Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

Nancy Pelosi: "You can't impeach a president because you disagree with his policies"

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread
This topic is archived.
Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion (1/22-2007 thru 12/14/2010) Donate to DU
 
sabra Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Aug-13-08 10:03 AM
Original message
Nancy Pelosi: "You can't impeach a president because you disagree with his policies"

http://www.marinij.com/marinnews/ci_10185801

<snip>

"I don't agree that it's a good idea to impeach the president unless we have a real case against him," Pelsoi said, when asked by the Marin Independent Journal about the criticism during a reception that preceded her talk. "You can't impeach a president because you disagree with his policies. You have to have some high crimes and misdemeanors."

Regarding the effort to cut off spending for the war in Iraq, Pelosi said, "We just couldn't get the votes in the Senate. The House over and over again sent bills to end the war in a finite time and a date certain but couldn't get it past the 60 votes in the Senate. When we have a Democratic president, that will change."

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
meegbear Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Aug-13-08 10:05 AM
Response to Original message
1. And when we have a Democratic president ...
impeachment will be moot! :grr:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
supernova Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Aug-13-08 10:05 AM
Response to Reply #1
3. This whole thing just runs right over her head!
:grr:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Kablooie Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Aug-13-08 07:30 PM
Response to Reply #1
89. No it won't. The Republicans will push one through in the first few months. Watch.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
meegbear Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Aug-14-08 01:19 AM
Response to Reply #89
98. Yes, you are correct
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
WhoIsNumberNone Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Aug-14-08 02:31 AM
Response to Reply #89
105. Agreed-
The Republicans will start building their case to impeach Barack on January 21st. They will be blaming him when it rains.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
KharmaTrain Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Aug-14-08 12:50 PM
Response to Reply #1
119. But The REAL Crimes Won't
It goes way beyond two political figureheads...this corruption and criminality goes into virtually every branch of the federal government. REAL crimes...WAR crimes...not political ones. And, unfortunately, thanks to "executive privilidge", a DOJ totally compromised and serving as this regime's private attorneys and 33 GOOP Senators, a lot of the truth, the real crimes, remain hidden.

The statute on these crimes don't run out on January 20th...if anything, a new clock and day begins if there's a Democratic administration and larger Democratic majorities in both Houses. Most important is we gain back the Judiciary...where a backlog of subpoenas and other cases need to be addressed...by an INDEPENDENT PROSECUTOR...and then appropriate actions can be taken.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
avaistheone1 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Aug-14-08 06:00 PM
Response to Reply #1
127. Rare opportunity to hear/address/protest Nancy Pelosi IN THE FLESH in person TONIGHT
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
mmonk Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Aug-13-08 10:05 AM
Response to Original message
2. I can't stand when she pretends there isn't a case against
the most impeachable (based on administration actions) President in history.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
supernova Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Aug-13-08 10:09 AM
Response to Reply #2
13. Sadly
I don't think she's pretending. I think she really believes that he hasn't done anything legally wrong.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
1_cali_dem Donating Member (33 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Aug-13-08 10:21 AM
Response to Reply #13
25. What about WAR CRIMES?
Maybe he has'nt been convicted..........Was anybody else amazed at how straight faced W was while telling Russia not to violate the sovreign borders of another country? :puke: He Makes Me SICK!!!!!!!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
King Coal Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Aug-13-08 02:00 PM
Response to Reply #13
75. Oh, baloney.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
bdamomma Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Aug-13-08 10:55 AM
Response to Reply #2
47. well the American people or those who are awake
know we have a case for Impeachment, doesn't take a rocket scientist to know that crimes have been committed.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
gateley Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Aug-13-08 10:05 AM
Response to Original message
4. But you can impeach him for a blow job.
:grr:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
theoldman Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Aug-13-08 10:09 AM
Response to Reply #4
11. Why a blow job is worse than murder?
Probably for the same reason that adultery is OK if it was done many years ago.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Freddie Stubbs Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Aug-13-08 10:29 AM
Response to Reply #4
34. Pelosi voted against that
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
CrispyQ Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Aug-13-08 10:06 AM
Response to Original message
5. Nancy, Nancy, Nancy!
Is the slop that much better at the big boy trough?

Traitor.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
tomg Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Aug-13-08 10:06 AM
Response to Original message
6. What's that Nancy?
Oh so "You have to have some high crimes and misdemeanors." Gee, thanks for clearing that up. :sarcasm:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
whistle Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Aug-13-08 10:07 AM
Response to Original message
7. Nancy, we know that, Bush and Cheney have committed criminal acts, treason
...and dereliction of duty and those are impeachable offenses
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
bemildred Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Aug-13-08 10:07 AM
Response to Original message
8. The dissembling continues.
Congress is the sole interpreter of what high crimes and misdemeanors are, as the Republicans so aptly showed 10 years ago. So what she is really saying is that she is unwilling to call any of the Bushites' actions high crimes and misdemeanors, she thinks they are all OK.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
loyalsister Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Aug-13-08 06:08 PM
Response to Reply #8
81. She's saying that there's an argument against it
A bunch of like minded people talking can agree.
But, when legislators and legal scholars, some of which absolutely oppose it begin a discussion, the case for impeachment can be taken apart.
Intelligent individuals who understand how the legislature works and how complex arguments develop in it should be able to comprehend the fact that a pretty strong defense would be quickly mounted.
I really wish people would think this through a little more.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
bemildred Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Aug-13-08 08:22 PM
Response to Reply #81
93. You can make an argument for anything you like.
It's easy. It means nothing at all. Bush has had an argument for every one of his imbecilic moves. I'm talking about HER argument about why impeachment cannot be done. I really wish you would think this through a little more.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
truedelphi Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Aug-13-08 07:21 PM
Response to Reply #8
87. Bought off, paid off by the millions that
Edited on Wed Aug-13-08 07:22 PM by truedelphi
Di Feinstein's Husband's war accounts and contracts have brought that couple.

The above is only speculation, but that is how it usually goes in a Banana Republic - money buys the policies, by paying off the politicians...

I remember when we were a fucking great nation. But. Oh Well.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
LeftishBrit Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Aug-13-08 10:08 AM
Response to Original message
9. I wish someone had told that to Gingrich and Henry Hyde!
Realistically, I suppose they can't *convict* Bush and Cheney with only 50 Dems in the Senate. Pity!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
bdf Donating Member (430 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Aug-13-08 07:09 PM
Response to Reply #9
85. At this point, perhaps they can
Bush is so deeply unpopular that Repubs in Congress with narrow majorities have been given permission to diss him.

In order for the articles to go before the Senate, the House of Representatives has to have brought articles of impeachment. Much as the M$M would hate to cover the House of Reps doing that, they'd have to. As soon as one of them breaks ranks that one gets a bigger share of the viewing audience, so the rest have to follow. It would be widely discussed. The evidence would be analysed. And the majority of Americans would conclude, even before the articles go to the Senate, that Dick 'n' Dubya are deeply evil people who have committed many serious crimes against the American people.

Suppose you were a Repug in the Senate. Some of the shit flying at Dubya is going to hit you. Just the fact that the House passed articles of impeachment is enough to reduce your popularity a lot. So you have a choice. You can do a favour for your old buddy Dubya and absolutely fucking guarantee you lose at the next election. Or you can join in throwing shit at him which might convince some people in your state that you're really one of the good Republicans and not one of the bad ones. Voting for impeachment gives you a better chance of being re-elected so you can carry on in your corrupt ways.

The Republicans, especially the top pols, think only of "what's in it for me?" When Dubya was as the height of his power he was able to hand out favours. Dubya's now a lame duck, and the only favours he can hand out are pardons. But he's going to limit those pardons to the least he can get away with—those necessary to keep people who could implicate him in crimes out of the hands of DAs offering deals for turning state's evidence. Too many pardons might just trigger the very thing they were designed to prevent—Dubya being indicted.

So it's possible, if it actually happened, there'd be a good deal more support from Senate Repugs than they're saying there is when they're asked about it hypothetically. When push comes to shove, it's every Republican for him or herself. If they calculate that they're more likely to be better off by dumping on Dubya, they will.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
truebrit71 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Aug-13-08 10:08 AM
Response to Original message
10. Are you fucking mad?...You don't think he's committed any crimes at all?
You have GOT to be kidding, right?

Look, just go and see Congressman Kuicinich...he has some interesting pointers for you...

If you still don't think he's committed a crime, resign and get out of politics..

Good grief, she is about as useful as a kick-stand on a jackass...
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Malikshah Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Aug-13-08 10:09 AM
Response to Original message
12. Pelosi, you deluded hack.
You are an embarrassment to humanity.

You *do* know that you are going down in history as a pathetic enabler/co-conspirator right?!?!

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Bobbie Jo Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Aug-13-08 10:09 AM
Response to Original message
14. She cannot be that pathetically DENSE.
Edited on Wed Aug-13-08 10:10 AM by bobbiejo
She needs to come up with a new reason for her inaction. This one is truly pathetic. :eyes:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
1_cali_dem Donating Member (33 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Aug-13-08 10:24 AM
Response to Reply #14
28. Yes She CAN!!!!!
This May be a large part of the reason for the desperately low approval ratings she has helped rack up!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
tularetom Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Aug-13-08 10:10 AM
Response to Original message
15. How many crimes and misdemeanors does she want?
I don't have time to list them all but it wouldn't be hard to find a dozen or so if she really wanted to.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Brigid Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Aug-13-08 10:26 AM
Response to Reply #15
32. Exactly.
You got a couple of days, Nancy? We can list them for you.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
bdamomma Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Aug-13-08 10:57 AM
Response to Reply #32
51. maybe she should put her book tour on hold for the American people
to spell it out for her. stupid woman.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
bvar22 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Aug-13-08 01:42 PM
Response to Reply #51
72. d Shultz announced on his radio show yesterday....
....that her book is a HUGE flop.
According to Ed, she has sold only 4,000 copies.
:rofl:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
bdamomma Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Aug-14-08 01:34 PM
Response to Reply #72
121. who has the money to buy her book anyway!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Winterblues Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Aug-13-08 10:10 AM
Response to Original message
16. Remember when she was first elected Speaker and just had to have the biggest , fanciest office?
I knew then and there she was not going to be our champion.. :shrug: we get what we deserve I guess.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
bvar22 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Aug-13-08 11:36 AM
Response to Reply #16
56. The cosmetic surgery that stretched her face so tight that...
...she couldn't blink her eyes for a year was another clue.

Nancy parlayed her Congressional seat into a Seat at the Rich White Man Table in 2006.
She has NEVER looked back.



Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Solly Mack Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Aug-13-08 10:11 AM
Response to Original message
17. so, torture is just a policy and not a crime?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
mmonk Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Aug-13-08 10:14 AM
Response to Reply #17
18. The new purpose of Congress is to make the illegal legal.
They are the king's court.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Solly Mack Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Aug-13-08 10:14 AM
Response to Reply #18
19. Yep
Edited on Wed Aug-13-08 10:19 AM by Solly Mack
that means burglary was just Nixon policy and not a crime...cover up...another Nixon policy

Iran-Contra...just another policy

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
bdamomma Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Aug-13-08 10:59 AM
Response to Reply #17
52. and gutting the Amendments out of the Constitution is policy
Edited on Wed Aug-13-08 10:59 AM by alyce douglas
and not a crime, what total BS is she spewing they have no regard for the American people, laws of the land etc. whatsoever.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Solly Mack Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Aug-13-08 11:03 AM
Response to Reply #52
54. all just policy..albeit bad policy....just policy people disagree with
it's not like he broke any laws....just implemented bad policy

I said a while back that the reason they use the "bad policy" talking point is so crimes can be framed as a matter of policy disagreement instead of what they really are

and if it's bad policy then there's no reason to impeach because many presidents had bad policy...

I said a long time ago


Just part of the cover up
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
cascadiance Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Aug-13-08 10:14 AM
Response to Original message
20. A congress person that doesn't understand or pretends not to understand lawbreaking should be fired!

Pelosi, you are a lame excuse for a human being! We need a new Speaker TODAY!

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
suston96 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Aug-13-08 10:16 AM
Response to Original message
21. I see people learned little or nothing from the Clinton impeachment and trial.....
There will not be enough votes in the Senate to remove Bush.

To have an impeachment only for its spectacle is something a warped media would be pushing but not a serious citizenry that needs legislation about fuel costs, a crumbling national infrastructure, senseless wars in the Middle East, and so much more.

Think, people! Think! And remember how our government ground to a senseless halt during the Clinton impeachment and senate trial.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Bob Dobbs Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Aug-13-08 10:23 AM
Response to Reply #21
26. So let busholini inc. run their criminal enterprise with impunity.
What rule of law?

Pelosi is being blackmailed, but there is no excuse for The People not to demand justice no matter the vote count.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Two Americas Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Aug-14-08 02:54 AM
Response to Reply #21
108. an analogy
Edited on Thu Aug-14-08 02:55 AM by Two Americas
Mommy! Mommy! Daddy is drunk again and hitting us and yelling at us!

Now, children we need to focus on getting things done. Right now it is dinner time. We can't call the police on your father just because we disagree with his behavior.

Mommy! Daddy tipped over the dining room table and is throwing plates at us!

Children, I told you this was just a distraction. Besides, Daddy promised he would leave tomorrow, and by the time the police got here he will be passed out anyway. Right now we need to get things done. So let's get to that laundry.

Mommy! Mommy! Daddy tore up our clothes and poured laundry soap on us, and now he is throwing clothes hangers at us!

Think this through children. Think! All of this is just a distraction. Mommy told you that she has met a nice new man, and in a few months he will be here and will be your new Daddy. Let's focus on that and not waste our time and energy on old Daddy. Right now we don't have enough dollars to throw Daddy out, so we need to work towards having $60. Let's concentrate on that.

A few months later...

Mommy! He's back! And he has a gun!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
HCE SuiGeneris Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Aug-14-08 03:46 AM
Response to Reply #108
110. A question.
How do you feel about the the tactics being employed by PUMAs? Is their course of action reasonable?

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Two Americas Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Aug-14-08 12:11 PM
Response to Reply #110
116. not seeing the connection
I don't know who they are, nor what their tactics or course of action are.

The party is divided. It seems like more of an expression of that than a cause of that to me.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Ian_rd Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Aug-13-08 10:16 AM
Response to Original message
22. Once again, "worthless" is redefined by Nancy Pelosi.
Poor Merriam and Webster can't keep up.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Mist Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Aug-13-08 10:19 AM
Response to Original message
23. What the fuck do they have on her? She's not stupid, so I'll vote for she's
being blackmailed/threatened.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
MrSlayer Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Aug-14-08 12:48 AM
Response to Reply #23
97. Or she's in on it.
The Neos are not just Republicans you know.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
stillcool Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Aug-13-08 10:20 AM
Response to Original message
24. Nancy the Sweeper...
needs a better broom or a bigger rug.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
proud2BlibKansan Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Aug-13-08 10:24 AM
Response to Original message
27. She's right about the war votes
But it sure would have been nice to have more than a few brave Democrats speak out against the war. They may have been able to change the minds of a few brave Republicans. Of course, we will never know now.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Triana Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Aug-13-08 10:25 AM
Response to Original message
29. WTF!!! - WTF PLANET does this woman live on. Has she EVER READ the Constitution?!
:mad:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
bamacrat Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Aug-13-08 10:25 AM
Response to Original message
30. Ask the families of the 7000 plus that have died under his watch if he should stay in office.
Bush lied, its been documented. His administration ordered the firing of many US attorneys based on political affiliation alone, its been documented. They forged a letter linking Saddam to 9/11, and uranium, again documented.

Yet his policies are why we want him out? Clinton was impeached because he lied. The pukes in charge wasted no time either, there were no worries about how it might affect the country.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Brigid Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Aug-13-08 10:25 AM
Response to Original message
31. No, but you can impeach him for . . .
"High crimes and misdemeanors." Or better yet, help President Obama to find the most competent AG he can and then send that AG after these criminals.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
suston96 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Aug-13-08 10:29 AM
Response to Original message
33. Instead of spending all this time and energy on useless impeachment talk.....
...get to work on electing more congresspeople, especially in the senate where at least 60 are needed to get anything done.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Two Americas Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Aug-14-08 02:42 AM
Response to Reply #33
107. it is not an either/or
I don't see how those two things could be seen as mutually exclusive. Bringing criminals to justice, or at the very least bringing the crimes to light, is "getting something done." This notion that "getting things done" and doing what is legal, principled and morally right are somehow antagonistic to one another is a big part of the problem.

I say stop anything from getting done until justice is served. Do you really imagine that by letting the perpetrators walk, and letting their crimes remain largely hidden, and allowing them to write the history on this, that then somehow in that atmosphere of compromise and complicity anyone is going to get anything done for the American people?

We have moved on and gotten over it too many times in the past, supposedly so we could "move on" and "get things done." That is the problem, not the solution. Every time we have listened to the argument you are presenting here it has come back to haunt us.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
suston96 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Aug-14-08 12:06 PM
Response to Reply #107
115. Read my link to the Constitutional Convention minutes....
Impeachment and removal is a political process. It has happened rarely and it turned out to be political each time.

Nixon really broke the law and should have been prosecuted AFTER he left office. But he was pardoned.

Not sure if I linked this on this thread: http://web.me.com/suston96/Site/Blank.html

It is an instructive compilation from the Constitutional Convention in 1787, of what the Founders debated and decided regarding the impeachment and removal of the President and other "officers of the United States".

I have lived through two Presidential impeachments - OK - one and a half - and they are useless and most important, they are extremely partisan.

As was the impeachment and trial of Andrew Johnson in 1868. I feel like I was there but you had better Google that one.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Two Americas Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Aug-14-08 12:30 PM
Response to Reply #115
117. not following you
I am well familiar with the debates the founders had about this and with the Johnson impeachment and trial.

Of course impeachment is political, probably inevitably so, and yes that is a problem.

Yes it is rare.

Do you advocate removing impeachment from the Constitution? Of course it could be asked "what Constitution?" since it is almost completely inoperative now.

What in our political system and government has not been rendered useless by partisanship? That includes the integrity of elections, the independence of the judiciary and the justice department, the Constitution and everything else.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
suston96 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Aug-14-08 01:32 PM
Response to Reply #117
120. Do you advocate removing impeachment from the Constitution? Yes.
After the electoral college is abolished and the people directly elect their president then only the people by referendum should remove him or her.

Impeachment presently involves "any official of the United States" but there could be other ways to "remove" malefactors in office.

Involving the partisan Congress in the process is unacceptable. Involving the media and the fringies therein is dangerous.

Inoperative Constitution? Mostly so. I advocate, but with great reluctance, a Second Constitutional Convention.

That's a whole other elephant in the room.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Two Americas Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Aug-14-08 01:40 PM
Response to Reply #120
122. OK
In the meantime, why should we not advocate impeachment? That is what this is about, not whether or not impeachment will happen or would be a good thing, or whether or not the Constitution should be re-written.

It would seem to me to be a very bad idea to advocate tossing the Constitution and starting over at a time when it is already under such relentless assault.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
suston96 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Aug-14-08 03:28 PM
Response to Reply #122
123. Why not advocate impeachment? Sure, go ahead. "Grand Inquest"......
........A book written by the late Chief Justice William Rehnquist. "The play's the thing....." and all that. Such an inquest will accomplish more than an actual impeachment and trial.

Most of the Constitution has to do with the framework of government. Most of that will not be "tossed" but reconstituted minus all the flaws.

The Bill of Rights is the most controversial part of the Constitution. That has to be rewritten in 21st Century prose, style, and emphasis - with unquestionable specificity.

We will not be starting over. We will always be a republic except that we will have more participation directly from the governed rather than from officials selected by partisan political ideologies and destructive demagoguery.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Two Americas Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Aug-14-08 05:39 PM
Response to Reply #123
124. I am lost
The Bill of Rights is the problem? What do you find wrong with that?

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
suston96 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Aug-14-08 05:50 PM
Response to Reply #124
125. The Bill of Rights was an afterthought by Madison because......
....some of the states would not ratify the new Constitution without a Bill of Rights. Only 10 articles? No right to vote. No right to life. Many others.

Here is a real Declaration of Rights - adopted 8 years before in Massachusetts. http://www.mass.gov/legis/const.htm

It is the oldest living, working Constitution on the planet. Uh, it's been amended over 100 times. Now that is what you call a living, working Constitution.

For example, the very First Article:

Article I. All men are born free and equal, and have certain natural, essential, and unalienable rights; among which may be reckoned the right of enjoying and defending their lives and liberties; that of acquiring, possessing, and protecting property; in fine, that of seeking and obtaining their safety and happiness.

Changed to:

Article CVI. Article I of Part the First of the Constitution is hereby annulled and the following is adopted:-

All people are born free and equal and have certain natural, essential and unalienable rights; among which may be reckoned the right of enjoying and defending their lives and liberties; that of acquiring, possessing and protecting property; in fine, that of seeking and obtaining their safety and happiness. Equality under the law shall not be denied or abridged because of sex, race, color, creed or national origin.

The US Bill of Rights was the source of many lawsuits starting in the mid 20th century when the "rights revolution" started, due to the vagueness of its language.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Two Americas Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Aug-14-08 08:18 PM
Response to Reply #125
128. I see
Very good, thanks. I am familiar with the Massachusetts Constitution.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
pokerfan Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Aug-13-08 10:34 AM
Response to Original message
35. Can someone please send her the articles of impeachment?
Nancy must have been absent last January,

http://kucinich.house.gov/NEWS/DocumentSingle.aspx?Docu...
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Leftist Agitator Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Aug-13-08 10:38 AM
Response to Original message
36. I sincerely hope that Cindy Sheehan beats this useless fucking tool.
Edited on Wed Aug-13-08 11:18 AM by skypuddle
Nancy Pelosi, you are a traitor of the highest order.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
paparush Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Aug-13-08 10:40 AM
Response to Original message
37. V . . O . . M . . I . . T ! ! ! ! !
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Jakes Progress Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Aug-13-08 10:42 AM
Response to Original message
38. No? Well maybe we can
kick a self-serving, neocon-licking, fake Democrat out of office because we disagree with her craven behavior.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
CanonRay Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Aug-13-08 10:43 AM
Response to Original message
39. She is a blithering idiot.
Go Cindy Sheehan!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
TheWatcher Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Aug-14-08 03:55 AM
Response to Reply #39
111. NO SHE IS NOT.
She is a traitor to this nation, and an enabler of War Criminals.

It's time to call her on what she is.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
slipslidingaway Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Aug-13-08 10:48 AM
Response to Original message
40. Obama Pardons Bush - There will be no accountability....
Edited on Wed Aug-13-08 10:58 AM by slipslidingaway
we've been told by Pelosi, Obama and almost every other candidate and member of Congress.

:(

http://www.blackagendareport.com/index.php?option=com_c...

"There will be no need for George Bush to pardon himself and his fellow criminals. Barack Obama promises to let the "W Gang" off, scott-free, when he takes over the White House. Impeachment? Heavens, no! "That is not something I think would be fruitful to pursue because I think that impeachment is something that should be reserved for exceptional circumstances," says Obama...


"So this is an area where I would want to exercise judgment -- I would want to find out directly from my Attorney General -- having pursued, having looked at what's out there right now -- are there possibilities of genuine crimes as opposed to really bad policies. And I think it's important -- one of the things we've got to figure out in our political culture generally is distinguishing between really dumb policies and policies that rise to the level of criminal activity..."


...Cass Sunstein is a friend of Obama, a law professor at the University of Chicago and new husband of former Obama aide Samantha Power. Lately he has been the Obama campaign go-to-guy on the issue of Bush criminality. Sunstein's job is to tell us to shut up and let Obama let Bush off the hook.

Sunstein is also nervous about pursuing the law breakers. The professor thinks that only the commission of "egregious" crimes ought to be considered for investigation. The argument can be made that any crime emanating from the White House is egregious in and of itself. But Sunstein considers that point of view to be overly "emotional." He thinks that outraged citizens ought to just chill out and accept government torture, spying on citizens and lies used to start wars. "So I guess I'm saying that emotions play an important role in thinking about what the legal system should be doing. But under our constitutional order, we go back and forth between the emotions and the legal requirements, and that's a way of guaranteeing fairness. And as I say, very important to have a degree of bipartisanship with respect to subsequent investigations ."

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
clear eye Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Aug-13-08 12:05 PM
Response to Reply #40
61. Not to mention stolen elections - n/t
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
slipslidingaway Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Aug-13-08 01:02 PM
Response to Reply #61
68. Yes...add it to the list :( n/t
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
wiggs Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Aug-13-08 12:06 PM
Response to Reply #40
62. !!!!
We definitely need more exclamation points from congress and media
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
slipslidingaway Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Aug-13-08 01:09 PM
Response to Reply #62
69. It is really sad to watch this spectacle and see so many people
remain silent :(
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
wizstars Donating Member (792 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Aug-13-08 05:18 PM
Response to Reply #40
80. what a load of pelo--I mean sh1t
(they're pretty much synonymous)
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Franc_Lee Donating Member (287 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Aug-14-08 02:02 AM
Response to Reply #40
100. H-e-l=-l-o, Bush has already pardoned himself and his entire administration
--> simply Gooole -> Bush pardon's himself and his administration
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
wiggs Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Aug-13-08 10:51 AM
Response to Original message
41. It is CERTAINLY not just Nancy...lots of dem power brokers and dem leaders are
Edited on Wed Aug-13-08 10:55 AM by wiggs
behind this. It speaks to a much larger, sad, frustrating dynamic in which left and right are not that far apart in the effort to "strengthen" the United States through empire building, corporate dominance, control of information, and paring of the middle class in favor of ultra rich.

This is the focus of our government now, including but not limited to Pelosi. I get the feeling that any apparent dem victory is simply a crumb thrown to the majority of voters to keep us under the impression that we have a functioning democracy.

Our system of government, media, elections, foreign policy, etc are the way they are because it is INTENDED that they be that way by the rich and powerful from both sides of the aisle. You can be sure that Nancy is speaking for a lot of people in her statements; just not us or the general public. I can't explain events of the last 8 years any other way.

It's not about left vs right like they would have us believe.

(Yesterday: an appeals court decides that government officials can't be prosecuted if it can be argued that they are carrying out duties of their jobs???? And what's with dem leaders not taking much of an interest in a highly suspect FBI story about an ANTHRAX attack on dems? And where are the recriminations of Lieberman's McCain propaganda from yesterday regarding a VERY flammable Russia/Georgia conflict? Oh...and the administration talked about planting nuclear material in another country and actually did forge letters in order to accelerate war)

Sorry...poor attitude today.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
slipslidingaway Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Aug-13-08 11:00 AM
Response to Reply #41
53. !!!!!!! n/t
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Baby Snooks Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Aug-13-08 10:53 AM
Response to Original message
42. The Empress serving the Emperor...
I hope her constituents remember all of this in November and vote for anyone but her. If they do return her to office, people who respect the rule of law and believe in democracy should boycott San Francisco to acknowledge their total disregard for rule of law and democracy.

She is not a Republican but she is not a Democrat either. She is a Republicrat. The new party. The party of the Bushes and the Clintons.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
bdamomma Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Aug-13-08 10:54 AM
Response to Original message
43. oh she is really out of touch
"you have to come up with high crimes and misdemeanors" Hey Nancy wake the crap up, what about the 35 articles of Impeachment by Dennis Kucinich??? remember him???
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Individualist Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Aug-13-08 10:54 AM
Response to Original message
44. Nancy the Enabler
is obviously taking her marching orders from DLC. In a just world, she would eventually be tried for aiding and abetting.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
leftofthedial Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Aug-13-08 10:54 AM
Response to Original message
45. Oh. I *see*.
So if Nancy's boyfriend george has a *policy* of committing treason and ignoring the law, then it's okay.

I understand.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
book_worm Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Aug-13-08 10:55 AM
Response to Original message
46. But Nancy, aren't we supposed to impeach a president who destroys the constitution?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Kitsune Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Aug-13-08 10:55 AM
Response to Original message
48. ....remind me why I vote for these people?
Seriously? -__-

Christ.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Senator Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Aug-13-08 10:56 AM
Response to Original message
49. Nancy The Nazi -- Sergeant "I See Nothing" Schultz
  • ...The USSC ruled in Hamdan that Geneva 3 had been violated -- illegally (US CODE: Title 18,2441. War crimes) -- for three years.

  • ...The FISA judges ruled that the regime was in violation of the FISA laws.

  • ...The arrogation of monarchical, "unitary" executive power -- applied via Rule By Signing Statement -- is the Highest Misdemeanor imaginable.

Her Failure to Impeach (simply to formally object/accuse) is a High Crime. Worse than any of the regime's. Yes, worse. Simply put -- would you prefer a few criminal at large in your town, or a completely corrupt police force?

Impeachment remains our ONLY moral, patriotic option.

We CAN still force it in spite of Madame Squeaker. Just keep talking impeachment to anyone you can.

And if you are still making any excuse or wasting effort on anything else -- including (genuflect) The Sacred National Election Horserace -- then you (yes, you personally) are part of the problem, not the solution.

--
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
cliffordu Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Aug-13-08 10:57 AM
Response to Original message
50. Did this fucking idiot go to college?? Isn't there a copy of the Constitution around
the Senate someplace??

Fuck me. I'm thinking we need to vote this meatbag out of office. Vote for Cindy!!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Tennessee Gal Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Aug-13-08 11:24 AM
Response to Original message
55. I see nothing. I hear nothing. I speak nothing.
The essence of Nancy Pelosi.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
BlooInBloo Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Aug-13-08 11:40 AM
Response to Original message
57. If his policies include torture you can, you worthless piece of shit.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Hidden Stillness Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Aug-13-08 12:01 PM
Response to Original message
58. This is Absolutely Insane; What the Fuck is She Waiting For?
Even if you COMPLETELY IGNORE the Iraq war, just a quick run-down of events, off the top of your head, will give you a number of crimes that are (WERE) impeachable: Fired many ( and a larger number apparently than has been covered) U.S. Attorneys during an Administration, because they would not prosecute innocent Democrats just before elections--illegal--or obstructed and then dropped ongoing investigations of guilty Republicans for massive bribery and corruption rings (Duke Cunningham, Jerry Lewis of Calif., etc.). Exposed the name of a current undercover CIA agent, (Valerie Plame), endangering the lives of anyone associated with her--treasonous. Turned much of the armed forces generally from a public Government institution under the watch of Congress, to a hugely wasteful set of corporations with Republican connections; billions of dollars missing, and services contracted for not provided. Turned the General Services Administration (Lurita Doan) from an agency that checks and approves contracting, to a center trying to get Republicans elected, with meetings for Republicans only. Had several members directly refuse requests, then subpoenas, to testify before Congress (Rove, Harriet Miers, etc.) and many others who never answered questions, "could not remember" anything (Alberto Gonzales, on and on). Refused to provide documents, e-mails, etc., as ordered. Interfered with, threatened, and fired Inspectors General who provided them with budgetary or scientific information they did not want, and censored final reports.

This is just off the top of my head! All these things are impeachable offenses, and if you remember, they impeached AND IMPRISONED the very much hated Spiro Agnew during Nixon's first term, for tax evasion and corruption/bribery. WHAT ELSE has the entire Cheney/Bush Administration been, but an endless stream of money-laundered corporate-profit connections, all illegal and treasonous?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Dukkha Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Aug-13-08 12:03 PM
Response to Original message
59. THIRTY FIVE articles of Impeachment
are you really that fucking clueless Pelosi?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
spanone Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Aug-13-08 12:04 PM
Response to Original message
60. so torture is now just a 'policy' issue, eh nancy pelosi?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Solly Mack Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Aug-13-08 12:23 PM
Response to Reply #60
63. Yes. Crimes by government officials are just policy disagreements
Wouldn't want to criminalize politics would you?

Was that Lott or Delay who said that? I forget which right-winger...they all seem to run together

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
librechik Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Aug-13-08 12:38 PM
Response to Reply #60
64. Exactly! I don't agree with TORTURE as our policy--IT IS A CRIME
prosecute him for making that our policy Nancy, or be an accessory to that crime FOREVER!!!

Don't you want to save yourself from that at least? I know you don't care about the rest of us.

If you do impeach, you will go down in history as a hero, not a criminal. GET A SPINE AND HURRY!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
El Pinko Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Aug-13-08 12:42 PM
Response to Original message
65. What a worthless jackass she is. It has nothing to do with "disagreement"
Edited on Wed Aug-13-08 12:45 PM by El Pinko
I am not a pacifist. I fully support military intervention when it is called for - IE when the US or her allies are being attacked or threatened, we may need to use military force.

That was not the case with Iraq, not even in 1990 or 1998, and it certainly was not the case in 2002.

The issue is that POS Bush created the illusion of a threat from whole cloth with distortions and outright fabrications. That is a lie, and a crime, since it resulted in the needless deaths of thousands.

But Obama's no better on this issue...

http://www.usatoday.com/news/washington/2007-06-28-obam...
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
autorank Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Aug-13-08 12:47 PM
Response to Original message
66. She's not an idiot. She's deliberately misleading the public by
avoiding the truth.

Let's make it simple for Nancy. Here are equivalent #'s for the U.S. population derived form
Iraqi deaths and children orphaned:



So next time you cozy up to Bush, ask him about this. We were lied into a war, 4000 plus U.S. soldiers
are dead. All this human carnage occurred due to civil chaos triggered by the illegal war.

IF THIS ISN'T A CRIME WHAT IS?


Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
warren pease Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Aug-13-08 12:56 PM
Response to Original message
67. Two more chances to tell her in person what a great job she's doing...
It's pretty rare to get close enough to her to do much more than flip her off. But she made a serious tactical error by making personal appearances all over the country shilling for her book -- which supposedly has something to do with empowering women, if you can stand the irony.

Tuesday evening, a crowd of furious peasants showed up at a Pelosi book signing in LA. Harsh words, serious charges and non-negotiable demands to impeach the bastards. Details in this GD thread from yesterday. She was apparently a bit rattled by the level of outrage and anger. So that's good, and fun for the whole family, too.

There are only two more of these opportunities for direct confrontation left. Her publisher's website lists the following book signings, the next tomorrow evening in San Francisco.

8/14/2008 Cowell Theater Fort Mason Center, Pier 2 San Francisco, CA 94123 415-643-3400x11 7 pm

8/20/2008 Tattered Cover Bookstore 1628 16th Street Denver, CO 80202 303-436-1070

Enough with email petitions, useless phone calls and faxes. She's not going to let her white house pals down and she doesn't give a damn what the people want. For one thing, they're all obscenely rich members of the same elite club and social stratum and it's just plain rude to impeach your friends.

And there's that little matter of signing off on torture when she was briefed by the CIA in 2002, making her an accessory after the fact to Bushie's war crimes. Impeachment proceedings would certainly open up that line of inquiry and the outcome might be a bit unpleasant.

It would be nice to assume she'll be nailed by the Justice Dept. or the ICC for those crimes, but let's be realistic. There are no penalties for anyone who advances the objectives of the Bush International Crime Syndicate.

So she might as well get an earful from the people for once. Particularly from those in her district tomorrow evening at Ft. Mason. I'm assuming Cindy's attending. I'm assuming the crowd will project a level of open hostility usually reserved for serial killers and republicans.

I hope she takes note of all that outrage and starts to get a little nervous that Cindy may pull off the upset of the century and send Pelosi's useless ass somewhere she can't do any more damage.

Thanks to those in LA who nailed her to the wall. Thanks to those who go.

And if you decide to attend, dress appropriately. Catcher's gear or a modified version of NFL linebacker chic would be a good model.

Thanks for giving a damn and best wishes for scaring the shit out of her,


wp
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
suston96 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Aug-13-08 01:28 PM
Response to Original message
70. See, here is the problem - nobody knows what "...high Crimes and Misdemeanors" are.
In fact, the Constitution is pretty vague about a number of things.

Supreme Court Justices have bragged that "the Constitution means whatever we (the Supreme Court) say it means".

In the same vein, Congresspeople have bragged that "...high Crimes and Misdemeanors" are whatever the House of Representatives decides they are.

Sorry, folks, that ain't no way to run constitutional justice.

I made this compilation during the Clinton impeachment. Tells what the Founders said and debated during the convention of 1787:

http://web.me.com/suston96/Site/Blank.html

Make your own conclusions.

When the Soviet Union collapsed and a new Constitution was being written for Russia (with our help) they established a Constitutional process which included a pre-impeachment panel that would determine what violations their president had committed BEFORE such a process was started in their legislature.

That's what we need. Leaving it up to a partisan House and Senate makes impeachment what it actually is - a political instead of a legal process.


Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Runcible Spoon Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Aug-13-08 01:31 PM
Response to Original message
71. ()*)(^&#*$^&*%@#_
Fuck you Nancy.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Franc_Lee Donating Member (287 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Aug-14-08 02:03 AM
Response to Reply #71
101. Hey! Nancy pelosi proved herslf to be ineffevtive and must be replaced ASAP...!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
CrazyDude Donating Member (186 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Aug-13-08 01:46 PM
Response to Original message
73. Agree on impeachment, disagree on war funding
Would this government probably shutdown? Yeah, but all Pelosi needs is her majority, not even the Senate, to block funding.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Dogtown Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Aug-13-08 01:58 PM
Response to Original message
74. We should feel privileged
that the Ruling Class bothers to lie to us.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
magellan Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Aug-13-08 02:00 PM
Response to Original message
76. Not surprising from the woman who signed off on TORTURE
n/t
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
elehhhhna Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Aug-13-08 04:04 PM
Response to Original message
77. We need an opposition party in this country, NOW!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Swamp Rat Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Aug-13-08 04:05 PM
Response to Original message
78. Yuck!


Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
vanboggie Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Aug-13-08 04:46 PM
Response to Original message
79. Madam Speaker can't read
She needs to take some time off her useless book tour and read Kooch's articles of impeachment. What mother would want her daughter to rise to useless power like Pelosi did anyway?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DFW Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Aug-13-08 06:12 PM
Response to Original message
82. She's right
"You can't impeach a president because you disagree with his policies"

True enough.

However, there ARE a few high crimes and misdemeanors worthy of mention............
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
GreenPartyVoter Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Aug-13-08 06:29 PM
Response to Original message
83. *tears hair out*
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
riverdeep Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Aug-13-08 06:30 PM
Response to Original message
84. Two words-
Ron Suskind.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Karenina Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Aug-13-08 07:13 PM
Response to Original message
86. But you CAN impeach him for BREAKING THE LAW.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
appleannie1 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Aug-13-08 07:24 PM
Response to Original message
88. Nancy, grow a brain. This is not about someone disagreeing with
his policies, it is about the constitutional laws he has broken and the unwarranted deaths of over 4000 of our citizens because he thought it was okay to lie us into a war.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
lonestarnot Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Aug-13-08 07:31 PM
Response to Original message
90. WTF is wrong with this clueless freak?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
eppur_se_muova Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Aug-13-08 08:14 PM
Response to Original message
91. Nancy, if you can't lead, and you won't follow, just get the Hell out of the way! nt
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
sakabatou Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Aug-13-08 08:17 PM
Response to Original message
92. Hey Pelosi...
I'm gonna give you this vehicle because you deserve it:

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Phredicles Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Aug-13-08 08:39 PM
Response to Original message
94. She belongs at The Hague next to Commander Lovely Man;
Complicity, thy name is Pelosi. :grr:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
glitch Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Aug-13-08 11:48 PM
Response to Original message
95. There must be a very good reason why she is willing to make a fool of herself this way.
The whole damn world knows about the Bush/Cheney administration's high crimes, exactly who does she think she is convincing with this spewage?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Usrename Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Aug-14-08 12:45 AM
Response to Original message
96. She's Lieberman in a dress.


She's Zell Miller.

She's a buffoon.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Franc_Lee Donating Member (287 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Aug-14-08 01:46 AM
Response to Original message
99. Why I ask you, would Cindy Sheehan be worse as the house speaker, that's mind boggling...?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Franc_Lee Donating Member (287 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Aug-14-08 02:10 AM
Response to Original message
102. disagree with his policies? - man does she ever need to be bootd from her
job, complete failure! She actually thinks she's fooling us.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
tavalon Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Aug-14-08 02:24 AM
Response to Original message
103. You do have a case, Nancy
You are choosing to be willfully ignorant on that point. I would like to know why?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
WinkyDink Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Aug-14-08 02:27 AM
Response to Original message
104. She never heard of Valerie Plame.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
calimary Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Aug-14-08 02:38 AM
Response to Original message
106. You most certainly CAN, nancy dear.
Go back about ten years and study what happened to Bill Clinton - how it was nothing less than voter nullification the republi-CONS were after. They couldn't defeat him at the polls, so they decided to hound him every step of the way, make his life miserable, probe every orifice they could find on him, and keep investigating and harassing and persecuting and digging until they finally found something that would stick. They resented him for having the nerve to throw their precious george bush senior out of office one term too early - because he was ENTITLED to two terms.

She is the biggest disappointment in the Western World.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
moondust Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Aug-14-08 03:33 AM
Response to Original message
109. Go back to sleep, Nancy.
We'll let you know when the sun comes up. :eyes:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
judasdisney Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Aug-14-08 05:50 AM
Response to Original message
112. I M P E A C H P E L O S I
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Kablooie Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Aug-14-08 10:16 AM
Response to Original message
113. I guess this means that, at least, she disagrees with the policy of treason.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
bdamomma Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Aug-14-08 10:26 AM
Response to Original message
114. vote this woman out of office please
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Supersedeas Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Aug-14-08 12:33 PM
Response to Original message
118. sounds like Nancy Disaster buys the entire Unitary Executive theory
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Toasterlad Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Aug-14-08 05:57 PM
Response to Original message
126. Christ, How I Hate That Broad.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DU AdBot (1000+ posts) Click to send private message to this author Click to view 
this author's profile Click to add 
this author to your buddy list Click to add 
this author to your Ignore list Sat Oct 25th 2014, 10:24 AM
Response to Original message
Advertisements [?]
 Top

Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion (1/22-2007 thru 12/14/2010) Donate to DU

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators


Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.

Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals |  Store  |  Donate

About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy

Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.

© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC