Pelosi Must Recuse Herself On Impeachment-Or The House Must Remove Her

[kpete]

Actually, Pelosi's criminal participation and duties can be defined even more clearly, since she participated in discussions of both warrantless surveillance and torture -- Articles 24 and 18 of the Impeachment case.

This means she ethically/legally can't take a position on these impeachment articles. No moreso than a judge who was known to be in a meeting where a gang leader talked about a bribe, and I was afraid to call the police, could later say, "Prosecuting that gangster today would be divisive and I'm taking it Off The Table!" It's either an ethics breach or a bold obstruction of justice. In this case she's properly a Witness or Person of Interest, not a prosecutor or judge.

I actually spoke with Chairman Conyers about this today, and he said he understood it and admitted Pelosi's involvement in warrantless surveillance. He was particularly concerned about Prof. Lawrence Turley's charge of "collusion".

..........

Said another way, either Pelosi recuses herself and makes way for an impeachment investigation -- which may implicate her as an alleged co-conspirator; or the House must remove Pelosi as Speaker for her alleged ethics breaches and refusal to permit the House to enforce the laws of war through impeachment.

http://tpmcafe.talkingpointsmemo.com/talk/2008/06/speaker-must-be-removed-for-he.php#comment-2903957
http://tpmcafe.talkingpointsmemo.com/talk/2008/06/evidence-showing-pelosi-must-r.php

[seemslikeadream]

1. I wish I had a nickel for every time I've said that in the last couple of days

I'd have a bunch of nickels

[lonestarnot]

6. Woooow those are cute!

And the OP is right. Fancy must recuse herself!

[barbtries]

7. but what is it that you have a bunch of

in your hands in that picture??

[seemslikeadream]

9. baby hedgehogs

[PeaceNikki]

10. They're hedgehogs.

And cute as a button. :)

[seemslikeadream]

11. I know I messed up

:hi:

[barbtries]

12. wow

never saw them before!

[hootinholler]

13. You are an amazing woman.

Hedge Hogs are so cute. These are pets?

-Hoot

[NM Independent]

38. Ouch...

poor Momma hedgehog :wow:

[seemslikeadream]

41. The baby does his own epiosiotomy

[tavalon]

8. Cutest baby hedgehogs ever!

Of course babies of any species tend to be adorable.

[Beacool]

18. Ooooooooohhhhhhhhh

they are so cute!!!!!!!

Pelosi? The Queen Bee can go suck on a lemon!!!

[davidinalameda]

2. co-conspirator?

LOL

[Thothmes]

3. Neither will happen

[33_Leaves]

29. Want to guarantee Bush and Cheney face impeachment?

Forcing Pelosi to proceed with impeachment against Bush and Cheney, et al, is actually quite easy. All Democratic voters need to do is email Pelosi, and all their elected representatives, and tell them NO IMPEACHMENT, NO VOTE!

Tell them that either Pelosi allows impeachment proceedings to proceed against these criminals or we don't show up at the polls.

[Thothmes]

40. Willing to sit it out on Nov 4th.

Bet the pubes will love it.

[33_Leaves]

49. What's the difference?

If we allow the "Pubes" to escape justice for their crimes, what's the difference?

[magellan]

64. I agree with you on this

I'm only voting for Dems who clearly state they're for impeachment. Luckily there's one of them running in my local Congressional district so I have a reason to show up at the polls in November.

If America wants to go the way of Rome under Augustus, it won't do it with my help.

[sam sarrha]

4. she should be charged with "OBSTRUCTION OF JUSTICE".. NOW

[lovuian]

70. I agree

she is in collusion

[barbtries]

5. does this have traction?

is there a soul left in the house with the balls to bring it "to the table"?? i hear and i agree, but (feeling a twinge of despair) what's the law to these fucks?!

[acmavm]

28. There's been so many crimes and so much evidence I don't believe

anything anymore. Except that Dennis Kucinich is capable of anything, that he's the only one left with a conscience and a backbone. He's a pistol.

[Marr]

30. Politics trumps law. This sort of legal argument, no matter how sound,

has about as much bang as a water pistol.

[rhett o rick]

14. Agree. I have emailed my rep, for what good that does. He is a Democratic incumbent

meaning untouchable. Can't threaten him.

[crickets]

15. Particularly concerned about Turley's charge of "collusion"?

In what way is he concerned - does anyone know? *I'm* particularly and genuinely concerned, and I'd love to hear more details on what he had to say.

In this case she's properly a Witness or Person of Interest, not a prosecutor or judge.... he said he understood it and admitted Pelosi's involvement in warrantless surveillance.

What about the Gang of Eight and their knowledge of torture (including waterboarding) in 2002?

Has he seen this?

"It’s Conyers’s Time to Act on Impeachment"
http://www.progressive.org/mag_wx0613b08

Thanks for linking to that one earlier, kpete. Adorably cute little hedgehog, btw. :)

[creeksneakers2]

16. Most of the impeachment movement energy

is directed toward hurting Democrats. Its all counterproductive.

[pacalo]

17. What an excellent post by TPM's "Testing"!

Additional highlights:

The Constitution does not delegate any power to the Speaker to decide impeachment issues. That power was only delegated to the House of Representatives.

Speaker Pelosi is confused. She is (for now) Speaker, not the Constitutionally recognized chamber. The Speaker has no power to impeach; and no legal authority to compel the House not to investigate and not to debate articles of impeachment.

Any Member of the House who asserts "The Speaker Said" as an excuse not to investigate the President suggests, in our view, they are not fit to be trusted with power or access to the voting machines on the House floor.

It is irrelevant what the Senate may or may not do. The House and Senate are not the same. The House has the responsibility to investigate facts, then review the evidence to decide whether or not there should be charges filed. That is something the House -- not the Speaker -- must decide after conducting an investigation and reviewing the facts.

Once the House decides or does not decide to charge the President with a crime, then the Hosue will have the responsibility to provide that evidence to the Senate.

[Freddie Stubbs]

61. If Pelosi has no power over impeachment, why are pro-impeachment people so mad at her?

:shrug:

[MonkeyFunk]

19. how silly

she has to do no such thing.

[Golden Raisin]

20. That'll happen right after Bush raises taxes

100% on the top wealthiest 2% of the population, evacuates Iraq, and bans Halliburton from gaining contracts or being an approved vendor of the U.S. Government.

[mmonk]

21. Yes, I agree. The big question is whether or not the constitution

is merely just a piece of paper or not. Right now, that is all it is. What she is doing in her actions and words is to make a mockery of it.

[G_j]

22. the House is not going to remove her, so what do we do? nt

[33_Leaves]

31. We take control

We take control by forcing Pelosi to bring impeachment proceedings. Contact Pelosi and all your elected representatives and tell them that if they don't impeach Bush and Cheney we don't show up at the polls. NO IMPEACHMENT, NO VOTE!

But that means America would have to have the balls that congress lacks. Do you have the balls, America?

[Occam Bandage]

36. So, you're saying that on November 4, you'd hand the keys to the White House to John McCain?

That seems reasonable.

[33_Leaves]

42. What's the difference?

Hand the keys to the White House to John McCain? If Pelosi refuses to bring the current occupant to justice what's the difference? If Bush and Cheney, the two chief executives in the most corrupt criminal administration in U.S. history get to just walk away from their crimes, what's the difference? Whether four more years with John McCain or four more years with Pelosi running a non-opposition party, what's the difference.

The ONLY way to take back our government is to force Pelosi to begin impeachment proceedings against Bush and Cheney, et al. The only way to force Pelosi to begin impeachment proceedings against Bush and Cheney, et al, is to tell her and all of our elected representatives -- NO IMPEACHMENT, NO VOTE!

[Occam Bandage]

43. Why would you complain about a "non-opposition" party with Obama in the White House?

[33_Leaves]

45. I'm not complaining about an Obama non-opposition party

I'm not complaining about an Obama led non-opposition party. I oppose the current non-opposition leadership of the House which continues to block the one and only means of achieving justice and setting our nation back on course; the impeachment of Bush, Cheney, and their cohorts in the crimes the Bush administration has committed over the past seven years.

Without impeachment hearings the truth about the Bush administration's crimes, any one of which would have sunk any Democratic administration, will never be known. Millions of Bush administration emails are already deleted and supposedly "lost" forever. Without the benefit of impeachment hearings conducted by the House how much more will be lost?

The list of impeachable offenses can be found in http://chun.afterdowningstreet.org/amomentoftruth.pdf">THIS .PDF FILE courtesy of afterdowningstreet.org.

This is an election year. This is our one opportunity to force Pelosi to bring Bush and Cheney to justice. This has nothing to do with an Obama White House. Nancy Pelosi's refusal to allow impeachment proceedings against Bush and Cheney is tantamount to aiding and abetting the Bush administration in their crimes. When the Bush administration finally ends it will be too late. The only way to force Pelosi's hand is to threaten to withhold our votes in November. I've already done so. I contacted Pelosi and all of my elected representatives in Washington to tell them that if Pelosi doesn't do her constitutionally mandated duty and allow the impeachment of Bush and Cheney to begin, for the first time in thirty-six years, I won't be voting in the upcoming election -- and in those thirty-six years I ALWAYS voted the straight Democratic ticket.

I already sat out the primaries, and if the new Speaker of the House, who behaves as if here title is Queen of the House, continues to subvert the Democratic Party, our Constitution, and our justice system by allowing these criminals to escape accountability I won't vote in the upcoming election either because, really, if the two party system is just one party with two names, what's the difference?

If tens of millions of Democratic voters did the same I guarantee Pelosi would either be removed from her throne or she would relent and allow the most important hearings in the history of our democracy to begin; the impeachment hearings of George W. Bush and Richard Bruce Cheney.

Join me. Contact Pelosi and all of your elected representatives in Washington and tell them, NO IMPEACHMENT, NO VOTE!

Office of the Speaker
H-232, US Capitol
Washington, DC 20515
[phone]

http://speaker.house.gov/contact/

https://forms.house.gov/wyr/welcome.shtml

http://www.senate.gov/general/contact_information/senators_cfm.cfm

If we don't do this we will be aiding and abetting the Bush administration in their crimes just as Pelosi is. The future of our democracy depends on this because our government has ceased to be a representative democracy on both sides of the aisle if our elected officials are above the law.

[onenote]

46. my elected representative is a repub. He'll be thrilled to hear I'm not going to vote in November.

[33_Leaves]

48. But Pelosi won't be thrilled, will she?

You can make light of this all you like but if we continue to sit back and allow Pelosi to collude with the Bush administration it really doesn't matter if Democrats or Republicans are in power.

[onenote]

50. It matters a great deal.

And anyone who thinks otherwise is fooling themselves.

[Hutzpa]

53. It seems to me you have an ulterior

motive in pushing this impeachment, considering you just got here.... what exactly do you know
about impeachment, why are you so adamant about impeachment, if you ARE a true Democrat surely
you will understand the reason behind impeachment being off the table.

I suggest you leave this to those that understand the process and not pursue this based on some
kind of hidden agenda.

[33_Leaves]

55. I didn't just get here.

I didn't just get here. I'm a lifelong Democrat. I've probably been a Democrat longer than many of the people who have "been here" have been alive.

What do I know about impeachment? I know that when a criminal cabal like the Bush administration takes over government by stealing an election then proceeds to commit myriad high crimes and misdemeanors they must be impeached or the opposition party is no better than the criminals their abdication of duty protects and enables.

[33_Leaves]

56. Ulterior motive?

My ulterior motive is to bring these criminals to justice and thereby reclaim our democracy. What's your ulterior motive in protecting these criminals?

[LWolf]

71. I am a Democrat, and impeachment is on my table.

Pelosi is off my table.

I understand the process, and I have no hidden agenda. I want Bush and his administration held accountable, I want the Constitution upheld, and I want Congress, including Pelosi, accountable for doing so.

[Oak2004]

72. I don't know about you, but I'm an American before I'm a Democratic voter

I support the Constitution before I support a (wildly hypothetical, likely nonsensical) party plan to win an election.

If Democrats were conducting themselves as Bush and Cheney have been, I'm be calling for their impeachment, too.

[33_Leaves]

73. And the only guaranteed way to force Pelosi to impeach Bush and Cheney is...

...to follow these simple instructions.

Write a letter, call, or email Speaker Pelosi. Identify yourself as a registered Democratic voter. Tell Speaker Pelosi in polite but unmistakable terms that if she refuses to impeach Bush and Cheney you will not vote in November.

NO IMPEACHMENT, NO VOTE!

http://speaker.house.gov/contact/

Office of the Speaker
H-232, US Capitol
Washington, DC 20515
[phone]

Write a letter, call, or email your elected Democratic representatives in the House of Representatives and the Senate. Identify yourself as a registered Democratic voter. Tell them in polite but unmistakable terms that if they don't force Speaker Pelosi to impeach Bush and Cheney you will not vote in November.

NO IMPEACHMENT, NO VOTE!

https://forms.house.gov/wyr/welcome.shtml

If you don't know your representatives or your zip plus four you can find your zip plus four here then enter it at the link above to find your representatives:

http://zip4.usps.com/zip4/welcome.jsp

Write a letter, call or email your elected Democratic representatives in the Senate. Identify yourself as a registered Democratic voter. Tell them in polite but unmistakable terms that if they don't force Speaker Pelosi to impeach Bush and Cheney you will not vote in November.

NO IMPEACHMENT, NO VOTE!

http://www.senate.gov/

While your at it, do the same with House Majority Leader Hoyer, Senate Majority Leader Reid, and Senator Obama's campaign just for good measure. And write a letter or two to your local newspapers.

NO IMPEACHMENT, NO VOTE!

Contact Rep. Steny Hoyer.

http://www.congress.org/bio/id/293

Website: hoyer.house.gov

Washington, D.C. Office:
1705 Longworth House Office Building,
District of Columbia 20515-2005
Phone: [phone]
Fax: [phone]


Contact Sen. Harry Reid.

http://www.congress.org/bio/id/370

Website: reid.senate.gov

Washington, D.C. Office:
528 Hart Senate Office Building,
District of Columbia 20510-2803
Phone: [phone]
Fax: [phone]


Contact Senator Barack Obama's Campaign.

http://my.barackobama.com/page/content/contact/

To reach the Campaign Headquarters by phone, please call: [phone]

You can contact us by mail at:
Obama for America
P.O. Box 8102
Chicago, IL 60680


I'm sick and tired of complaints that Pelosi won't impeach Bush and Cheney. If you refuse to follow the simple directions above please stop complaining. If you truly want Bush and Cheney impeached, if you truly want to take back our democracy, if you truly want justice done for the outrageous crimes perpetrated by this immoral, corrupt, despotic administration, then this is exactly how you can accomplish those lofty goals. If you're too lazy or don't have the guts to force Pelosi's hand, and in the process take back OUR government and save OUR democracy, then you lose the right to complain.

Because now you know what you have to do.

This is an election year. This is our only true leverage. This is our only chance to force Pelosi to impeach Bush and Cheney. This is our only chance to see justice done and to have the criminal history of this administration recorded accurately so future generations can prevent such people from running roughshod over our democracy again.

When Pelosi and our elected Democratic representatives in congress receive a few million letters, phone calls, and emails demanding that either Bush and Cheney be impeached or we Democrats don't vote in November, I guarantee we'll see Bush and Cheney impeached as our laws, our Constitution, our democracy, and the very concept of justice itself demands.

NO IMPEACHMENT, NO VOTE!

[33_Leaves]

74. Bush, Cheney interviews subpoenaed

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/25195754

NOW IS THE TIME PEOPLE!!!

Show support for the few brave representatives who are fighting to bring democracy back to America. For the sake of our America's future please follow the instructions in my previous post.

NO IMPEACHMENT, NO VOTE!

[windoe]

23. I wonder

if its time to report to dc, keep the pressure on all fronts, email, phone, all at once. peaceful of course.

[Pooka Fey]

24. Huge KICK & Rec

[indepat]

25. Hear, hear!

[LWolf]

26. K&R n/t

[Cleita]

27. Let's pray the House gets some religion on their duties and

that they get the will to remove her because it is the ethical thing to do.

[Kaleko]

32. Yar!

[earth mom]

33. Hell Yes! Kick Pelosi to the curb!

:grr:

[onenote]

69. the voters in her district had a chance to do that a short time ago

roughly 9 out of 10 of them chose to support her.

But there are probably other windmills to tilt at.

Personally, I'm going to work to elect Democrats, not threaten to stay home and let repubs win.

[bertman]

34. F--KIN' AYE!!!

Pelosi's part of the problem, not the solution. I hope her constituents in California are taking all this in.

[elizfeelinggreat]

35. From Turley's lips

...


k & r

[MissDeeds]

37. Yes, yes, yes

A thousand times yes. I cannot believe this criminal is going to skate through his eight freaking years in the White House without being held to account. Are we not better than this? For the love of all that this country has stood for, impeach him!

[McCamy Taylor]

39. Good point! K&R

[Hutzpa]

44. Impeachment should be of the table

and I'm for it, after careful consideration I have come to the same conclusion with the
house Democrats that its a wise move not to put impeachment on the table at this crucial time.

I don't expect most of you to agree with me but if you think about it for a second you
will understand. Impeachment is an easier way of allowing the Republicans to regain
control in the house and senate.... yes they will whether you like it or not they will
use it as an emotional tool to fool the American people into having sympathy for Bush
and Cheney despite all the atrocities they have committed.

The American people are clever yes, but most of them still get their news from MSM which
is control by the Republicans who in turn can dictate the message being sent out, but what
the Democrats can do is use impeachment as a weapon to get the Republicans to submerge into
oblivion which will allow us(Democrats) control of Senate and House by exposing the inadequacy
of this administration whom have abused and misuse its power.

We have to look at the bigger picture, rather than go for a quick fix which would not
help our course but will prevent the Democratic party from achieving its main goal
which is to regain more Representative and Senate majority, we should collate as much
information as possible that can be used at the appropriate time. I prefer this method
and I think we should all settle down and let the leaders lead.

If Dennis's bill goes through and the house approves impeachment of Bush/Cheney and their
cohorts gets what they deserve, then what....:shrug: we need to settle down and relax a bit
and focus our attention on the GE in helping down ticket Democrats winning and regaining seats
that have been Republicans. This impeachment noise did not prevent the Democrats
from regaining the House...did it? I guess not.

Thats my two cents....we can agree to disagree

[33_Leaves]

47. Then what?

If Dennis's bill goes through and the house approves impeachment of Bush/Cheney and their
cohorts gets what they deserve, then what...

Then justice will be served, our highest government officials will once again know they are accountable for their actions, we can begin to heal and recover from this disastrous administration's myriad crimes and, after the incredible damage Bush has done to America's image around the world, this will show the world that we will not allow such crimes to be perpetrated in our name.

NO ONE is above the law in a true democracy.

If we allow Pelosi to block impeachment hearings the chance to record for history the truth of these past seven awful years will be lost forever, as will our one and only opportunity to see justice done.

[onenote]

51. you assume that (a) the House would impeach if there was a vote

and (b) the Senate would convict.

Neither is likely and the latter is all but certain not to happen.

As much as I may agree that impeachment is warranted in this instance, I also am not so foolish (as many here seem to be) to assume that an impeachment proceeding would be a cakewalk. The repubs have shown that they can't govern. But they remain masters at spin, obfuscation, and fear mongering. And an impeachment proceeding, launched on a purely partisan basis, would give them an opportunity to put those skills to use. And if you don't think that they would be able to rally their base, sow dissent within Democratic ranks, distract the presidential debate away from the going forward issues that the public would like to see debated (like the war, gas prices, energy policy, health care, jobs) then you are not living in the same reality that most of the country is living in.

[33_Leaves]

54. You don't do what's right based on a supposed outcome.

You don't do what's right based on a supposed outcome. You do what's right based on what the right thing to do is. To do nothing is to allow the crimes that have been committed by the Bush administration to be accepted practice in our government and our nation. I don't want war crimes to be accepted practice. I don't want torture to be accepted practice. I don't want lying our way into war to be accepted practice. I don't want subversion of the justice system to be accepted practice. I don't want illegal warrant less spying on U.S. citizens to be accepted practice. I don't want the conversion of our so-called free press into a propaganda machine to be accepted practice. The list goes on and on. To do nothing is to be complicit in these and the many other crimes of this administration. To do nothing is to enable the criminals. To do nothing is to lose the only opportunity we have to learn the truth about the myriad crimes this administration has committed.

As a political party, we Democrats are weak and naive. Do you think the Republicans worried about whether or not they'd be successful in impeaching Bill Clinton? NO! They went forward with their petty charges and now Clinton's impeachment, along with all of the sordid details of his personal, consensual affair are part of American history. Without impeachment proceedings against Bush and Cheney their crimes will never be recorded, and the history of their shameful administration will never be fully known. Are you willing to accept all of that because you're not sure that the Senate will convict?

[onenote]

58. sorry, but impeachment is a political act and pursuing it and failing

is far worse than not pursuing it. History will judge chimpy and his gang harshly whether there is an impeachment effort or not. And an impeachment effort that fails will only contribute to the self-righteousness and intransigency of those dead enders who still support chimpy.

Again, impeachment is a discretionary political act -- the power (not duty or obligation) to impeach was assigned "solely" to elected officials. There is no judicial review of an impeachment effort.

Yes, the repubs latched onto impeachment even though it had no chance of succeeding? Why? Because they were trying to find something that they could use to rally their base at a time when they had little else to use against the president. The nation was generally at peace. There was the first budget surplus in over 30 years. The repubs had basically no cards to play. The forced shutdown of the government had blown up in their face.

So they latched onto impeachment. And to a certain degree, it achieved short term results. CLinton's favorability ratings -- in the upper 50s to near 60 percent at the beginning of 1998, dropped to below 50 percent (and in some polls as low as 40 percent) in August. But as people heard more, they got turned off. And while the repubs rallied their base, they also succeeded in rally ing the Democrats to a degree. The result was that in November, the repubs suffered losses in the House that were historic in scope for an "out party" in the sixth year of a presidency.

It was a political gesture when it was used in 1998 by the repubs. It was, essentially, a political gesture, when it was used against Andrew Johnson in the 19th Century. Possibly the least political impeachment was the effort against Nixon and it had a bi-partisan level of support (the vote to authorize the pre-impeachment Watergate hearings was 77-0; the vote to authorize the Judiciary Committee to conduct an impeachment inquiry got over 400 votes.


Russ Feingold summarized why impeachment is never a simple matter back in 1998:

"I see the 4-year term as a unifying force of our Nation. Yet, this is the second time in my adult lifetime that we have had serious impeachment proceedings, and I am only 45 years old. This only occurred once in the entire 200 years prior to this time. Is this a fluke? Is it that we just happened to have had two `bad men' as Presidents? I doubt it. How will we feel if sometime in the next 10 years a third impeachment proceeding occurs in this country so we will have had three within 40 years?

I see a danger in this in an increasingly diverse country. I see a danger in this in an increasingly divided country. And I see a danger in this when the final argument of the House manager is that this is a chapter in an ongoing `culture war' in this Nation. That troubles me. I hope that is not where we are and hope that is not where we are heading.

It is best not to err at all in this case. But if we must err, let us err on the side of avoiding these divisions, and let us err on the side of respecting the will of the people.

Let me conclude by quoting James W. Grimes, one of the seven Republican Senators who voted not to acquit Andrew Johnson. I discovered this speech, and found out that the Chief Justice had already discovered and quoted him, and said he was one of the three of the ablest of the seven. Grimes said this in his opinion about why he wouldn't convict President Johnson:

I cannot agree to destroy the harmonious working of the Constitution for the sake of getting rid of an unacceptable President. Whatever may be my opinion of the incumbent, I cannot consent to trifle with the high office he holds. I can do nothing which, by implication, may be construed as an approval of impeachment as a part of future political machinery."


We here at DU may agree that the actions taken by the bush administration are serious abuses warranting impeachment. But ultimately, its a political judgment. There is no public hue and cry for impeachment. It was not an issue raised by candidates in 2006 and it was not an issue raised as an issue by candidates thus far in 2008 (save one, who got nowhere). The Democrats won't push for impeachment because, unlike the situation facing the repubs in 1998, the Democrats don't need to tear down chimpy. He already is torn down. The Democrats don't need to rally their base. Their base is already rallied (and growing) in support of a historic candidate. BUt the repubs do need a rallying cry. And a strictly partisan impeachment effort would give them one. It would allow them to argue that while the Democrats talk about addressing the nation's energy crisis, and health care, etc., they have no answers for the problems that the public cares about. There will be fearmongering as well, as repubs claim that Democrats want to tie the hands of future executives from taking actions to protect the country. I know its all bullshit. But history has proven that this kind of bullshit works remarkably well with some people, particularly swing voters.

Do I like this result? Not particuarly. But given my belief that an impeachment effort at this point will give the repub spin machine an issue that they will try to use, and in some significant respect will succeed with, to change the discussion away from who can better fix the nation's problems to whether the next several months should be spent pursuing a partisan impeachment effort against a president who no one thinks much of and who will be leaving office one way or another, I'm prepared to forego it and get on with showing the nation by the example of an Obama presidency and a stronger Democratic majority, how the nation can and should be run.

[33_Leaves]

66. I'm sorry but to say impeachment is a political act is ludicrous.

I'm sorry but to say impeachment is a political act is ludicrous. Particularly in light of the myriad high crimes and misdemeanors committed by the Bush administration. As a point of information, here is another link to the thirty-five articles of impeachment introduced by Dennis Kucinich.

http://kucinich.house.gov/SpotlightIssues/documents.htm

That isn't a political act. That is a stark presentation of the crimes committed by the Bush administration that DEMAND impeachment on strictly legal grounds and in the name of justice. Ignoring such actions by any elected official is the death of democracy in any society that claims to be a democracy.

Impeachment CAN be a political act and indeed WAS a political act when the Republicans used it against Clinton (and again, knowing they couldn't win didn't stop them) but to say it is intrinsically a political act is just absolutely wrong. Impeachment is an indictment on legal grounds. If every prosecutor in the USA decided they would only indict on cases they couldn't lose our justice system would fall into chaos. Since Pelosi refuses to do her constitutionally mandated duty she is aiding and abetting this criminal conspiracy masquerading as our executive branch and thereby helping these criminals throw our democratic system into chaos. These criminals are going to walk because they have the criminal protection of Pelosi. She should be removed from the Speaker's chair and be tried along with them. Impeachment is the only way we'll ever get our democracy back. If this administration ends and all the criminals in it are allowed to ride off into the sunset this will signal the end of our democracy no matter who wins in November.

[onenote]

68. Of course its a political act.

Its taken by elected officials and is, by the very terms of the Constitution, left completely to their discretion. They can impeach someone for wearing brown socks and black shoes. Or they can not impeach even if they have clearly violated the law. The only thing that can force elected officials to act one way or another is...political pressure. If the public doesn't like a decision to impeach or not impeach, they can, through the operation of the political process, vote against the member for that reason. It is thoroughly and inherently political in that sense and no amount of saying its not is going to change it.

Analogies to criminal prosecutions are inherently inexact. First, while prosecutors have broad discretion, it is not nearly as unfettered as the discretion given Congress to exercise the power to impeach. Moreover, there are ways to sanction a prosecutor that abuses his/her discretion that do not require the public to exercise political will at the ballot box. But the ballot box is indeed the only recourse that anyone has against members of congress who irresponibly exercise or fail to exercise their discretion with regard to impeachment.

Saying that Pelosi has a constitutionally mandated duty is just empty words. She may have a political duty and a moral duty, but she has no legal duty in the sense that there is absolutely no legal recourse that can be taken against her for her position on impeachment, just as there would be no recourse against any of the other 435 members of Congress if they voted not to impeach chimpy or against any of the 100 senators if they voted to acquit (just as there could be no legal recourse against the members of the HOuse who voted to impeach Clinton or those that voted against doing so).

[Fireweed247]

52. Pelosi and Conyers should be arrested for collusion

I keep thinking... there must be something we could do with all those rotting salmonella tomatoes...

[Freddie Stubbs]

60. Are you suggesting poisoning members of Congress with salmonella?

:shrug:

[Fireweed247]

63. throwing them

Is that illegal? It wouldn't occur to me to poison them sheesh. But no use letting them go to waste.

[The Stranger]

57. The real enemy is within the party.

[Freddie Stubbs]

59. I'm sure that she will recuse herself when the Judiciary Committee sends impeachment articles to

the House floor.

[Overseas]

62. Shirley Golub ran to protest Pelosi's unwillingness to impeach-- here are results

Shirley Golub 9,841 10.8 %
Nancy Pelosi 81,200 89.2 %

I went ahead and voted for Golub because I knew Nancy would surely get over 50% of the vote and look how few other people dared to do that. Pelosi got higher than usual numbers.

[Disturbed]

65. "Is there a soul left in the house with the balls

to bring it "to the table"??

Yes. Rep Wexler

[stimbox]

67. Well, there are at least 9,841 of us in SF without our heads up our asses!

I voted for Golub too.