Pelosi promises congressional contempt charge for Harriet Miers (& impeachment not on agenda)

[Kadie]

Pelosi promises congressional contempt charge for Harriet Miers
Speaker reiterates impeachment is not on her agenda
Wyatt Buchanan, Chronicle Staff Writer

Saturday, July 21, 2007

Congress this week will take the next step to force the Bush administration to hand over information about the dismissal of U.S. attorneys and the politicization of the Justice Department, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi said Saturday.

The House Judiciary Committee will bring contempt of Congress charges against the administration this week, said the San Francisco Democrat. She did not specify who the subject of the action would be, but Pelosi spokesman, Brendan Daly, said later it would be former White House counsel Harriet Miers, who defied a House Judiciary Committee subpoena to appear.

snip...
Pelosi also reiterated Saturday that she would not engage in what would perhaps be the biggest confrontation possible with the White House -- seeking the impeachment of Bush over the Iraq war.

snip...
"Look, it's hard enough for us to end the war. I don't know how we would be successful in impeaching the president," Pelosi said.

She did note that calls for the president's removal are not coming just from San Francisco.

"I'm not unsympathetic to the concern people have -- I hear it all over the country. People here have said to me, 'Well, people on the left want the president to be impeached.' I hear it across the board across the country. It's not just the left," Pelosi said.

more...
http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2007/07/21/BAGKTR4SJC3.DTL&tsp=1

[Greeby]

1. Not your agenda, maybe

But latest word from Conyers is that it's three co-sponsors away

[Me.]

2. It Isn't Her Place To Declare Anything Off The Table

Not only is a stupid move strategically, it's also undemocratic.

[EFerrari]

3. "I hear it across the board across the country."

GOOD! Nancy, set the table!

[mod mom]

4. It's not that the people WANT him to be impeached, he deserves it, if we follow

the laws.

[MonkeyFunk]

5. Yep

"I don't know how we would be successful in impeaching the president."

Get her 18 votes in the Senate, and she'll set the table faster than you can blink. But I'm glad that in the meantime she's not going on wild goose chases.

[Alexander]

6. Contempt is a start. Maybe that will lead to impeachment.

I noticed the Speaker did not say impeachment was still "off the table".

[mmonk]

7. It's not just about the war Madame Speaker.

It's about the rule of law. It's about the Constitution and it's checks and balances. It's about the war crimes act. It's about the Geneva Convention. It's about incarceration without trial and torture. It's about ignoring laws through signing statements and spying on Americans without a warrant. It's about Katrina and forged documents and outing CIA agents. It's also about your job. It's a character issue you cannot fail without failing the citizens of the United States.

[Nite Owl]

8. Right

so what is it that they just refuse to understand? Pelosi is one the best of the best of them, can they actually be that dense, I just don't get what it is they don't get!!

[mmonk]

12. I have no answer.

Some say it's because we don't have 2/3rds majority in the senate so therefore it shouldn't be tried. Would impeachment ever be tried then if it depended on being under those constraints? Something smells. But I'll shut up for now.

[snappyturtle]

20. Perfect!! n/t

[Phredicles]

9. Why contempt of congress, and not inherent contempt?

If I understand right, she's setting things up so as to have to go through the Justice Department. Why?

[Jackpine Radical]

17. I think she wants to make them actually refuse to serve the subpoenas.

Then they will have tried all less-drastic avenues before sending in their own gendarmes.

[MonkeyFunk]

21. because going

through a legal process is preferable to an extra-judicial arrest.

[IChing]

25. Bullshit it is meaningless and weightless and you know it

It is not "preferable" except to you and your continuation of this farce.

[MonkeyFunk]

26. Of course it's preferable,

politically.

We don't want the President to detain people extra-judicially, and we shouldn't want the congress to do the same. Going through the courts is always preferable.

[IChing]

27. "Going through the courts is always preferable."

and the justice department? These days?

You really trust this cabal don't you?

[MonkeyFunk]

29. Nope

don't be silly.

If the justice department shuts it down, then congress has a much better reason to use inherent contempt. But it shouldn't be the opening gambit.

Thank god Congress isn't populated by petulant children.

[IChing]

30. the opening gambit needs to be played with high stakes

Not with your 25 cent poker high school mentality and your candy ass mentality.

If you play by that game you are suggesting it is a waste of time
and you know it. The stakes will be raised slowly until
these fuckers are out of office and you know it.

[MonkeyFunk]

36. voting a charge of contempt

is pretty high stakes.

Petulant floor-stomping isn't wise politics.

[IChing]

38. Why do you keep using synonyms for childish

just like OMC? What next extremist?

[MonkeyFunk]

42. because

I think demanding instant gratification in politics IS childish.

[nadinbrzezinski]

57. Ok let me use two small words that you might not understand

CONSTITUTIONAL CRISIS

Is this clear enough for you, or are you missing that?

[OPERATIONMINDCRIME]

65. Cause He's Rational And Perceptive.

And I love how famous I've gotten that people now use me in outside discussions as reference.

I'm like a celebrity! I love it!

Autographs anyone? Autographs? Of COURSE I'll take a picture with you and your kids. Just step right up! OMC's got love for everybody!

:spray:

[me b zola]

41. Do you know how I know when someone who posts here is working for them?

You all talk down to us and belittle us the same as they do.

All of your politically "smart":eyes: measured moves have already costs us most of the Constitution and is anologous to a firefighter knocking on the door of a burning building and waiting to be shown in while the people are inside burning to death.

Enough already.

[MonkeyFunk]

43. who is that I'm working for...

exactly?

What kind of arrogance is that makes someone think that the only reason someone could disagree with them is because they're paid to do so?

perhaps you're just wrong.

[me b zola]

48. It is not that we disagree,

As my reply to you indicated, it is the tone that you take with people who you disagree with. You speak down to us and about us in the same manner as Schummer & Rahm. And it is always on policy matters when the leadership tries to distance themselves from their base.

Thank god Congress isn't populated by petulant children.

Petulant floor-stomping isn't wise politics.

I think demanding instant gratification in politics IS childish.


I don't think that you were posting here at the time when others like you who mimick the talking points put out by the leadership were calling those of us who were crying out to be heard, the "looney left". The leadership had at that same time period also taken to making public statements calling those of us who wanted to end the war by the same slur. Funny how both groups of people stopped using that slur against us at the same time.

Now I haven't heard the leadership call us "petulant children", but that certainly is how they treat us.


BTW, you didn't address the analogy that I made.

[MonkeyFunk]

50. it's all a matter of perspective

people talk down to me as a Bush-lover, a republican-enabler, a constitution-hater.

Your position isn't superior to mine, either morally or politically. Your side engages in plenty of insults, condescension and (not-so) veiled accusations - like accusing me of "working for" somebody.

Do you need a ladder to get off that horse?

[me b zola]

52. Interesting choice of words

Your side...

Well, my side is composed of every shade of Democratic voter on this board. From conservative Dems, to moderates, to Liberals/progressives, my side is concerned that unless congress holds this administration accountable for it's actions and lawlessness we will have set a precident that effectively makes our Constitution--and the rule of law--null and void. We rightfully fear for the future of the US.

Your side is concerned with politically "smart" moves that will not upset the talking heads on cable news. Your side is concerned with herding the base (that would be we who donate, canvass, and are politically aware) into following the leadership, even if we are being lead off of a cliff.


Many of us are aware that the leadership is looking for a way to manufacture a new base like the republicans did. And that, after all, is one of the largest differences between the two parties. Democratic power comes from the bottom up, and republican power is authoritarian and a few powerful people at the top dictate to their constituents what the agenda is.

I can't speak for the people who have called you Bush-lover, a republican-enabler, a constitution-hater, but I can well imagine that in your posts they hear the voice of the leadership talking down them as we watch the Constitution burn and they are frustrated, just as I am.

I have never suggested that my position is superior to yours, either morally or politically. On the contrary, the tone you take in some of your posts calling us petulent children suggests that you believe that your position is superior.

Yes, what nerve I have, what sort of "high horse" are we simple surfs sitting upon to expect our elected officials to represent the will of the people, to uphold the Constitution and the rule of law. If that is how the leadership see us, then they are part of the cancer that is eating away at the very foundation of the US.


You are correct about one thing. It is a matter of perspective.

[mmonk]

31. If Pelosi ever changed her mind about her positions, would you

change along with her or hold your current positions?

[MonkeyFunk]

35. I imagine

Pelosi would change her opinion when a successful impeachment was viable, at which point I would agree that it should be pursued.

[mmonk]

39. You mean an assured conviction in the Senate before the process, I gather.

That is conjecture. Are you willing to withhold it on conjecture? I just can't take that position. But so be it. I'll keep trying to ask questions though to try and understand that position.

[MonkeyFunk]

51. How about a reasonable chance?

right now there are at least 49 confirmed no votes. You need to get that number down to 22.


So, let's be reasonable and when you get it down to 25, then we can talk.

[mmonk]

61. I do not believe the Speaker of the House is polling

republican members of the Senate on impeachment. I cannot get my mind around the idea the Speaker of the House lets Senate republicans determine her course of actions concerning the executive branch of government's attack and dismantling of the checks and balances of our system of government without the most vigorous defense allowable. Im not much of a follower and I need the most information possible as to why this is happening. I'm not stopping until I can be satisfied as to the reasons, and I will remain skeptacle and suspicious and I want to know where all of this coming from and who.

[mmonk]

63. Also, why doesn't she use that same principle concerning

legislation? In order to get things passed legislatively, she has to go through both getting veto proof majorities from republicans as well as endure the veto threat and signing statements.

[IChing]

37. The thing is

they are playing out the clock
and that clock is such that they
except to go home with all the chips

The gamble of the bet needs to be upped to what
is really at stake, the constitution

Otherwise it is just a farce


Pelosi ,as a speaker, needs to let the players, who are the people
tell her what we the people are willing to bet.
Conyers and Waxman are key people playing
this legislature game on the discussion if we have a democracy.

She is in a position that she can't say too much
without showing out her hand.


Pelosi in 2007

[mmonk]

45. Why say it's off the table in the first place?

That's pretty definitive. If she decides to go for impeachment, she will then be called a liar. If she is going to charge "inherent contempt", how is not saying so making her position stronger? And if she just goes for contempt, how is that better since this president believes in something called the unitary executive and will do as he always does and ignore it all and challenge congress to do something about it? When is anyone going to get it? This is all so bizarre.

[AndyTiedye]

33. Bush** Has Already Said The Justice Department Will Ignore Contempt of Congress

[IChing]

40. So Monkey butt says we should play that game and test it in the courts

the same court that is controlled by the bush administration in DC?

How long will that take?

[AndyTiedye]

44. About 5 Minutes

Has the USSC EVER ruled against Bush** in its current configuration?

[IChing]

46. No they could play with it as long as it takes

to put it off.

Then what? Why would they rule immediately for Bush that would force inherent contempt?

[AndyTiedye]

60. Because That Will End Up in the USSC Too

[Ghost in the Machine]

59. "Thank god Congress isn't populated by petulant children."

Yes, thankfully for us, it is populated by children who have been abused for the last 12 years by a republicon controlled majority. Abused children who were forced into the basement and backrooms of the House and Senate who have broken free, yet still remain afaraid of their oppressors.

They remind me of the dumbasses in the so called 'horror' movies like friday the 13th, halloween, or one of the other ones where the victim knocks the bad guy down with a shovel then runs off without finishing the bad guy off... only to be killed by the bad guy a little later...

My philosophy has always been: When ya got 'em by the balls.. SQUEEZE! because it's totally true that when you have them by the balls, their hearts and minds will follow...

[AntiFascist]

10. Very interesting, "impeaching Bush" does not address HR 333 which is about Cheney

I told my rep: I appreciate Rep. Pelosi's political position, where impeaching Bush and Cheney would then make her next in line to be president, and as such she could become a prime target of the right-wing. This might hurt the Democratic Party in the event that she suddenly supported impeachment proceedings. This is why others should start the ball rolling, as Rep. Conyers suggests.

[NoodleyAppendage]

11. Worthless. We're in a street fight with the Neocons and she wants to play fair. SCREW THAT.

I get it, I get it. We're Dems and we do things better...blah, blah, blah.

The Dictator in Chief and his neocon brood are single-handedly dismantling our country, and Pelosi wants to play it slow with any process to stem the their tide. WTF?

This is a STREET FIGHT and I want some Bush balls kicked. Damn it!

J

[AndyTiedye]

34. Spell It Out. We are In a Street Fight, Empty Handed. They're NOT

[Whoa_Nelly]

13. Gosh, Madam Speaker!

I believe that's MY agenda, and that of a very large percentage of American citizens, who intend to have impeachment ON the table! You represent us, Madam Speaker, are charged with upholding our Constitution and Rule of Law!

You do not dictate, frame, or otherwise own the agenda, Mrs. Pelosi. You lead in democracy FOR the citizens, not just for a party.

[Pastiche423]

24. What she ^ said

Plus, I am going to call her office every single day until she upholds her duty to protect our Constitution.

[tularetom]

14. The question should be does she think bush has violated the

constitution and the laws derived therefrom. If her answer is yes, she has NO CHOICE whether or not to begin impeachment proceedings. It is her obligation under that same constitution to do so. It doesn't matter whether or not there is political support for such an action (I think she'd be surprised at how much support there actually is) the founding fathers intended for the "People's House" to impeach any chief executive who took on excessive powers.

If Pelosi fails to bring impeachment proceedings to the House (after she has been convinced that the bush gang has violated the constitution) she has failed to do her job and should be removed from her post.

[aquart]

15. See, to me, that's the correct answer.

BUT I am also damn sure they've known about the corruption and violations from day one. They had six years of it before they took over. The problem is bringing not merely the country, BUT THE GODDAMNED CONGRESS to see it that way, which means a sizable number of Republicans as well as the most stupid of the Democrats. Just and right as it may be, it will not work if it's a party-line vote. It won't, dammit all to hell.

[MonkeyFunk]

22. Where in the constitution

is congress obligated to impeach?

[still_one]

16. Pathetic So what will the speaker say when the executive branch declares marshal law?

It will be too late then

[AndyTiedye]

32. A Declaration of Martial Law Is the Most Likely Response by the Regime to Impeachment

[stimbox]

18. Hey Nancy listen to your constituents!!!!

Proposition J

Adopting a Policy Calling for the Impeachment of President Bush and Vice President Cheney
City of San Francisco

Majority Approval Required
:thumbsup: Pass: 133,042 / 58.53% Yes votes
94,282 / 41.47% No votes

http://smartvoter.org/2006/11/07/ca/sf/meas/J/

[partylessinOhio]

19. Madame Squeaker, I don't know how you keep a straight face

defending your flame boy!

Are you so vacant upstairs that you don't know your crush has done much more against the Constitution than his illegal war/invasion of Iraq?

:puke:

[IChing]

23. "I'm not unsympathetic to the concern people have

OK inherent contempt or the whole thing is a scam...

believe me

[OmmmSweetOmmm]

28. Over the war? How about all the other illegal shit he's done? If Pelosi doesn't support

Impeachment, she's just another enabler.

[AndyA]

47. Nancy, you don't need to impeach Bush based on the Iraq war.

Have you not been paying attention?

Pick something else, there's plenty to choose from.

The impeachment of George Bush is not just about Iraq. It goes much, much deeper than that.

And you're hearing what the American people want, and you still aren't willing to do what they want. Do you really expect to keep your seat? Not on your life, honey.

Get to work. Impeach Bush.

[Jack Rabbit]

49. We might be better served if the Speaker were silent on the issue of impeachment

Everybody knows that both Bush and Cheney are targets for impeachment and that the only real question is not whether either of them have committed impeachable offenses, but whether enough Republicans will be honest enough to admit it. One who saya that Bush or Cheney did not manipulate intelligence to fabricate a case for war against Iraq or that Cheney did not conspire to unmask a covert agent or that Bush was unaware of Justice Department schemes to remove honest US Attorneys and replace then with voter-caging hacks has no more credibility than one who says that the Earth is flat and motionless.

This raises a not very remote possibility that, for the first time in US history, the Speaker of the House will be elevated to the presidency.

Ms. Pelosi cannot keep this thing bottled up any longer. Impeachment is on the table as of this weekend. She have to learn to live with it although it puts her in an awkward position. She cannot be seen to be coveting the presidency. Frankly, I doubt she wants to be president. She would much rather spend her twilight years looking after grandchildren and great-grandchildren than looking after lunatics like Kim Jong Il and Mahmoud Ahmadinejad. Nevertheless, she can object until she's blue in the face, few will believe her denials of aspiring to power.

So it will be up to Conyers and Waxman and committee chairs to lead the assault.

Let the games begin.

[AntiFascist]

58. She would only have to be President for 1 year or so...

I think the big issue is that the right-wing would point to her saying that she is only doing this to take over the presidency - how dare a liberal female try and do this! The stupid right-wing echo chamber would pick up on this and it could turn into a type of swiftboating. Maybe better to work through Conyers, then when the momentum has built sufficiently she will switch and simply be going along with other leaders.

[Land Shark]

53. Conyers says 3 more reps and he will FILE impeachment w/ or w/o Pelosi

three more reps he will FILE impeachment, with or without Nancy Pelosi. See http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=132x3392226

[KoKo]

64. BUT...can Conyers do this on his own Without Nancy's Approval...

That's the big question. Would Conyers be working to force her hand? Or, did she agree to Censure first and then will allow Conyers to do "Inherent Contempt." Nancy knows that Bush has already said that Executive Privilege covers all those who've been served subpoenas.

[kath]

54. Ms. Pelosi - Did you, or did you not , take an oath to protect and defend the Constitution?

It's time for you to uphold that oath.

NOW.

[nadinbrzezinski]

55. Madame Speaker should I remind you

that in 1989, a certain George H Walker bush took the oath of office?

Perhaps I shoudl also remind you that your party expected to take the WH and did not bother impeaching both Raegan and Bush over Iran Contra, since you were going to win the WH in 1988

Care to tell me how you could be SO DAMN WRONG back then and exactly how damn wrong you will be again.

[nadinbrzezinski]

56. Oh and I am being remiss

Send Nancy copies of this book

http://www.amazon.com/Genius-Impeachment-Founders-Cure-Royalism/dp/1595581405

Her answers as to what to do are there, not only due to her oath but also the political calculus

[dkofos]

62. What a leader.

"Look, it's hard enough for us to end the war. I don't know how we would be successful in impeaching the president," Pelosi said.

It wasn't hard to end the war, you caved.
You didn't have to vote on the supplemental, but you caved again and funded the war(MERCENARIES).

I hope you loose your next election, because that is all you really seem to care about.