Pelosi NOT Trying To Block Rove Contempt Charge

[Political Tiger]

Pelosi Not Trying To Block Rove Contempt Charge

...Committee chairman John Conyers (D-MI) responded by warning that the committee could move to hold Rove in contempt of Congress if he fails to show.

But now, liberal blogs are buzzing with an unsourced report that Speaker Nancy Pelosi is blocking Conyers from following through with the contempt charge. The rumor has spread far and wide on left-leaning blogs and message boards, from Democratic Underground to TPM Cafe.

And apparently it's false. Pelosi's communications director Brendan Daly sent us the following statement:

Those reports are completely untrue -- the Speaker has not urged the Judiciary Committee not to seek contempt charges against Karl Rove.

The committee can seek a contempt citation if it decides to do so. (Fyi, Henry Waxman's Oversight Committee is looking at a contempt citation against the attorney general over documents. The Speaker has no objections to that -- it's the committee's decision.)

A source with the House Judiciary Committee also denied Pelosi was opposing contempt charges.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/07/09/pelosi-not-trying-to-bloc_n_111673.html

[Enrique]

1. but Pam Miles said it

she's never lied to me before. :shrug:

[sharp_stick]

3. And she had firm commitment

Shit, I guess Conyers must be lying now huh. I wonder how far up the mea culpa will climb on the greatest page? Always amazed how fast people will run with bullshit if they like the story.

[EFerrari]

11. What mea culpa? A politican has denied something.

:crazy:

[A-Schwarzenegger]

17. And she's a Democratic Activist!

:*

[roguevalley]

58. jeez, I am tired of politicians saying they COULD hold someone in

contempt if they don't do something. DO IT!

[Tim4319]

2. I hope this is true!

I have been reading a lot unpleasant things about Nancy Pelosi. Karl Rove need to be the first in a long line Bush Administration members to go on trial.

[Freddie Stubbs]

5. Some people are very quick to believe the worst about Democrats

[Fovea]

9. I didn't think a bad thing about Conyers or Waxman

And no other actual Democrats were mentioned, IMO.

[EFerrari]

10. "I've known too many Spaniards." -- The Princess Bride.

:)

[formercia]

47. For good reason

If you are innocent, God has a place in Heaven for you.

The Grand Inquisitor.

[elocs]

4. Who cares if it is true or not? It makes for such a good rumor

for those who are pissed at her. I am betting we will see many posts here by those who are convinced it is true.

[Fovea]

6. Now that Pelosi has denied it

I feel a lot better.
Don't you?

[MonkeyFunk]

7. And this won't get one one-hundredth all the PELOSI IS A TRAITOR threads got

There was never any reason to believe this was true. Thanks for posting this.

[JackBeck]

14. "A lie can travel halfway around the world while the truth is still putting on its shoes."

Which is why I just sit back and wait for a few days, instead of participating in the weekly tarring & feathering.

[Blarch]

62. "never any reason"

LOL, thats a hoot.

She is protecting a war criminal. She declared Bush innocent before seeing any evidence.

Repeat. SHE IS PROTECTING A WAR CRIMINAL.

[MonkeyFunk]

63. No

she can count to 67, that's all.

[Zhade]

69. Yep. Let criminals walk, it's the American way!

Such cowardice.

[MonkeyFunk]

71. If the Judiciary committee voted out articles of impeachment tomorrow

Bush would still walk.

Don't be naive.

[Blarch]

72. It's a fact MF.

Won't you join us in reality ?

It's not her choice ...it's her duty.

[EFerrari]

8. The Judicary Committee source was Wasserman Schultz.

She was on Abrams yesterday.

And, I'm not impressed. Sorry. Official denials aren't louder than Pelosi's actions.

[redqueen]

39. DLC

Is there a pattern here?

[EFerrari]

40. I'm hating this. n/t

[redqueen]

44. It has the stench of manipulation.

To me, anyway.

[onenote]

67. here is wasserman schultz on Abrams ..and she says nothing about Pelosi blocking

the Committee. http://www.hotpotatomash.com/

So what are you referring to..

[TreasonousBastard]

12. My mind is made up-- don't confuse me with facts! Pelosi has...

to be the worst Speaker in history. and a criminal, to boot.

(Lots of people on DU and leftwing blogs said it, so it must be true.)

[FiveGoodMen]

13. What facts?

[TreasonousBastard]

16. One blogger has an anoymous source and you believe it, but...

everyone else in the whole world who would know about it denies it and they're lying.

"What facts," indeed.

[Enrique]

19. I don't trust anyone

except Pam Miles.

[EFerrari]

20. No. One person in Pelosi's office and one of her surrogates

is denying it while there is nothing in Pelosi's behavior to back up the denial.

Please.

[EFerrari]

23. And, I just called the District Office here.

She has not issued a statement.

You'd think if she supported the Chairman of the Judiciary Committee, she could have done that at a minimum. Or, if she didn't and had a good reason for that, she could have issued a statement in that regard.

What are people going to do who are working on campaigns and needing to answer questions? Why not just be up front so we can get on with it?

:shrug:

[FiveGoodMen]

26. Was that supposed to be an answer to "What facts?"

[TooBigaTent]

15. Has she said anything indicating support for a contempt charge? Didn't think so.

[Enrique]

18. aha!

touche!

[Robbien]

21. She doesn't have to ask the Judiciary not to seek charges

All she has to do is not support it, and it is DEAD.

She does not support it. That you can take to the bank.

[Enrique]

22. good save!

nicely done!

[Robbien]

28. Waxman, Conyers and Leahy have requested many much needed contempt charges against GOPers

in the last year or so. Pelosi supported none of them.

How many contempt charges have been placed since Dems took the majority---None

Funny how that works.

[Enrique]

33. sorry about Bolten and Miers

it must have been a crushing defeat for you when the dems cited them with contempt, so much so that you feel the need to rewrite history.

If the dems hold Rove in contempt, I'm sure you will forget about that too.

[Robbien]

42. Oh bull, the route she took for Meirs & Bolton was useless, on purpose

The subpoena contempt charges were filed with the loyal bushie Just US dept. The DoJ judge is of course reluctant to wade into the subpoena fight. Pelosi was trying to be diplomatic when she brought an unprecedented lawsuit to settle its subpoena fight against Bolton and Meirs. After all, congresscritters could've just arrested them for refusing to testify.


The judge's response?

Maybe they should have.

Congress should have used its own powers to hold the Josh Bolton and Harriet Miers in inherent contempt. Congress should have taken it upon themselves to enforce their own subpoenas.

[Enrique]

46. sickening dishonesty

you say all this crap and don't take any responsibility when someone points out it's not true.

[Robbien]

49. Dishonesty? Are Meirs and Bolton sitting in a jail cell right now and I missed it?

Contempt of Congress when worked correctly means a metal cot and bologna sandwiches.

[Enrique]

50. yeah, like I said

:puke:

[Robbien]

51. Sticking your fingers in your ears and murmering na na na na na

and using similies doesn't take away from the fact that no subpeonas have been issued by a Pelosi led congress.

Crawling up to loyal bushies Just Us Dept and mewing "here is a silly useless request for you to ignore, please do not be mad at me" is not what I call leadership.

[Enrique]

53. yet another lie

I won't bother refuting it because you will try slithering out of it like the slimiest neocon

Lies from the right :puke:

Lies supposedly from the left :puke:

[Robbien]

55. Good day to you too sir

And if I ever get into trouble, I would like the Pelosi/Enrique team to come after me thereby being free to do whatever I like, consequences being off the table. Nice.

[hootinholler]

57. WTF? What wasn't true?

Tell me please, I remember it the same way.

Yes it was sickening when they Congress did not pursue Inherent Contempt against Bolten and Meyers. There are many other that should be held in Inherent Contempt as well. Rice for one that has outstanding subpoenas. There are many documents under subpoena that have not been produced. The tenders of those should be held under Inherent Contempt as well.

Please, pray tell sir, where was the sickening dishonesty?

-Hoot

[Enrique]

65. "Pelosi supported no contempt charges"

"no contempt charges have been placed since the dems took the majority"

"no subpoenas have been issued by a Pelosi-led Congress"

filthy lies, all.

[hootinholler]

73. She supports none that are meaningful

With he condition of the DOJ, the only meaningful option is inherent contempt. The Judge said as much with the suit decision. You are holding up an orange and telling us it's a pear.

-Hoot

[BeHereNow]

24. Inthat case, I would like to hear her state that she IS encouraging contempt charges.

Sometimes, what people DON'T say reveals more than what they do.

Okay fine, she is not discouraging it.
That would mean she could publicly state that she IS.
No?

Half action is the same as no action in this case.
If she is to restore her standing with the people,
she needs to finish her sentence to the conclusion
that she supports the judiciary in seeking contempt
charges against a criminal.

So far, I've yet to hear her ever make a clear statement
to that effect.

Waiting,
BHN

[EFerrari]

27. Call and ask for one. I just did in the context of needing her position

while I work the upcoming campaigns.

:shrug:

[BeHereNow]

29. Indeed. Let us hear her position on what she IS doing.

She can prattle on all day about how she is NOT
discouraging the judiciary. To what end?

I want to hear that she is actively ENCOURAGING the
judiciary to pursue contempt of congress charges.

Otherwise, her contest of the the accusations means NOTHING.

BHN

[Ichingcarpenter]

37. I agree.... I want to hear her and Hoyer support it and

Then start whipping the democrats in line like they did on the FISA bill

[stimbox]

25. Brendan Daly is Dana Perino in drag...

The Pelosi Defense League will believe anything that comes out of Pelosi's office.

[EFerrari]

31. I really hate weasels and every time I call, I get too many of them.

I called the Speaker's Office and they tried to give me a machine. I didn't let them and asked for her Constituent's Office number.

I called that number and they told me there was no statement and tried to push me off on the web site. I asked if there was any statement at the web site to their knowledge? No. So, wtf were they wasting my time for?

Weaseling: To avoid making a direct statement at any cost to anyone for short term political gain. :grr:

[stimbox]

32. I hear ya Beth.

Pelosi is pissing off a lot of people these days.

[EFerrari]

35. I was out of it when Shirley ran, with health stuff and money stuff

so I couldn't do much.

But, if this person is still in office next time out, I will again support a challenger even if I have to run myself. If we're still here and Bush hasn't blown us to kingdom come or put us behind barbed wire.

[stimbox]

74. I hope you're doing better now.

I'd vote for you! :)

[frylock]

30. until the contempt charges are issued, i'll believe otherwise..

that's just how i do. inaction speaks louder than nancy's press sec.

[BeHereNow]

34. BINGO! Inaction is the same as complicity or discouraging the judiciary.

The end result is the same either way.
Until she makes a public statement in favor
of the judiciary pursuing charges, she should
realize that once again, she has made NO difference
at all in upholding the law and letting we, the people,
know that she is doing her job.

BHN

[Enrique]

36. yeah, bingo!

y'all got some real convincing spin to rationalize this debacle!

[frylock]

38. nobody is listening to you..

there is a reason why.

[Enrique]

43. cuz I'm rubbing your noses in it

you'd rather listen to each other explain to yourselves that you were right after all.

[EFerrari]

45. In what? Pelosi hasn't had the fortitude to issue a statement.

You're tilting with nothing. We've got years of her behavior on our side.

Maybe you should call her office and find out why she put you in this position.

[frylock]

48. you're funny..

keep the laughs a comin

[Zhade]

70. You wish SO HARD you were.

NT!

[vanboggie]

41. Impeachment is still off the table, isn't it?

She's a * enabler, period.

[progressoid]

52. But people used FUCK a lot in those threads so it must have been true.

Right? :shrug:

[elocs]

54. Yes, yes, I have heard that is true.

What is completely false is that those who constantly use "fuck" or its variations have limited vocabularies. It only appears that way because it is such a good word for little kids to use when they want to shock the grownups. :bounce: :bounce: :bounce:

[trof]

56. Statement from Pam Miles.

Just popped up in my inbox.
"My source on this is golden. They have NEVER been wrong, ever. I trust this source completely. I have been told, by another listserv member, to retract my statement, but unless and until I heard differently from my source...I stand by my statement."
Pam Miles
:shrug:

[EFerrari]

59. I was called out just as Pam is being called out

during Andy's crisis.

By the whole right wing nuttery - o -sphere and by a significant portion of DU. Everything I represented here turned out to be true and I've yet to hear from the many people who called me out as a liar. That's okay. Sometimes, it's hard to establish facts so they can be consumable.

I hope we can be careful before we go and repeat the same mistake again, and that we can be fair both to Pam and to Nancy.

[onenote]

66. then she should reveal her source

otherwise its utterly unsubstantiated.

[warren pease]

60. Without the word "inherent" in front of contempt, it's useless...

What's more, she knows it.

It's amazing to me that these people have so little dignity, honor, self-esteem, respect for their jobs or respect for the people who elected them that they continue to pull this shit and expect an uncritical public to just let them get away with it.

She would apparently rather stick to the "strategy" that's led to congress' current 9 percent approval rating. Her brilliant advisers seem to have convinced her that the DLC's right-tilting, take-no-risks style of governance is the only way dems can win elections.

This despite most polls showing that the electorate has absolutely had it with the neocon wingnuts and their gift for turning everything they touch to merde.

They're so used to acting like circus clowns that they seem to have no obvious difficulty behaving like complete incompetents and wankers, giving the entire executive branch a new reason to sit around laughing themselves into oxygen deprivation every evening.

No "inherent" means no possibility of enforcement. And when the damn fool has taken congress' most powerful weapon against an insane executive "off the table," how is it possible to see her and the assholes who hang around with her as accomplices in the Bushies' global destruction machine?

She must feel pretty damn confident that she can beat Cindy in November to act in direct opposition to the priorities of her constituents. I hope she's wrong and that Cindy manages to kick her ass clear across the bay and through the uprights at the Your Name Here Colosseum.


wp

[Raster]

61. Thank you!

:yourock:

[nam78_two]

64. Good to know-thanks for posting.nt

[Zhade]

68. Best way to prove it is to ISSUE ONE, you coward.

NT!