them a traitor.
I mean, only in this country the press would think there was nothing fishy about a "terrorist" sending anthrax to exactly those people who had the goods on Bush: from a few members of the press with either pics or working on stories damaging to Bush, and the Dem leadership at the time.
I mean, what are the f*cking odds of a supposedly "radical muslim" terrorist using US military-grade Anthrax, and targeting people whose demise would only benefit Bush.
I think most of the Dems got the "message" with the Anthrax. It explains their capitulation and enabling of Bush to a T.
Seems like the FBI has no problem tracking down others who use the mail to send threats, toxics. But in this case, they're still baffled? Give me a f*ckin' break.
I keep forgetting about the damn Anthrax!!!
Don't go there.
I think you're right on this. Yeah, lots of ME muslim turrists with highly weaponized anthrax have their sights set on Tom Daschle. How many average Americans in '01 knew who Daschle was? The whole thing stinks.
Also, there was Nader's contention that if the Dems brought impeachment to the table, BushCo would threaten to attack Iran, establish martial law and postpone the elections.
"What if some of what she said about not being able to speak to anyone about it is true?
I can totally see how hostile the bush administration could be behind closed doors.
Maybe she actually feared for her freedom.
Just sayin..."
...Then she had no business holding that office. Period.
Again...I'm just playing devils advocate.
Alberto Gonzales was the devils advocate...?
then there's....THIS!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KMdKV9_mAxc
spare you the requisite Van Halen video ...
ah what the hell:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8kxqMpGAL3I
I used to love me some Van Halen....
That video was when they were on top of the world.
no offense meant.
Edward was/is a genius ...
What he did with that Frankenstrat was amazing.
She was remarkably punctual when she took impeachment "off the table" though.
Which makes her current remarks the more insulting.
If she only had fought as hard to defend the constitution as she did to get her pampered ass a bigger official plane, we would not be in as bad of a predicament as we are right now.
So go take a hike you rancid botox lady.
Maybe we can outsource her position, together with Reid's and Conyer's. We'll probably get the same outcome: nothing. At a significantly cheaper price point. Especially, since Indian contractors don't require private planes to go to their mansions every weekend.
And they're available 24-7.
Tyler, wasn't it you who was waxing eloquently about the ill mannered American male just a few threads ago.
That you don't understand the difference between misogyny and actual punctual disdain to a specific person due to their actions, who happens to be a woman... Perhaps?
you missed it.
Ah - it's so easy to bravely bloviate when you know it ain't ever gonna happen.
/ 'could be used'.. The Speaker only denied being told that water boarding was being used..
I wanta believe but..
very convincing...
Rummages around attic, finds box marked "November 8, 2006
-The Bushco Era"
http://www.nytimes.com/cq/2006/11/08/cq_1916....
bamboozled
1. v. to get tricked or deceived.
"Pelosi also said Democrats, despite complaining about years of unfair treatment by the majority GOP, “are not about getting even” with Republicans."
Wow. Sure 'getting even'.
Thats the only reason to Impeach ...
Was she being intentionally clueless, or just clueless?
Talk about missing the point.
Here's how the end of that exchange should have gone:
PELOSI: No one is above the law. I think I have said that.
MADDOW: ... you support a call for a criminal investigation, potential investigation.
PELOSI: Absolutely.
MADDOW: How come you never did before??
I missed this interview, but if that wasn't what Rachel said next, then she missed it too.
And by "investigations" the insane cultist means "whitewash, lies, deceptions, and the typical Christofascist terrorism and treason."
We know so little about what Bush and cheney really did to everyone, it is just great to finally have another piece of this national murder mystery.
I am trying to start a twitter group that discusses politics like a crooks and liars on twitter. I'll post updates on politics multiple times a day and we can just discuss issues. Follow my twitter account at twitter.com.Thanks for your time.
{ Deleted, Blogwhoring. SiteMonitor}
... but the idiotic applause during these speeches was ridiculous when it was Republicans cheering on Bush and it's ridiculous when it's Democrats cheering Obama. How can anyone take these buffoons seriously?
Agree.
Give it four more years and the State of the Union will be 45 minutes of solid applause, followed by a generation of denial.
They have us all behind them. They made a number of applaudable repairations to government already. Need more?
Pelosi may be bound and gagged, but she can still dance.
Yeah, whatever. My hands were tied...blah, blah, blah. National Security...blah, blah, blah. Double talk, double talk, double talk.
She took impeachment off of the table from day one of her installment as Speaker of The House and now that the WarPig is gone she is all for criminal investigations. Whatever.
I don't trust that woman any farther than I could spit. Pelosi and Reid are accessories to the crimes of the Bush Administration.
This really was a very important interview. I wish it was available in a format here for download. I would like to have been able to save it and watch it more carefully.
when Pelosi was on.
If impeachment hadn't "been off the table" maybe those criminal actions would have never happened. or at least have been caught sooner.
And as much as it pains me to see liberals come after me with such mean, republican-like hate (as is demonstrated by the attacks against anyone defending Nancy on this blog), I have to defend Nancy a bit here.
I'm not saying it's right, but I understand why she took impeachment off the table. With the way the media is, and the fact that she was next in line for the presidency (if Bush and Cheney were to be impeached), I can see how that would have ended. Headline: "Power Hungry Nancy Pelosi Fighting to Impeach Bush and Cheney and Gain the Power of Presidency" And the media would have eaten that up. I can't see the rest of congress voting to impeach with that in the media every night.
I think there is a lot of room for criticism of all politicians, but the hate and vitriol by liberals against Nancy Pelosi rivals the hate coming from conservatives. It kinda makes me sad.
The climate is much better now. I don't see her backing down one bit about going after Bush n Co. Personally, I'd rather see them be prosecuted than just impeached.
I just had to get that off my mind. Now here come the flames :(
Just because there is a hubbub isn't bad. So the accusation would be: After the horse has left the barn, is a better time to try and get it back? Your sadness seems to come from inattention to very serious matters and my sadness comes from governmental inaction in the face of the biggest financial/moral crisis the world has seen in 100's of years! Remember the Magna Carta-habeas corpus? How about the other Bush crimes against humanity? Does torture, rendition, and spying impress you? Wakeup!
My sadness comes from people flaming people who are just looking at things realistically. You obviously didn't get my point. If she were to have gone after it at that time, it wouldn't have done any good. The climate and media would not have let her. It would have been a wasted effort. So, maybe you need to wake up.
Just because I'm looking at things realistically, doesn't mean I don't care about those serious issues. What good would it be to those causes, if there were a failed attempt at impeachment? Now we're looking at investigations and possible prosecutions, which Pelosi is not backing down from, I should remind you.
Switzerland is refusing to 'identify' those who have accounts in their banks...says it's their National Policy...
.........of course, we all know that those that do are listed by numbers, but those numbers are listed with names somewhere. Also, I have read that it isn't just 'people' are holders of the accounts...most are listed under corporations ...........
so we are going to play you-know-what getting that information...
Pelosi and Reid had the chance to impeach Bush and Cheney. They didn't. They said during the 2006 elections that they would. They didn't. They said they wouldn't bend to Bush's will and bullying. They did. I wouldn't depend on Pelosi to water my plants. IF the Obama administration prosecutes Bush and Co., watch Pelosi and Stalker Joe drive the getaway car.
The first 8 words in your comment lead me to belive that you don't know how the process works.
Yes, Pelosi had the chance to impeach. Reid did not have the chance, because he isn't a member of the House. The House, and only the House, can pass a bill of impeachment. The Senate holds a trial of the impeached official. Think of an impeachment as an indictment.
I've typed this out so many times over the last two years....In the last Congress, the House probably had the votes (a simple majority is all that's required to impeach) to impeach. The House would hold public hearings, yadda, yadda, then vote and it's on to the Senate.
So then we're on to the Senate, where the impeached is tried, the evidence is presented by the prosecutor, and the impeached party presents their case. Fine and good. After both sides present their cases, the Senate votes on the guilt of the party. And this is where the real trouble begins.
In the last Congress, the Democrats in the Senate held a slim majority, 51-49, over the GOP. But a simple majority will not convict in one of these trials- 67 votes are required to do that. There was no way, no how, that 16 Republican senators were going to vote guilty. If you tell me I'm wrong about that, you just weren't paying attention to the Republicans in the Senate during the last Congress.
Then what? Okay, you can still try the impeached party in criminal court. But since the evidence in the case has been all over the news for weeks or months, the defense has a field day with the jury pool, dismissing damn near every one of them, leaving you with either one really stupid jury, or a trial in front of a judge who might very well be favorable to finding extenuating circumstances that will let the previously impeached party off the hook, scot free. And they can never be tried for those crimes again.
I won't even go into how this whole clusterfuck would completely polarize the public.
And all of this for hearings that tell us what we already know. Justice would have gone completely unserved. But as the situation stands, there's now a chance that we'll see Bush and Cheney behind bars.
I tried to explain how this wasn't really an option when Nancy Pelosi said it was off the table(and I got flamed for it), but not nearly as well as you explained it here. I was saddened, but now kinda disgusted at the vitriolic hate-filled criticisms of Pelosi from the left on this matter. It's up to par with the hate coming from the right.
Perhaps she didn't explain herself adequately, but the fact remains, it would never have happened. Now, there is a chance and she doesn't show any backing down on the matter. Regardless, people on the left aren't giving her any credit for it. They're too consumed with anger over it and not willing to look at the whole picture. Gee, that kinda sounds like the Bush crowd... stay the course, no matter what facts come about.
I really wonder just who the Bush administration was holding hostage for the last two years. There must be something of that type to explain the behavior of the Democrats. Nevertheless, if Pelosi has decided it's time to get a backbone, we need to encourage her as much as possible. Send her your comments here: AmericanVoices@mail.house.gov
Pelosi must have an iron-clad agreement that nothing will ever be done so now she can flip-flop and talk tough. "Oh, gee. If _only_ there were some way to prosecute." Just another smarmy professional politician who knows in her remnant of a heart that Americans are morons.
She takes the bumps and nulls out of the system as the republicodemico traffic cop in the house. Seeing her bouncing up and down at the joint congress/presidential address, I could not figure why she was agitated. Why would she be immediately enthused when she did nothing when Bush needed impeachment? The conclusion has to be that she is either mentally feeble, covets her spot in the center and is mentally shallow, or is a liar. Not what we need in that important position.
Glenn has been following this. His site is worth visiting. (Salon is my "other" site, I frequent.)
http://www.salon.com/opinion/greenwald/2009/0...
I see it as a start. That's more than we've had yet.
Voters must keep harping on this. You are either a nation of laws or you're not. Laws are what made you the 'land of liberty'. Take those, and you're left with what you've got now: A rogue state.
A woman of courage.
Bush and Cheney burn!
Login or Register to post comments.