Based on the definition of accomplice in my edition of Black's Law Dictionary

[JDPriestly]

do you really think that Nancy Pelosi was an accomplice? I don't.

Here are some legal definition of "accomplice."

One who knowingly, voluntarily and with common intent unites with the principal offender in the commission of a crime. {case citation omitted]
One who is in some way concerned or associated in commission of crime; partaker of guilt; one who aids or assists, or is an accessory. {case citation omitted] Equally concerned in the commission of crime. {case citation omitted] One who is guilty of complicity in crime charged, either by being present and aiding or abetting in it, or having advised and encouraged it, though absent from place when it was committed, though mere presence, acquiescence, or silence, in the absence of a duty to act, is not enough, no matter how reprehensible it may be, to constitute one an accomplice. One is liable as an accomplice to the crime of another if he gave assistance or encouragement or failed to perform a legal duty to prevent it with the intent thereby to promote or facilitate commission of the crime.

Black's Law Dictionary (6th ed.)pg. 17

Complicity: A state of being an accomplice; participation in guilt. {case citation omitted] Involvement in crime as principal or as accessory before the fact. May also refer to activities of conspirators.


Black's Law Dictionary (6th ed.) pg. 285

This portion of the definition strikes me as most important.

Nancy Pelosi's "mere presence, acquiescence, or silence, in the absence of a duty to act" would not be "enough, no matter how reprehensible" would not make her an accomplice.


IMO, so far, there is no evidence that Nancy Pelosi was "knowingly, voluntarily and with common intent" united in the commission of the crime of torture by the Bush administration. Her approval or disapproval of their torture was essentially irrelevant, especially since they had already tortured at least once, apparently, before they told her anything about it. (She was briefed only once before being replaced as the top Democrat on the Intelligence Committee.)

Further, Nancy Pelosi did not assist in the commission of the torture. She was not involved in giving any of the orders. She claims that she was merely informed that torture had been approved and did not even know until later that it had actually been performed. Whether she is misrepresenting what she was told can only be decided by a court. We really don't have any evidence that she was told anything different from what she has said she was told. The CIA's memos and notes are hearsay. You would have to cross-examine the CIA's witnesses on this.

Nancy Pelosi was not, by any stretch of the imagination, "equally concerned" in the commission of the torture.

Nancy Pelosi was not "present" and did not aid or abet the commission of the torture. There is no evidence that she advised or encouraged it, "though absent from place when it was committed." We have no evidence that Nancy Pelosi assisted or encouraged the torture. Nor did she fail "to perform a legal duty to prevent it with the intent thereby to promote or facilitate commission of the crime." She had a legal duty to be silent about everything she was told in the hearing.

Bob Graham pretty much supports Pelosi's statements.

I think we need prosecutions to sort this out. A Truth Commission would never clear the names of the innocent people in this. It would just look like a cover-up. If Pelosi is telling the truth and willing to stand on it she should take the lead in requesting prosecutions of those who are responsible.

Just to be thorough: 2004 comment on a definition of accessory after the fact from a Model Penal Code

Accessory after the fact
MPC §242.3 : 5 conditions
i. Harbors or conceals the other, or
ii. Provides or aids in providing a weapon, transportation, disguise or other means of avoiding apprehension or effecting escape, or
iii. Conceals or destroys evidence
iv. Warns the other of impeding discovery
v. Volunteers false info to a law enforcement officer (new by MPC)

law.usc.edu/students/orgs/jlsa/assets/docs/CRIMcode%20-%20spring%202004.doc

Confession: I posted this in response to a video on this by Cenk, but I don't think very many people saw it. I'm interested in what you think after reading these definitions.