Forget the pledge: Why Pelosi is wrong on impeachment....

Thought-provoking piece on ThisCantBeHappnening.net:

Wednesday, October 25, 2006

Forget her "Pledge," She Took an Oath: Why Pelosi is Wrong on Impeachment
House minority leader Nancy Pelosi (D-CA), in an interview with Lesley Stahl of CBS News, said impeachment would be "off the table" if Democrats take over the House of Representatives in November, calling it a "waste of time."

She couldn't be more wrong, and most Americans know it.

While Pelosi was responding to a loaded question from Stahl, who couched impeachment in terms of Democrats' supposed desire to seek revenge if they retake Congress, Pelosi, who would become majority leader in a Democratic House, bought into Stahl's argument, saying that she'd be "satisfied" to see the president and vice president spending the remaining two years of their second term as "lame ducks."

What Stahl should have asked Pelosi was whether she thought that President Bush had violated the law and the Constitution, and whether she believed he has committed impeachable offenses.

The answer to that is clearly yes.

Rep. Pelosi must know most of the president's crimes are not partisan at all. They are crimes against Americans of all stripes, and against liberty and the Constitution.

Just take the president's order to the National Security Administration to spy on Americans without first seeking a warrant. A federal judge in Detroit has already found that the president violated the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act--a felony--and the Fourth Amendment. That is an impeachable act, and one which Democrats and Republicans alike would punish if they understood the the implications of what the president has done. Given that the secret FISA court has only rejected a handful of warrant requests out of over 70,000 made since 1978, the only reason Bush could have decided to violate the law is that he is doing something so outrageous he knew the hand-picked, top-security-cleared FISA judges would have rejected it out of hand.

The rest is at: http://www.thiscantbehappening.net/

If Nancy Pelosi said she was considering impeaching Bush, that would mean one of two things.

1) Cheney becomes President. Do we want that? or

2) She impeaches Bush and Cheney and she becomes President. Doesn't that make her look like an opportunist, corrupt creep? Do you really want her on the teevee saying she's going to manipulate things to make herself President?

After thorough investigations, it may turn out that impeachment is the best options. Discussing it now is counterproductive or worse.

I just don't think they should say one way or the other. Do the investigations first and then decide what if anything needs to be done.

Exactly my point. And if it came to her, she absolutely should become President Pelosi. But she shouldn't be announcing now that she's might make herself President later.

To prove it is not a "partisan coup" of some sort, they point 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.

spread the word. I'm so sick of saying it over and over again!

The Constitution has been rendered TOOTHLESS..by Bush and Congress.

Pelosi is 100% correct...(we cannot prosecute Bush through the Constitution.)

Read this article for how and why Bush cannot be IMPEACHED!

http://www.tpmcafe.com/blog/coffeehouse/2006/sep/29/the_star_chamber

Pass the Word!

In fact, I'm of the mind that discussing it now is counterproductive. Just posting the article for discussion's sake.

That makes sense. :hi:

. . .to prove it is not a "partisan coup" of some sort.

And Dems need to put this fact front and center.

Here's how 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.

Took away a GOP talking point and gave up nothing in return. Repeat: nothing.

Looks like the OP agrees with us.

Would you kill me if I told you I was at a party with Mic Gillett over the weekend? And we all behaved very well.

How cool was THAT? :wow:

If you say "Tower of Power" in the same sentence with "party" people are bound to get the wrong idea.

. . .The negative consequences of her pledge are guaranteed.

And there is NO upside to this pledge.

The repubs have their point -- and the people listening to them assume Pelosi is lying, so her pledge accomplishes nothing.

She create a trap and ran the Dems into it.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=364&topic_id=2458812&mesg_id=2462961

So there was no good answer she could have given. Let's move on.

Here's the ad the Repigs would use IF Pelosi said she (1) would impeach Bush or (2) she wasn't sure if it would come up...

Sound:
Eery music sound bed comes on.

Visual:
Bad picture of Nancy Pelosi with goofy expression really zoomed in and slowly zooming back as voiceover begins:

VO:
Nancy Pelosi says that if the Democrats win in November that the impeachment of President George W. Bush would begin as soon as she takes charge of Congress.

Nancy Pelosi, who has been in parades with pedofiles in San Francisco, would be in charge.

Nancy Pelosi would demand the impeachment of not only George W. Bush but also the Vice President, Richard Cheney.

Nancy Pelosi would do these deeds and become...

Sound:
Loud snare drum, gong and military drumming added to eery sound bed

...President of the United States!

Graphic of Pelosi fades and bold type comes on "Is that what the American People want?"

Fade to "Vote Republican this November." with slow motion of family happily playing in autumn leaves

(from another post, but I thought you might see the light...)

Don't go over to the dark side. We need you.

. . .is a myth that's been used to keep the Dems from standing up for anything for years. And their irrational fear of standing up has branded them as wimps. The BIGGEST problem they have is the perception they are weak. . .more

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=364&topic_id=2458812&mesg_id=2462961

Is probably the best one at the present time.

Impeachment is very easily presented as an act of extreme and reckless partisanship, and people can be rallied against this effectively.

The best course towards this goal is to leave it unstated or even openly foresworn, while pressing for investigations of a variety of items using Comgressional subpoena power. The combination of administration defiance, and facts established, will create an atmosphere in which people can say, in tones more of sorrow than of anger, that no choice but impeachment is left....

. . . and failing to do so created a trap they cannot escape without damage.

Her "pledge" has vastly compounded their problems.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=364&topic_id=2458812&mesg_id=2462961

Remember, it's 2 weeks before the elections. Last thing we need is more fuel for the neo-cons to start using against us ESPECIALLY since the last impeachment, most of the country felt it was a waste of time.

Now I appreciate that this impeachment is for real issues and not a blow job, but we don't have control of the house yet. Plus Pelosi is not the person leading the impeachment - that is John Conyers and if you notice, he's neither agreed or disagreed with Ms. Pelosi.

We do not have the ability to impeach right now so why put it out there and have it used against us

. . .than the risks of standing up, telling the truth, and accusing Bush of his crimes.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=364&topic_id=2458812&mesg_id=2462961

but few appeared to want to hear it. They were so busy screeching for impeachment that they could not wait a couple of months until the power to impeach was actually in the cards. Why give any additional motivation for any more Republicans to get out and vote. We certainly don't need the Republicans to spin calls for impeachment now as simply the Democrats looking to get revenge.

. . .they cannot escape unscathed.

They ensured they would appear to be hypocritical "moral relativists" who are too cowardly to fight for principle until it is safe.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=364&topic_id=2458812&mesg_id=2462961">More . . .

to impeach Richard Nixon, there never would have been the Watergate hearings that led to the Articles of Impeachment and Nixon's resignation less than two years later.

Be patient - there's plenty of time for justice to be done.

There is no reason to believe that. It is impossible to know how things would play out had they been accusing sooner

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=364&topic_id=2458812&mesg_id=2462961

evidenced by the Nixon landslide. However, despite Nixon's victory, Democrats picked up seats in the House and Senate. If Democrats were beating the drums about impeachment - before the case was made to the American public - it is likely that they would have lost seats, and perhaps the House and/or Senate.

It took several months after the election for there to be enough support for hearings on Watergate. And even then, no one was talking impeachment. Sam Ervin, Howard Baker, etc. slowly and carefully developed the evidence and the case against Nixon in the next 14 months and, only then, did the Judiciary Committee convene impeachment hearings.

It may feel good for rabid partisans to yell about impeachment, but the vast majority of the country is not there yet and won't get there by having it forced on them. If Democrats take control, there must first be oversight hearings - not impeachment hearings - to develop the evidence that may or may not convince the American public that this Adminstration has engaged in impeachable offenses - and they may never be so convinced.

Moreover, people are sick and tired of what they think is inside-the-Beltway partisan gotcha wars when they want Congress to address their direct concerns - the economy, education, health care, the war in Iraq, terrorism. They will not take kindly to Democrats if they think that all we're about is trying to drive out of office a president who is a lame duck anyway - especially if it is clear that we are neglecting their issues.

If it appears to them that they turned over Congress to a band of angry, vindictive, destroy our opponents at all costs partisans who are more interested in stomping on Bush than addressing their bread and butter issues, they're likely to toss us right back out.

. . .which made Bush II possible. They used the EXACT same rationalizations then -- and firmly believed they were positioning themselves to win back the Presidency.

There is no reason to believe the risk of impeaching isn't greater than the risk of not impeaching -- in fact, there are guaranteed negative conquences on the side of the "pledge" (outlined below) Piven the current polls (e.g., last weeks Newsweek), the seething anger at Bush, and the guaranteed negative political consequences of failing to impeach Bush, there is reason to believe the risk of not impeaching is far higher. They are violating their oath for nothing. Tragic.

It is effectively a violation of her congressional oath to say impeachment is "off the table." It is impossible to carry out their duty to defend the Constitution if the only mechanism by which certain types of threats can be eliminated is "off the table."

All she had to do was point that out. Again, tragic for the nation; tragic for the Dems.

It is like asking whether use of military force is off the table. The answer to that one is ALWAYS "nothing is off the table." You may consider it a weapon of last resort, but you NEVER take the weapons we have made available for our defense "off the table."

--------- Guaranteed negative consequences of "taking the pledge" not to pursue impeachment -----------

By pledging not to impeach, Rep. Pelosi has created a horrible trap for the Democratic members of Congress.

If they betray the pledge and impeach -- as they must to fulfill their Congressional oath -- they confirm the perception that Democrats are weak, unprincipled hypocrites/"moral relativists", who are only willing to stand up for 'principle' when it is safe.

If they fail to take up the fight to impeach Bush and Cheney, they are betraying their Congressional oath and betraying the nation.

The perception of Democrats as weak is the BIGGEST problem the party faces, and with her pledge, she has guaranteed that whatever they do, they will compound the problem.(When they could have proven the image wrong by standing and fighting.)

If Rep. Pelosi intends to take up the fight for impeachment and has made a false pledge to escape feared consequences, then she subscribes to the Un-American belief that the "the ends justify the means" and cannot be trusted.

One thing is certain. As long as this wrong-headed pledge remains in place, they are "damned if they do and damned if they don't". If they publicly accuse Bush of his crimes and then follow up with "Don't worry, we're not going to impeach anybody!" they sound like morally-confused wimps. If they do not accuse, they become accessories after the fact because their failure to accuse enables and empowers the fascists.

. . .and they have been letting them off the hook for years.

Given their history, it's gonna take a pretty big cluestick to snap them out of it.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=364&topic_id=2484155&mesg_id=2485064

all of the exploding heads and cerebral aneurysms here at DU. It will be TEOTWAWKI. Life will not be worth living.

Impeachment without conviction may be a moral victory. Although O.J. does not appear to be to broken up or living in poverty after the jury failed to convict him of killing his wife. I don't think the D.A. there looked upon O.J.'s indictment as a moral victory.

. . .The Democratic caucus has been giving Bush and Cheney cover for years.

And now, she is bending over backwards to give the Fascists an unassailable argument -- i.e., "If we were destroying the Constitution, members of Congress who are sworn to defend it would be calling for our impeachment and removal. Rather than calling for impeachment, they are pledging NOT to impeach. With their pledge, we are exonerated of all charges coming from the 'Looney left.'"

It's extremely unlikely there'd be time to investigate and get it through even if we took both houses by a reasonable margin. Expect to see penalties, but not impeachment.

people improve their lives - and since most Americans see impeachment as a waste of time, I doubt they'll look too kindly on Dems for putting impeachment ahead of bread and butter issues.

If Dems don't take some concrete steps that positively impact people's lives, impeachment won't matter since the voters will throw out the Dems AND likely elect a Republican president in 2008.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=364&topic_id=2484155&mesg_id=2485775">Post #46

and related:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=364&topic_id=2484155&mesg_id=2485775">Impeachment IS Our Positive Agenda

Three of today's are from "Ignored". In fact, it is interesting that at this time in this thread of 42 posts, 18 of them are from "Ignored". That Ignored sure is a busy person. I feel like I have a shadow. The funny thing is I can't seem to read any of Ignored's posts. I may lose the will to live.