Pelosi: "No impeachment" if we win.

[garybeck]

WTF.

Pelosi: Impeachment 'off the table'

RAW STORY
Published: Monday October 23, 2006

In an interview with CBS's 60 Minutes, House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi (D-CA) pledged that impeachment of President George W. Bush was off the table should Democrats gain a majority next month.

Pelosi speculated that Republicans would "just love" the "waste of time" such proceedings would be. "Making them lame ducks," she concluded, "is good enough for me."

A video clip of the interview may be viewed below.

http://www.rawstory.com/news/2006/Pelosi_Impeachment_off_table_1023.html




Pelosi: Impeachment 'off the table'

[Counciltucky]

1. DAMMIT!!!!!!!!!!!

If there's any President who should ever be impeached, it's this clown.

[Greeby]

2. It's not up to you Nancy

It's up to the member of the House Judiciary Committee, and they aren't the kind to wait for your permission before acting

[Zhade]

7. Thank goodness for that!

Now, the question is, what will that committee look like?

[DemFromMem]

3. No need

Bush is already the most unpopular President of modern times and he's a lame duck for the last two years. Impeachment will draw so much energy and be so divisive that it will squeeze out important items from the Democrats agenda. We need to focus on passing bills - in some cases with veto-proof majorities - and impeachment, while satisfying, will only keep us from achieving that. We need to establish a reputation right from the gates of being a party that gets things done.

[Jawja]

6. And if * serves

out his term, it may be lonnnnnnnnnnnnnng time before anyone named "Bush" is elected to anything again.

[Independent_Liberal]

13. We can't let it happen.

I'll kill myself if he completes his second term. It will be NOT long before another Bush gets elected. They HAVE to be held accountable.

[pat_k]

54. We'll do everything in our power, but no. . .

. . .suicides if we can't snap them out of it, please. We need "all hands on deck" for the effort to get his whole Presidency declared illegimate -- something we need to fight for even if it takes decades.

And then there's impeaching Scalia et al for Bush v Gore.

The battle continues, and there are ALWAYS victories along the way (or at least we make a few friends).

[pat_k]

51. That's what the Dems thought when they let Reagan+Bush I off the hook. . .

. . . They let Shrub leave, Exonerated (because failure to accuse IS Exoneration) we may just be looking at a Jeb landlide, just as letting Reagan off the hook gave us Bush I

The Dems were being very "Strategic" then too.

Funny how their "strategic moves" are never "moves" to do anything principled or difficult.

And Democratic leaders wonder why they are considered wimps?

[pat_k]

50. Spot On!! (nt)

[saltpoint]

4. That Pelosi will be good for the country is more of essence now than

that Bush is bad.

We haven't won the U.S. House yet. Our trends look promising, but there's still 2 weeks to go.

If we get there, Pelosi is likely to be Speaker. And very likely a very good one. I'm all for it.

Impeachment articles can be drawn after new revelations are brought to light. Conyers, in a Dem flip of the House, becomes a man wiedling subpoena power.

Let events take their course.

I trust Pelosi and Conyers in those positions over their current Republican counterparts.

[pat_k]

40. Impeachment IS Our Positive Agenda!

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=364&topic_id=2458812&mesg_id=2459400

[garybeck]

5. How about this... a forced resignation instead!?!?!?!!!!!

can you faces charges for breaking the law *without* being impeached??

maybe they would rather have him tried and convicted and strung out to dry, then probably he'd resign. wouldn't that be even better?

[pat_k]

41. Accusing, and being willing to take the action necessary (impeach)

. . .could definitely lead to resignations.

Particularly if the dems prove it is not a "partisan coup" of some sort by pointing out that Bush and Cheney can choose to keep the Presidency Republican. It's as easy as 1, 2, 3:

1. Cheney resigns, Bush nominates new VP.
   
   The VP must be confirmed by both the House and Senate. Since we elected these folks, if they object to a nominee, that objection reflects our will.


2. Bush resigns, new VP is sworn in as President.


3. New President nominates a VP.
   
   Once again, the VP he/she nominates must be confirmed by both the House and Senate, and therefore meets with our approval (through the people who represent us).

The Democratic members of the Congress fighting for impeachment need to sincerely express their fervent hope that Bush and Cheney do this (and they need to actually BE sincere, so they had better give the moral principles long hard thought).

They need to be clear that they actually want things to play out this way because they do not want the nation to have ANY Question about whether or not their motivation is partisan. If they are clear with themselves, they will be clear with the nation.

Of course, if Bush and Cheney choose to be removed by force, then the succession We the People have established in the 25th amendment will govern, and the Democratic Speaker will take the office of the Presidency. Since this succession is in accordance with the laws we established, it is also a reflection of our will.
Pointing out the choices that are available to the criminals in the WH is also a way to speed up the whole process. It shifts the accusations that "they are subjecting the nation to a long painful process" to Bush and Cheney.

When they decide to just "do the right thing" things are always far simpler" than the insiders with all their partisan machinations and "strategery" can imagine.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=364&topic_id=2458812&mesg_id=2459400

[jobycom]

8. Just campaigning. Her polls probably show that impeachment

would hurt us in some areas where we have a chance, or make us look too extreme. Or it might raise fears in voters that the Dems would disrupt too much.

If we win, we get to investigate, and then who knows? Her statements now mean nothing, except that she's not going to open impeachment proceedings in her first hundred hours.

[pat_k]

42. Actually, since no one is giving voice to the anger and accusing Bush and Cheney

. . .no poll can detect what would if they did. Leaders lead.

And, in last week's http://www.prnewswire.com/cgi-bin/stories.pl?ACCT=104&STORY=/www/story/10-21-2006/0004456423&EDATE=">Newsweek Poll, despite the 100% anti-impeachment propaganda being beaten into the national psyche by the beltway establishment, they have gooten ONLY 44% of the electorate to say "shouldn't impeach"

The dismay and seething anger is all around us. But our "leaders" have failed to give voice to the outrage. When outrage is given no voice in the public square, people tend to keep it to themselves, believing they are alone.

When no one gives voice to outrage, the floodgates remain closed. But when a public figure speaks out and taps into the energy, whoosh!

I saw a microcosm of this after the theft of the 2004 Presidential election. I was on a Democracy for America conference call. From the back and forth, it sounded like there were maybe 5 or 10 people on the line as they talked about this or that agenda item and possible things to focus on as we "learned lessons" and "moved forward." There was little energy.

As the moderator neared the end of the agenda someone piped up "What about Ohio? What about the stolen election? What does Burlington plan to do about that?" Suddenly there was a chorus. Dozens talking at once. It was unbelievable. It sounded like there were about a hundred people on the line -- people who had been "strangely silent."

If no one had given voice to the anger, no one on that call would have thought that anyone else cared -- they would have withdrawn in silence. And the "leaders" would have been able to tell themselves the stolen election just isn't something that people are interested in. They would have walked away from the call believing everyone else was on board with their "let's move on" agenda, which was the opposite of the truth. In fact, the mother lode of energy was with the "It Ain't Over 'Til it's Over!" people.

We see this over and over again in ways large and small.

The unprecedented and amazing response to Keith Olbermann's first "Special Comment" is one such event. When he gave voice to the outrage, outraged Americans came out of the woodwork in numbers that so shocked the programmers they realized the segment was such a powerful activator they replayed it several times, not just in response to demand, but to boost ratings.

Whenever our leaders touch on the theft of Florida or Ohio in public appearances, whenever they tip toe anywhere near a call for impeachment, the audience bursts out in cheers and applause -- usually the loudest and longest of the event. Leaving that kind of energy untapped is political insanity.

There is enormous public support for impeachment. We can see it in the anger at Bush. We can see it in our Republican acquaintances who think Bush "needs a good spanking." We can see it in the polls (even with no leader out there making the case; even before Katrina, a majority of Americans said "If he lied, he should be impeached." Well, now a majority think he lied to coerce the nation into war.)

Until members of Congress who are sworn to defend the Constitution speak the truth, accuse Bush and Cheney of their crimes, and take up the fight for impeachment and removal countless Americans will continue to seethe in frustration and silence, believing they are alone in a world gone mad.

As long as members of Congress fail to give our outrage a voice they can continue to believe the opposite of reality, that Americans prefer to trade away the Constitution to avoid the "negativity" of impeachment.

[zulchzulu]

9. Of course there will be impeachments of Bush and Cheney

In case you haven't figured it out yet, you don't show your hand in poker until the other person shows theirs.

By Pelosi saying that there will not be impeachment hearings, she is taking that issue off the table so that the Repigs can't use it.

It's "off the table" and in the computer...ready to get printed.

[pat_k]

43. But when you don't accuse a criminal of crimes you are complicit

. . .and being complicit with these criminals is VERY bad politics, not to mention morally reprehensible.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=364&topic_id=2458812&mesg_id=2459400

[Yoda Yada]

10. Let's not cross that bridge until we come to it.

Maybe Pelosi just doesn't want to hand another talking point to the Republicans.

Regardless, let's win first.......then we can decide.

I think that if there is a groundswell for impeachment....Pelosi ( and the committee chairman) will listen.

[pat_k]

44. the notion that Pelosi is lying for political gain is not very comforting. . .

. . .and it is bad politics to be complicit in crime

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=364&topic_id=2458812&mesg_id=2459400

[Turbineguy]

11. Smart Play n/t

[pat_k]

45. for who? Bush and Cheney? I'm sure they are thrilled to be EXONERATED

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=364&topic_id=2458812&mesg_id=2459400

[rodeodance]

12. Conyers is in charge of the committee. He will decide.

[benevolent dictator]

14. Way to convince

a bunch of fence sitting lefties not to vote for the Dems... I know a ton who want to vote for the Greens just because the Dems keep voting for the same thing as the Republicans.

In my German culture class, we got to talking about the German political parties. It's at the international school, so there's quiet a few USAers in the class. Everyone *not* from the States was saying how crazy it is that we have a one party system. One media, one party. Some of the USAers tried to argue, but it's true. The Germans were called our media and political situation fascism, and I could only nod and agree.

It kinda makes sending my absentee ballot in feel like a worthless gesture.

[Behind the Aegis]

27. Really?

You "know a ton who want to vote for the Greens just because the Dems keep voting for the same thing as the Republicans."? Well, do tell them to watch The Simpsons episode where Kodos and Kang are running and someone says they will vote for a third party, and Kodos says, "go ahead, throw away your vote. It's a two party system!"

In local elections, voting third party may not be "throwing away" a vote. However, because we have yet to have a single, viable third party, we are still a two-party nation. Perhaps that will change in the future, but for now, if they (your tons of friends) are sitting on the fence simply because of a desire to impeach, sounds as if they are single-issues voters who would complain about most anything that didn't fit their agenda.

[benevolent dictator]

37. OK, so a lot of them aren't "friends" per se, they're just the people

at the peace rallies every week - along with other people they know. Stabenow from MI keeps voting for the bad shit, Bankruptcy Bill, ending habeas corpus, a bunch of the really nasty Repub bills. I'm trying to convince them to vote for the Dems because they're voting for a Dem majority, not because they're voting for Debbie.

I think I almost got a few convinced, but mostly because if we have a Dem majority we can IMPEACH. Otherwise, we just have a MINO (Majority In Name Only) and what good is that?

And no, they aren't single issue voters, they're just sick and tired of supporting DINOs who turn around and vote exactly with the people we're AGAINST on all of the issues that count.

[Sequoia]

15. Maybe she's lying....an old KKKarl trick ya know.

[pat_k]

46. Oh good. "Ends Justify the Means" fascists on both sides now?

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=364&topic_id=2458812&mesg_id=2459400

[emulatorloo]

16. Well, INVESTIGATIONS come before impeachment. First Things First.

So let's see where the investigations go once Dems get supeona power.

[NewJeffCT]

18. that is my thought as well

They'll hold investigative hearings, and if 10% of what we know to be true here on DU comes out, then they'll have no choice but to impeach.

Watergate started with an investigation, and then snowballed into Nixon's resignation when he faced impeachment.

[pat_k]

47. They know all they need to know -- and failing to accuse Bushcheney of . .

. . .what they do know = EXONERATION.

They are muzzled by "won't impeach." You just can't say:

"Bush as unitary authoritarian executive nullifies the principle of consent --
the SOLE moral principle on which the Constitution, and therefore the nation, was founded."

and then say

"But don't worry!!! We aren't going to impeach anyone!!"

and not sound like a morally-confused moron.

More. . .

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=364&topic_id=2458812&mesg_id=2459400

[greeneyedboy]

17. exactly what she should say now. she has wiggle room for later.

remember, in labor negotiations, items are "on the table", "off the table", and back on again repeatedly.

she hasn't painted us into any corners--she's just denying the GOP the red meat they want to excite their annoyed and fatigued base.

[RaleighNCDUer]

21. There ya go. Now, if we do take congress, and we do get the

investigations and in six months they're still saying 'no impeachment', then I'll be outraged.

Let it play out.

[pat_k]

48. There is no rationalization for dereliction of duty. . .

Until they make it crystal clear they are willing to take the action required by the truth, they cannot tell the truth.

They cannot accuse Bush and Cheney of ANYTHING impeachable if they are not willing to say "We will fight to see him removed for this"

You just can't say something like:

"Bush as unitary authoritarian executive nullifies the principle of consent --
the SOLE moral principle on which the Constitution, and therefore the nation, was founded."

and then say

"But don't worry!!! We aren't going to impeach anyone!!"

A few of them have tried to do it -- tell the truth and then say "no way" to impeachment. Needless to say, they sounded like morally-confused wimps.

Until they are willing to do what the truth demands of them -- impeach -- we will not be hearing any more truth about his administration out of them.

We have been living with their charade for years. Feingold is the ONLY one who stood up and said "Guilty of Nullifying the Constitution" in his Censure motion and they ran from him like frightened rabbits.

I've had it.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=364&topic_id=2458812&mesg_id=2459400

[turbo_satan]

19. I, for one, will not be disappointed if...

... she breaks this promise.

[Swamp Rat]

20. Me either

I bet she will. ;)

[pat_k]

49. She must to fulfill her Congressional Oath, and ALL Dems will Pay the Price. . .

. . .for once again looking like cowardly hypocrites who won't stand up for principle until there is no risk.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=364&topic_id=2458812&mesg_id=2459400

[Generator]

22. Well duh

You uncover the lies, scandals, and outrages. You get it on TEEVEE. You force the fucker(s) to resign. It's much more efficient. I hope to GOD they plan on investigating and PUBLICIZING every crime. Most people don't have a clue yet just how criminal they really are. They have just an inkling.

[blindpig]

23. Pathetic

What ever happened to doing the right thing?

Oh, that's right, keepin' that powder dry. Besides, he didn't get a blow job. gotta keep things in proportion.

[Behind the Aegis]

24. Smart move on her part.

Why give the Republicans ammunition? Keep everyone focused, don't let distractions get in the way. Once the House and Senate have been reclaimed, well, anything is possible! ;)

[Bluebear]

32. You have it exactly right. nt

[LSK]

25. Pelosi does not control John Conyers

Relax and focus. 2 weeks to go.

[greeneyedboy]

26. and perhaps Bush as lame duck albatross wouldn't be so bad

this can come back on the table in a heartbeat under a Democratic Congress, but who knows, maybe in that environment it will make more sense to leave Bush twisting in the wind as an isolated, unpopular, failed lame duck.

[oasis]

28. Holding her cards. Plenty of info on Bush that the public doesn't know

as yet. When this is exposed, an outraged America will demand investigations/impeachment proceedings.

[huskerlaw]

29. Not her call.

Thank God.

[mvd]

30. We don't need to start hearings right away

But investigations are surely needed. I know Bush whitewashed about everything, but maybe some whistleblowers will come forward.

[Disturbed]

31. Conventional wisdom repeats that she will be the House Leader.

Maybe she won't be, he?

[mvd]

34. I'm glad that she won't be the deciding factor

[OneBlueSky]

33. if you can't say something that will actually win you votes . . .

don't say anything at all . . .

if Pelosi thinks that a pledge of "no impeachment" is going to gain Democrats a single vote, then she probably forgot to exhale . . . she'd be much better off saying nothing than risk pissing off the millions upon millions of Americans who want justice after what BushCo has done to this country . . .

and that's what impeachment is all about -- not punishment, but justice . . .

[Jack Rabbit]

35. We, the people, will continue to push for impeachment

I call on Congress to impeach and remove Mr. Bush and Mr. Cheney from power. As far as I am concerned, that should be done only to humor those deluded enough to believe that they legitimately hold power. Otherwise, it should suffice to throw them both face first on to the White House lawn and tell them to walk back to Texas.

I also call on the United Nations to convene an international tribunal for war crimes in Iraq and crimes against humanity arising out of the war on terror for the purpose of prosecuting, and if the fact warrant, incarcerating those responsible for the unjustified invasion of Iraq and instances of torture in Bush regime-operated secret prisons around the world.

These actions are separate. One is not contingent on the other.

[roamer65]

36. Notice she doesn't say "impeachment of Deadeye Dick"...

We've got to get Cheney impeached and out of office first. The only thing scarier that President Raisinbrain is President Deadeye.

[hogwyld]

38. If you read the small print..

Impeachment proceeding will commence the day after the elections. She's a smart lady, and she's not going to tip her hand too early.

[Red Right and BLUE]

39. Good.

The people will demand it later. Smart not to talk about it now.

[Sir Jeffrey]

52. She never ruled out extradition to The Hague...

for his war crimes tribunal.

She also never ruled out naming Bush an enemy combatant, stripping him of his citizenship, sending him off to a secret CIA prison in Bulgaria, and having him waterboarded until he admits what involvement him and his goons had in 9/11.

...

Well, I can dream right?

[Donald Ian Rankin]

53. Good for her.

"Impeach Bush" is the slogan of those who a) would rather be right than do good, and b) have no grasp of political reality.

I'm reassured that the Senate Democrats aren't going with it - it would be doomed to failure, and trying would cost a great many votes in 2008.