Impeachment won't happen because Pelosi is complicit

In September 2002, four members of Congress met in secret for a first look at a unique CIA program designed to wring vital information from reticent terrorism suspects in U.S. custody. For more than an hour, the bipartisan group, which included current House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.), was given a virtual tour of the CIA's overseas detention sites and the harsh techniques interrogators had devised to try to make their prisoners talk.

http://digbysblog.blogspot.com/2007/12/accomplices-by-digby-yesterday-on-cnn-i.html


 
The bottom line is that the law requires that Intelligence Committee members such as Pelosi, Harman and Rockefeller be briefed on such activities not because briefings are fun or intrinsically valuable. Rather, the whole point of their being briefed is that they are expected to engage in oversight, which means that they are supposed to do something when they learn that the President and the CIA are breaking the law.

http://www.salon.com/opinion/greenwald/2007/12/09/democrats/index.html

:shrug:

conflict of interest, and the fact she has no constitution power to stop impeachment

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=389&topic_id=3441313&mesg_id=3441313

Welcome to DU. :hi:

A caller on Malloy said he had talked to Conyers' office and they confirmed this. She would fire him as chair of the Judiciary Committee.

If this is true, then put her on the list with Bush.

Declaration, Reloaded
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=389&topic_id=3434534&mesg_id=3434534

So now we trust a "caller" ??

perhaps we could find some links beyond the hearsay?

Though I thought I heard something about another article on opednews, but I can't seem to find it.

The Heart of Queens
Can Nancy Pelosi single-handedly take impeachment off the table?
By Bruce Fein
Posted Tuesday, Aug. 21, 2007, at 4:49 PM ET

http://www.slate.com/id/2172547

"But Speaker Pelosi has at least figuratively joined hands with the White House in opposition. Emulating the Queen of Hearts in Alice in Wonderland, she has threatened the removal of Michigan Rep. John Conyers from his chairmanship of the House judiciary committee if an impeachment inquiry were even opened, according to reliable congressional chatter."

Mike had asked people to try to find out if this was true. I believe the caller was responding to his inquiry.

which anyone who knows anything about how Congress is organized would know.

Pelosi said impeachment is off the table.

As speaker.

As third in line to the presidency.

As the person who would most benefit by the removal of those two criminals.

Oh, and to make it clear if it isn't already: Pelosi is speaker of the House not the Senate, where we would need a super majority to convict the criminals.

Imagine what would happen if the President of the Senate had to vote to break a 50-50 tie.

Now, who is the President of the Senate, again?

I support Kucinich and the push to impeach, although I didn't before he read the articles.

What Pelosi is doing is similar to what Stephen Colbert did when he asked The Heroes not to post on Wikip*dia that the population of elephants had increased.

Pelosi is saying impeachment is off the table, wink, wink.

All we hear is the "off the table" but we are missing the "wink, wink."

Your post makes zero sense.

Pelosi, like other members of Congress, enjoys legislative immunity. Read your Constitution, please.

Besides, no matter what a few members of Congress knew, they were under threat of severe penalties to keep their mouths shut. There was absolutely nothing they could do about any of it.

We should impeach the president and vice president now. It will serve as a warning to all dishonest politicians everywhere.

Care to quote chapter and verse, Justice Priestly? I'm especially interested in where they are immune from criminal prosecution.

You could at least have the decency to admit you were mistaken.

The first part of this article has been construed to allow criminal prosecution of members of congress for non-legislative acts. However, the latter part -- the provision granting immunity "for any Speech or Debate in eithe House" has been interpreted to apply broadly to immunize members from being questioned or pursued criminally or civilly for the decisions that they make in the course of their legislative duties.

There isn't one. What you're talking about is the "Speech and Debate" clause which prevents them from being sued for anything they say on the floor of Congress.

If you were correct, Randy Cunningham could not have been prosecuted because he made the decisions to take bribes in the course of his legislative duties.

"The bar on compelled disclosure is absolute...and there is no resaons to believe that the bar does not apply in the criminal as well as the civil context.".

See also US v. Johnson, 383 US 169 (1966): the Speech and Debate clause "must be read braodly to effectuate its purposes"; the clause protects the legislature "against possible prosecution by an unfriendly executive and conviction by a hostile judiciary."

The court has distinguised prosecutions directly arising from a legislators' actions as a legislator and actions that are not legitimate parts of the legislative process, such as bribery and fraud. In other words, if your claim was that Pelosi took no action following her briefings regarding the administrations abuse of prisoners because of a bribe, then she would be subject to prosecution for the bribe. But her inaction, in and of itself, cannot be the basis of prosecution, even if it could be argued that her inaction made her in some way an accessory after the fact to executive branch conduct that was in violation of the law.

It has no bearing on prosecution for crimes.

Now, you can argue that Pelosi's failure to act does not constitute a crime. But if it does, her position in Congress does not protect her from prosecution.

Things get even murkier considering the fact that she's complicit in a war crime. Other countries may assert jurisdiction if the US fails to prosecute.

That the Speech and Debate Clause applies to prosecutions for crimes cannot be doubted. In US v Johnson, 383 US 749 (1966), the SCOTUS reviewed the conviction of a member of Congress on seven counts of violating the federal conflict of interest statute and one count of criminal conspiracty to defraud the government -- criminal prosecutions. The conspiracy charge alleged that as part of the conspiracy to defraud the government, the former member had agreed to give a speech on the floor of Congress. To the extent that making out the case against the member of Congress required an investigation into the member's motivation for giving the speech, the Court found that the Speech and Debate Clause barred the prosecution. The Court distinguished this situation from one involving a criminal prosecution under a statute passed by Congreses in the exercise of its power to regulate its members conduct. To quote the Court: "We hold that a prosecution under a general criminal statute dependent upon such inquiries necessarily contravenes the Speech and Debate Clause."

A subsequent case elaborated on Johnson, characterizing it as standing for the proposition that a Member of Congress may be prosecuted under a criminal statute PROVIDED THAT the Government's case does not rely on legislative acts or the motivation for legislative acts." US v Brewster, 408 US 501 (1972). In Brewster, the Court found that the Speech and Debate Clause did not prevent a member from being prosecuted for bribery, not because the Speech and Debate Clause generally did not apply to criminal prosecutions but rather because the SPeech or Debate Clause does not apply to conduct therein at issue."

What JOhnson and other cases establish, and which is directly contrary to your assertion, is that some prosecutions for criminal acts are not permitted by the Speech and Debate clause, while others are. If none were, no line drawing would be necessary. Yet even Brewster, which took a decidely narrower view of the Speech or Debate clause privilege than the Johnson case, still concluded that "It is beyond doubt that the Speech or Debate Clause protects agains inquiry into acts that occur in the regular course of the legislative process and into the motivation for those acts." Thus, in Brewster, the prosecution was allowed to proceed because the act of taking a bribe in return for a promise to act in a certain way was all that was necessary -- there was no need to establish that the member accepting the bribe fulfilled his part of the bargain by performing the promise.

Engaging in oversight of the executive branch and deciding whether or not to take action is a quintessential part of the legislative process. As such, those who engage in it are protected against prosecution for the actions that they take or fail to take in the course of engaging in that oversight role. Again, if it was claimed that Pelosi took a bribe in return for which she promised to stand down from doing something -- that case could be brought. But merely not acting, or taking a particular action in the conduct of her oversight role -- nope.

I first erroneously called it something else.
. . . .

Article I, section 6

They shall in all Cases, except Treason, Felony and Breach of the Peace, be privileged from Arrest during their Attendance at the Session of their respective Houses, and in going to and returning from the same; and for any Speech or Debate in either House, they shall not be questioned in any other Place.
. . . .


This clause pretty much protects members of the legislature from questions about their conduct and decisions as long as the conduct and decisions are related to their official roles. You might be able to prosecute them for accepting bribes or corruption of that sort (probably could), but Pelosi could not be prosecuted for failing to do something more than she did about torture.

After all, you asked me to "please identify the evidence for your claim with regard to each of the articles of impeachment". I'm not asking you for a doctoral dissertation, just one citation that supports your position.

1) So that we can stop arguing about where and when it applies, and...

2) So that traitor enablers can't get away with any more of this shit.

Nancy Pelosi deserves to be held accountable and we deserve honest government.

...It will serve as a warning to all dishonest politicians everywhere.

Agreed.

Pelosi is only saying what a Speaker should "say."

Just as the person holding the Office of President should go around disgracing it as Bush has, who ever is "Speaker" has to be "above the fray".

I don't see how it's not obvious to everyone.

it's a political process whereby hearings are held that attempt to get the truth of why we went to war on a pack of lies. see, it's important that we go thru this "meaningless" process in order to restore order in the executive branch.

and by all means, lets imagine Cheney being the tie-breaking vote (nevermind the supermajority thingy). wouldn't that be special. then again, could someone under prosecution cast their senate vote? i doubt it.

Pelosi "saying" that impeachment is off the table is what the person who is Speaker of the House should say.

Politics is about perception as much as it is about anything else.

So, Pelosi, excuse me, the Speaker, "says" impeachment is off the table, the other Dems in the House should say, "Yes, Madam Speaker, impeachment is off the table (wink, wink)"

And then vote for it.

I wonder if Pelosi has ever done anything in the past where she supported one position that few others agreed knowing full well she'd be on the losing end?

I wonder?

If we really want impeachment, we have to convince our right-wing family members, friends, neighbors and co-workers.

But yes, that's the most reasonable explanation put forward so far for why Pelosi won't impeach Bush** or Cheney: they'd certainly implicate her in their war crimes and the whole thing would turn into a shooting match.

Her hands are as bloody as Bush**'s. She should be dealt with FIRST, no holds barred.

The thing we call our government is rotten to the core....

Youbetcha. And NO party is exempt from the dirty dealings. Neither of them.

Pelosi made a deal w/ bu$hit, Inc when she took on the speakership (deal with the devil). The deal was NO IMPEACHMENT - no matter WHAT. Reasons behind it, for one, is likely the OP here, and others we may or may not be aware of.

there's going to come a point where it's no longer smart for other Dems to stand with her. she needs to be cut loose.

is that Pelosi (a) doesn't have the power to impeach Bush by herself and (b) she can count votes and knows that the votes aren't there to even authorize the impeachment process to begin (and, no, the vote to refer Kucinich's resolution to the Judiciary is not a vote to authorize an impeachment inquiry.

If true, we have a sickness, a cancer in our government.

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

Please tell me you're joking.

Read the DU rules. I'm willing to argue the facts.
I'm not willing to abide such unreasoned accusations.
I don't think DU admins should allow the rules to be bent either.

This is not a damn freeper forum. Pat Robertson can get away with baseless innuendo on MSNBC,
but it does not have to be tolerated here, where we can actually speak back. Restore reason and critical thinking!!

Pelosi was part of the "Gang of Eight". She was briefed on the black site prisons, the waterboarding and the wiretaps. How would you characterize her failure to raise an objection and her current refusal to impeach?

You just flunked basic logic. Asserting a negative illustrates you are just blowing wind.

When people discuss the facts, fine. When they trump up crap, I dissent.

If Pelosi had publicly raised objections, the idea that you and I would not have heard of it is ludicrous.

Her lack of private objection has been documented for years, especially during the initial briefing (http://rawstory.com/news/2007/Pelosi_did_not_object_to_waterboarding_1209_af.html). Pelosi went so far as to penalize the one Gang of Eight member (Jane Harman) who DID raise objections by removing her committee chair. Not exactly "trumped up" in my book.

Harman and Pelosi were briefed on the administration's interrogation techniques in late 2002 and Harman's letter was sent in 2003, yet Pelosi made no effort to force Harman from her spot as the Ranking Democrat on the Intelligence committee during the 109th Congress. In fact, the main problem that Pelosi had with Harman was that she was insufficiently critical of the bush administration. Indeed, Harman had the support of the Blue Dogs, which should tell you something.

But since the accusations are firmly grounded in fact, I think this a fair topic of discussion.

To paraphrase Teddy Roosevelt, To announce that there must be no criticism of the (Speaker of the House), or that we are to stand by the (Speaker of the House), right or wrong, is not only unpatriotic and servile, but is morally treasonable to the American public.

This falls short of asserting a negative or outright deceptions,
but it is also flawed because you are saying "the accusations" without specifying which.

That should read "if" and not "since" and then there will, of course, be general agreement.

Here is a fact. Freeper trolls sneak in here all the time, and make accusations.
That is why we need to be specific. Are all accusations ever posted on DU "firmly grounded in fact." NO WAY!

about "Impeachment is off the table."

she is complicit in nothing. this is the kind of nonsense that can sink us in November.

sure as tootin' is not protecting ours.

How dare she?!