Dear Nancy Pelosi: About that "table" of yours....

[garybeck]

Dear Nancy Pelosi,

When the Democrats took control of Congress, one of the first things you said is that impeachment is "off the table."

I'm just sort of wondering, what would the President have to do, for it to be on the table?

Would the President have to commit murder with his own hands in the spotlight of a video camera? Would that do it? Or is there nothing at all that would make impeachment a consideration?

From my perspective, he's already done worse. He blatantly lied to the American public about a war that has killed hundreds of thousands of people. He made up the reasons for the war which was completely unnecessary. His staff knowingly outed an undercover CIA agent, which directly affected our national security. He's broken federal and international laws by torturing people and spying on Americans. I could go on but I think there's enough right there.

It is really confusing to me, why you chose to say impeachment is off the table. It makes me wonder, what would a president have to do, to make impeachment an option? It seems this president has done just about the worst things I can think of, yet you won't even consider impeachment.

This would be akin to a district or state attorney saying they're not going to prosecute a suspected murderer, even though everyone knows they did it, and there is a mountain of evidence to this effect. Can you imagine if a murder took place in your home town and everyone knew who did it, but the perpetrator was allowed to walk the streets because the district attorney took it "off the table?" Such an attorney would be put under great public scrutiny for not doing their job.

When the President abuses power, it is the Congress's responsibility to do something about it. By keeping impeachment off the table, I feel you are not fulfilling your responsibilities.

I have a hard time thinking of anything worse the President could have done to abuse his power, and what would constitute something bad enough to put impeachment on the table, if not the list of things he's already done. I feel you are ignoring your responsibilities by keeping impeachment off the table. By keeping it off the table, you give him the green light to continue his atrocities on our Constitution, the American people, and the world.

And as long as it's off the table, I ask the question: What type of offense would be bad enough to put it on the table? Is there anything worse than what he's already done? If he murdered someone with his own hands and he walked into your office with blood dripping from his clothes, would you then consider putting impeachment on the table? If so, I urge you to consider, we're already there - he's standing in your doorway and the blood is dripping. Every day you leave impeachment off the table, you let a murderer walk the streets and kill more. Please do your job.

Gary Beckwith
a concerned citizen in Vermont

[bryant69]

1. If Nancy Pelosi reversed course immediately

and started persueing impeachment, would such a course be successful?

For the record I think Reid and Pelosi are handling this situation well.

Bryant
Check it out --> http://politicalcomment.blogspot.com

[TwilightGardener]

3. There is a duty to impeach--it isn't a matter of politics, it's a matter of

upholding the integrity of the Executive Branch. Those who focus on whether or not it would be politically effective are no better than the Republicans during the Clinton Administration.

[bryant69]

9. I guess I believe in effectiveness rather than purity.

But then I keep in mind that there are actual consequences to our actions.

Bryant

[gulfcoastliberal]

11. Good thing Bush doesn't have to worry about consequences, eh?

Seems to me history shows that the public supports the party doing the impeaching.

[TwilightGardener]

17. Big Picture: What message does it send, to future administrations,

and future generations, if we fail to impeach the most immoral, corrupt and criminal administration in the history of our nation? I don't care about the political fallout anymore. I care about the direction and values of our country.

[bryant69]

20. What message does it send if we try to impeach and fail?

Bryant

[TwilightGardener]

22. We don't know if we will fail--get some freakin' courage.

[bryant69]

26. Courage is a poor substitute for analysis

I guess it could come down to the analysis of whether or not this move would be successful; I don't think it would at this time. But I think the actions Pelosi and Reid and others are taking may move us in that direction sooner rather than later.

Bryant

[TwilightGardener]

28. Agreed that hopefully they are moving in that direction, depending on

how investigations go. We can't do anything without evidence. But if we HAVE evidence, then it's our duty to follow through.

[aljones]

30. If we fail...we simply have wait a couple of years

He will be gone then. Hopefully by then will have a bigger majority in the congress and can shut down any GOP successor that might take the Presidency!!

[Throwing Stones]

36. how'd you like to be waiting in Iraq? /eom

[aljones]

41. I'm just saying if we fail at impeachment.....We are stuck with waiting...

Which is exactly what we are doing right now....We are waiting for that rat-bastards term to expire.... The possiblity of failure is no reason not to try....

Duh!!!

[calimary]

54. I get it. Why don't we just go away and leave him alone? He had his

"accountability moment" in 2004. What signal will that send? Would you tell your children (if you had them) about doing good versus doing bad - that as long as you're not caught or you don't have to face consequences, any frickin' shitty thing you do is okay? You can slide! No worries! Cool, 'eh?

WE. HAVE. TO. IMPEACH.

WE. JUST. SIMPLY. HAVE. TO.

PERIOD.

I might not think I could do any karate, specially since I was so unathletic - throughout my ENTIRE LIFE - that I was an absolute joke. but I decided to try. Guess what happened? I wound up earning my black belt! If I sat here wondering if I should risk it or not, I'd still be sitting here.

And even if we only get IMPEACHMENT successfully out of the House of Reps and we fail in the Senate, WE'VE STILL GOTTEN IT SUCCESSFULLY OUT OF THE HOUSE OF REPS. Which means the IMPEACHMENT goes on his record for all of history. Where it belongs.

[Fovea]

55. It sends possibly several messages

1. It could send the message that the constitution has been fatally subverted and we are a failed state, outside the rule of law. Which is to say, it would send the same message the news of the day is currently sending to the world.

2. It could send the message that the Republick party has no respect for the constitution. Hardly news, but not a happy time for them to wear the concrete overcoat and lead wading shoes of corruption and contempt.

3. It could send the message that the Democratic party was willing to fight for that hunk o hemp even if they did not see victory as certain (this has precedent among people of courage J. Kennedy wrote about some examples). If we had effective leadership we might reach the American electorate with the message, we'd gladly get bloody for you. If the American working class saw us actually fighting for them, I suspect they would vote for us in mobs and droves.

4. It could send a message to that most abused and unloved of creatures, the paleocon, that he better take off the kneepads, and back away (gingerly) from the stairrail Karl, Dubya, and the big Dick bent them over, and act like Senators in the classic tradition.

I just don't see a dire message it would send, even to lose, if the working class and former middle class see us get beaten in the attempt to give them back democracy and litle perks like habeas corpus.

[earth mom]

62. So, what are the Consequences of * & Cheney's actions, hmm?

Deadly effective aren't they, but certainly NOT pure.

I guess you think it's better to allow criminals to go free than to try them for their crimes.

My, what a country we would have if you were in charge. :eyes:

[Zodiak]

77. just as there are consequences to inaction n/t

[Madspirit]

53. "upholding the integrity of the Executive Branch"

:rofl:

[garybeck]

5. put it this way

maybe they are actually fulfilling their duties and pursuing justice on these matters.

but if that's the case, why the rhetoric about impeachment being off the table? Why can't they just say that they're pursuing the facts and if they lead to high crimes they will take appropriate action?

leaving it "off the table" has created a public sentiment that it's not even a possibility. Even most politicians won't give it any credibility. Watch what happens when Kucinich's papers don't even get out of committee. I don't think that helps anyone. I think everything should be on the table. Do the investigations and see where they go.

A prosecutor doesn't say "convicion is off the table" before they start their investigation, do they?

it just makes no sense and I don't think it helps to give the public a perception that there is no possibility of impeachment. I think it would help if the public could see this as an open ended thing and we'll see where it leads.

and what's more -- if she really is open ended about it, then saying it's off the table is dishonest. I'd rather see honesty and openness.

[ejbr]

23. I don't know whether Dems purposefully

shoot themselves in the foot or if they have some bizarre "grand plan" to get control of this country back into the hands of the people. First there is Levin telling Bush/Cheney that "we will fund the troops no matter what" before the bill is even vetoed (Obama had a similar slip of the tongue which he at least explained as a misperption of what he meant). Then (Okay Nancy was first, then Levin) Pelosi takes impeachment off the table. I am MOST certain that a majority of Democrats want impeachment ON the table, so all I can think to ask is "how dare she?"

Nice letter, btw. :applause:

[Captain_Nemo]

47. I agree with honesty. But, I think strategy is imperative here....

The republicans have been tremendously successful at strategy. Respectfully, we (Dems) have not been so successful. And th eramifications of our failures political strategy have been disastrous.

I think Pelosi is being very smart. Look how far the public sentiment has come in just four months?

Respectfully, Glenn, as liberals we are our own worst enemies. We will attack one of our own before understanding the motivations. And, to be sure, Republicans follow their leaders blindly.

The stakes are so high....I trust Pelosi,,,the polls are with us.

Yes, he is still in office. But not for long. There may be impeachment. There may be a resignation. We can't have Cheney as pres. He has to go to.

So, impeachment is complicated. It would have to be a double impeachment unless you can stomach Cheney as pres.

[Captain_Nemo]

49. Sorry, I meant to write "Gary" not Glenn..

[AndyA]

6. I think they're doing what they have to do to lay the ground work.

Frankly, I wish the "table" topic had never come up. And if it did, I still believe the correct response would have been that it depends on what the oversight turns up.

If Bush/Cheney have been behaving themselves, there will be no problems. If they haven't, Congress is Constitutionally bound to act. It's not an option.

I believe I know where this is headed, and I hope I'm correct in that the ground work is now being laid for that very outcome.

[garybeck]

8. I agree, everything is fine except for the "off the table" comment

the investigations seem to be going well, but we'll see if they really go anwywere. Asking questions and being lied to is one thing. What will they do about it?

my real problem is in making the public statement that it's off the table, before you even begin.

[AndyA]

40. It was almost as if Pelosi and Conyers came to the foredrawn conclusion

that no crimes had been committed, before any oversight was performed at all. And they were both part of the 109th Congress, so they knew first hand that the checks and balances demanded by the Constitution hadn't been carried out.

If they said it because they felt it necessary to win the election, I understand but I think they were wrong to mislead in that manner.

I hope they stand firm and go forward and do the right thing when the opportunity presents itself, and it would seem that's going to happen.

[John Q. Citizen]

7. Will the surge be successful, or just kill more people ? Will funding the surge

be successful? Or just kill more people?

I doubt impeachment would be any less successful than funding the surge will be.

[bryant69]

10. I'm not sure I understand your argument

We should pursue impeachment because we let republicans have the surge? Or what?

Bryant

[John Q. Citizen]

24. If success is paramount, then only sure things should be considered ever

in any circumstance.

Take the current bill to fund the occupation, for instance. It's bound to fail, so by your insistance on success as the criteria, it's a very bad move on the part of the Dems.

Bush has already said he's going to veto it.

[bryant69]

34. It's a strategic loss

Impeaching President Bush right now makes the battle between Republicans vs. Democrats, and the Democrats won't get enough crossovers (and will lose a few of their own) such that it won't happen. On the other hand, showing President Bush's lack of Respect for the American people and the Congress of the United States may eventually make the battle between President Bush and the Will of the people, which is a much more doable proposition.

Bryant

[John Q. Citizen]

38. I think Dennis' impeachment bill will be a stratigic loss as well. It has to start somewhere

sometime.

If at first you don't succeed.....

Same for the Vermont Senate vote for impeachment. Another classic example of a stratigic loss.

I expect, as things move forward, we may see impeachment put on the ballot of some states who have initiative. I think it could pass. And it may fail again in the house. We will see. At least impeachment is actually being said, and that's a victory in itself.

[bryant69]

43. The difference in Vermont is that Vermont isn't running for President

But Kucinich has every right to introduce his bill, and Nancy Pelosi has every right to conclude it's going nowhere and not support it.

Bryant

[John Q. Citizen]

60. But there is no difference in that the Vermont state Senate is responding

to their constituents and Kucinich is responding to the many people who have asked him to introduce articles of Inpeachment both on the campaign trail and through his website.

I would hope that Pelosi is responsive to her constituents, as well. In California, San Francisco voters on Nov, 7, 2006 supported a local impeachment measure by 59.41%. San Francisco is Nancy Peolsi's congressional district.

You are right, Pelosi can defy her voters and refuse to schedule a vote in the House. That might carry some risks though, since 60% of her district supports impeachment.

By the way, you never provided me with a list of the liberal legislation passed from 1996 to 2006 in the house, when the Repos controlled the house. It seems only fair, since you specifically faulted Dennis for not achieving anything during his time in Congress.

[bryant69]

70. What are you talking about? Did I agree to provide such a list?

Also what would that prove? Kucinich isn't running against Congress as a whole. He's running against Clinton and Obama and Edwards. Would make more sense to compare their records.

Bryant

[John Q. Citizen]

71. Except the Senate has rules to protect the minority, the house doesn't.

And the Dems controlled the Senate from 1996-2002. So it would seem likely that Dems might be better able to accomplish legislation they could point to in the Senate during the period of 96-06 than could members of the house.

The house was comtrolled by the Repos from 1992 -2006.

[bryant69]

72. I don't understand your point

Are you saying that Kucinich shouldn't be blamed for my perception that he's a purist who's unlikely to build a coalition that will accomplish much because the house was Republicanoid?

Bryant

[John Q. Citizen]

75. No, you are welcome to your perceptions, whatever they may be. I was referring

to you statement that he hadn't accomplished anything while in the house.

My point was that no liberal had during those years, because none had the power to accomplish anything.

As to your current thesis, he helped put together the House Dem Caucus opposition to the IWR, where a sizable majority of the House Dems voted against it. He also is very active in both the progressive caucus (the largest Dem caucus) and in the Out of Iraq caucus.

I also like the bill's he co-authored with Conyers for single payer universal health insurance.

Dennis isn't a purist, he a straight shooter who tell people exactly where he stands on the issues.

Which of his issues and solutions do you disagree with, out of curiosity?

[bryant69]

76. Please point to when I said that he hadn't accomplished anything

I believe what I said that is if he can impeach the Vice President I would vote for him because it would show his ability to get something done.

I think his department of peace is an idiotic idea.

Bryant

[earth mom]

63. President Bush? You mean resident *.

FYI-VERY few around here call that thief the "president". :eyes:

Makes ya go hmmm.......

[LSK]

46. if Impeachment started today, it would last MONTHS

and would do nothing to stop a surge.

[John Q. Citizen]

61. How long does the Constitution require it last? How do you know how long it would

last? Or are you just taking a wild guess?

And how long will the surge last? Through 08, longer, shorter?

And how does the time it takes for impeachment or the time that the surge lasts relate to each other? I was pointing out that the Congress passed a bill the President swore to veto, and as such, it was an action taken that Congress was pretty sure would fail.

I made no mention of stopping the surge through the use of impeachment. But that is a possibilty.

[Throwing Stones]

35. So if the hypothectical prosecutor in the OP

wasn't sure she could get a conviction, she should just let the suspect walk?

[snappyturtle]

2. Perfect! K&R n/t

[waiting for hope]

4. I still think it's a

possibility - remember when she said this, it was prior to Gonzo, Plame Hearings, GSA Hearings, the RNC Email scandal and this stubborn delusional attitude about not setting a time table. I betcha they are thinking really hard about this.

[proud2BlibKansan]

14. Yes I have wondered if she has changed her mind.

[partylessinOhio]

12. Bravo!

I agree completely but * has skated with the approval of Nancy and company. She made that "off the table" comment before she was "elected" speaker. Nancy should never have been given that position with her advance notice that she would subvert the necessary and manditory impeachment process.

Nancy with the laughing face and Armani suits only cared about her herself and becoming Madame Squeaker.

[earth mom]

65. At this point I'm convinced Pelosi is a DINO.

Pelosi cares only about appeasement and serving her corporate masters so she can continue on with the status quo while keeping all the perks, including her cushy and prestigious job.

Pelosi does NOT represent THE PEOPLE at all! :grr:

[DURHAM D]

13. It is important to remember that the "off the table comment"

was made just prior to the mid-term elections. Seems like most here have forgotten the timing.

Also, once the Dems took over Congress she has said on several occasions that they will go where the facts lead them. Such statements are not supportive of "no impeachment".

Also, do you really want Cheney to be President? Or, if Cheney is impeached first do you want Bush to pick Mitt (or McCain) for the position thus giving them an edge in the 2008 Presidential elections. I get so tired of this drivel. Stop and think about the whole picture. And, don't suggest impeaching them both at the same time - we don't have a constitutional structure that allows for such a scenario.

[partylessinOhio]

16. Two for one sounds good to me.

[DURHAM D]

18. Not possible. n/t

[Throwing Stones]

39. perhaps "not possible" politically

but constitutionally required. I'm sick of the wimps who are more concerned about getting re-elected than carrying out their fundamental obligations.

"The President, Vice President and all civil officers of the United States, SHALL be removed from office on impeachment for, and conviction of, treason, bribery, or other high crimes and misdemeanors."
U.S. Const., Art II, Sec. 4. (emphasis added)

[EFerrari]

21. There is no edge sharp enough to cut through the American people's

disgust with these criminals. So, you better make a good choice in your primaries because you most likely will be nominating the next president of the United States.

The bigger picture is, when corrupt government officials aren't held responsible, they continue in government. That's what got us *here* in the first place.

[Throwing Stones]

37. they've both committed impeachable offenses - why stop at getting rid of only one of them? /eom

[EFerrari]

15. Didn't she say that before the election? n/t

[Kurovski]

19. K&R. (nt)

[Captain_Nemo]

25. They don't have the votes.

[garybeck]

29. lame excuse

do they cancel the superbowl just because one of the teams looks better on paper?

do what's right, let the cards fall where they may.

don't be surprised if some republicans vote to ouster this SOB.

[Captain_Nemo]

31. You have to have a consensus before you plunge into an impeachment

If you don't the dems come out with a huge failure and then say goodbye to 2008.

[garybeck]

32. I never said to plunge into an impeachment

there's a difference between starting an impeachment hearing, and just having it on the table.

I just think it's irresponsible to have it "off the table." that's all.

[Captain_Nemo]

33. Ok, let's imagine they put it on the table:

Pelosi says: We're going for Impeachment.
After all the MSM outlets debate this and say things like "payback for Clinton" "will they fail?" We will effectively have wiped off the map of the MSM the following issues:

Iraq tragedies and the strategies for getting out of there.
Global Warming issues that must be solved
The falling dollar and the squeeze on the working people

Nixon was never impeached - he was investigated.

The investigations led to his resignation.

Look at how much Pelosi has gotten done in just under 4 months?
We have investigations on the AG (republicans calling for his ourster)
we have investigations on the outing of Plame (people now realize how the WH broke laws)
We have a global warming committee (something we desperately need - why take away from this?

Bush is a goner. No one trusts him. If the investigations stay on focus we will have 2008 in our pocket.

You throw impeachment into the mix you effectively draw attention away from the investigations.

[garybeck]

42. your premise is not what I'm saying

we are not "going for impeachment."

I'm just saying that you don't take anything off the table. you leave all options open.

I don't see the purpose in saying (or meaning) that anything is off the table. Shouldn't you do the investigations and see where they lead?

or is the statement just a politcal cover? in which case it's dishonest.

[Captain_Nemo]

44. Don't you think it would be on the table once

they know they have the votes and its a shoo in?

By saying its off the table she:
Puts them off guard while handing them volumes of evidence in investigations.
Perhaps it will be on the table when it is clear that's where the majority of the House wants to go.

[Captain_Nemo]

45. and, what does "on the table" mean exactly?

Does it mean a "possibility?"

I think she got into power and saw the volumes of material to show that this pres is digraceful adn has acted illegally. You would have to prove it before you act. If she said "Yes, its on the table." Wouldn't that skew others perception of her motivations?

[garybeck]

57. off the table means it's not a possibility.

I just don't see any reason it should be on or off the table as such. "No comment" would be better. If you want to do the investigations and see where they lead, then say so. Why say it's off the table? What's the purpose? She had some idea of the horrible things going on back then and to say it's off the table is bothersome.

[Captain_Nemo]

58. I still think its strategy

When we took the congress in the midterms the logical thing for MSM to talk about would be "they'll impeach bush...to get at them for Clinton" blah blah blah.

Pelosi effectively through them off course and started investigations immediately.

The investigations are on the table now. Perhaps as evidence continues to pile up and more repubs call for Gonzo's impeachment they will get swayed to her side.

It would have to be like the "near" impeachment of Noxon.

That was a done deal. Nixon was warned that if he is impeached (and they had the votes to do it) it would lead to conviction.
That's because the evidence was clear.

Pelosi has been a monumental Speaker. If there is an impeachment of Cheney Bush appoints (but ONLY with approval of the Senate.)

[garybeck]

73. today again she commented on impeachment

she said those who favor impeachment should just worry about the 08 elections and focus on getting a democratic president 2 years from now.

I call bullshit.

letting it go has much more to do with serving justice, than who wins the next election. it's their duty to see justice is served if high crimes were committed. it's lame to say, oh, just elect a democrat next time and everything will be OK.

NO WAY!

[Individualist]

50. Don't have the votes for impeachment?

A simple House majority is all that's required for impeachment.

[Captain_Nemo]

51. Do you really think the House will vote to impeach Bush and accept Cheney as President?

I don't think it will happen. And, I think Pelosi knows it won't happen. The investigations are the way to go.

[Individualist]

52. Impeachment doesn't mean Cheney would be president

Presidents aren't removed from office because of impeachment.

[Captain_Nemo]

56. But, doesn't impeachment lead to the Senate?

and then the "trial" would be in the Senate? That would lead to conviction (hopefully) and then the next person would step in.
Why would you want an impeachment without a conviction?
That's what happened to Clinton.

[mzmolly]

27. She said that before Dems took office. However, she also said "let's see where the evidence takes

us." Nice letter Gary, I too hope for some sort of justice.

[Generator]

48. Of course I agree with you

But after every fucking scandal imaginable, nothing fucking changes. Can you tell I'm angry and really ready to say fuck this country-you are a joke? GONZALEZ-author of the torture memo-which ALONE is enough for him to lose his job and be put in an international court-still on the JOB! Sure, Rosie O'Donnell now says on prime time tv for every housewife to hear-we are torturers-but nothing changes. Gonzalez and ROVE run the justice department like a loyalty wing of the Republican party. Nothing changes. They let soldiers die in their mold infested rooms-nothing changes. They let a city drown-nothing changes. Where is my country? It's dead. Impeachment? Sure, Kucinich is working on THAT, of Cheney right after he gets over his concern for his health. FUCK THEM. Criminals go to JAIL even with cancer and health problems. The old boys code of giving them a pass has turned this country into an old boys swamp of hell. There will be no impeachment. The country is dead. OH WAIT just let Hillary in there. Then's it's happy days again. I ain't living in this fantasy.

[earth mom]

66. I hear you loud and clear...

except I have a tiny bit of hope because this is even happening at all since Pelosi & Co shut it down hard last fall.

But yes-Fuck em all! And may KARMA kick some A$$ soon! :grr:

[Vidar]

59. Despite a few accomplishments, Nancy has made herself a neocon

accomplice with this stance.

[jgraz]

64. very nice -- please send this as a LTTE as well

[earth mom]

67. K & R. Your post definitely pushed some buttons...took me long enough

to get to the end to post my own K & R!

I am happy about this Impeachment development, yet I'm annoyed that the naysayers are still around here blowing smoke and talking trash.

Sure, I am hopeful, but outraged that it has taken months to get to this point only to see Pelosi diss it some more. Like seriously, :wtf:

[lonestarnot]

68. A most excellent letter! A+

[eridani]

69. It has to come from somebody besides her

She's in the line of succession, and it would be unbelievably tacky of her to push impeachment. So, we find other people not in that line to push it.

[garybeck]

74. then she should just say "no comment" or something to that effect

stop dissing the impeachment movement, that's all i ask. she did it again today.