Nancy Pelosi is Obstructing Justice and Aiding War Criminals, For Political Gain.

[tekisui]

Nancy Pelosi will still not allow John Conyers to start Impeachment Hearings.

Not even open admission of War Crimes is enough to motivate her to do the right thing, which is to save our democracy. She is content to stonewall for the War Criminals. She is actively tying the hands of the only people in position to hold the criminals to account. And, she does it all in the name of protecting herself, politically. That is sick.

[zabet]

1. Open admission of the War Crimes...

and yet Nancy does nothing but
impede Justice. She is one of
the biggest sell-outs in Dem history.
I do not care that there is campaigning
and elections going on, her duty to
protect the Constitution is not
relevant to her evidently.

[Horse with no Name]

2. You cannot subvert national security for political security

That will be Pelosi's legacy--that and being the first female Speaker of the House that was a miserable failure.

[jgraz]

10. Just goes to show, you should never vote for anyone with Runaway Bride eyes.

[Horse with no Name]

23. Actually, Nancy's brow lift was more successful than the Runaway Bride's

And I think Nancy is a beautiful woman.
My argument with Nancy is not as shallow as what she looks like.

[bowens43]

3. What open admission of war crimes? nt

[tekisui]

4. The CIA admitted last week that they ahve tortured at least 3 individuals.

Amnesty International, Human Rights Watch and the UN Human Right Organization have declared the acts War Crimes. Even the CIA admitted what they did was illegal.

The WH authorized and organized the use of Torture, and reserve the right to re-authorize.

[Freddie Stubbs]

5. John Conyers does not need the Speaker's permission to hold impeachment hearings

[tekisui]

6. No. But....

His office told me that as long a Pelosi is against it, he doesn't think that he can get the bill to go any where.

At this point, I am looking to him to suck it up and move forward, forget Pelosi and let the chips fall where they may.

[Freddie Stubbs]

16. So, he is afraid to hold hearings for impeachment if he beleives it will not pass the House?

:shrug:

[onenote]

19. Its not going anywhere with or without Pelosi's support

THe first step in the impeachment process is a vote by the full House of Representatives to authorize and direct the Judiciary Committee to conduct an inquiry/hearings,etc.

That vote, if held today, will fail. THere are more than enough Democrats from moderate/conservative districts who won't support it, particularly if -- as is certain to be the case -- no repubs will cross over and support the commencement of the inquiry. When the impeachment process began against Nixon, the vote to authorize the House Judiciary to conduct its inquiry was 404-10. Even the vote to start the process against Clinton was moderately bi-partisan, with 31 Democrats voting in favor of the resolution.

Unless and until repubs start calling for an inquiry, nothing that Pelosi does or doesn't do would change the outcome.

Reality bites.

[cascadiance]

21. He's afraid that what she and the party are doing to Kucinich will happen to him if he does...

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=389&topic_id=2844437

When will the nightmare stop Pelosi?

[onenote]

24. the story you linked to has been denied by Kucinich

I'll give you the benefit of the doubt and assume you didn't know that. Although linking to a locked thread certainly suggests you don't deserve the benefit of the doubt.

[Freddie Stubbs]

26. Perhaps he is denying it because he is under threat by Pelosi

:tinfoilhat:

[jgraz]

7. And here's the putrid companion to her impeachment obstruction

Just in case you missed the multiple posts on the Greatest Page.

The Chicken Doves

Elected to end the war, Democrats have surrendered to Bush on Iraq and betrayed the peace movement for their own political ends.

MATT TAIBBI


Quietly, while Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama have been inspiring Democrats everywhere with their rolling bitchfest, congressional superduo Harry Reid and Nancy Pelosi have completed one of the most awesome political collapses since Neville Chamberlain. At long last, the Democratic leaders of Congress have publicly surrendered on the Iraq War, just one year after being swept into power with a firm mandate to end it.

Solidifying his reputation as one of the biggest pussies in U.S. political history, Reid explained his decision to refocus his party's energies on topics other than ending the war by saying he just couldn't fit Iraq into his busy schedule. "We have the presidential election," Reid said recently. "Our time is really squeezed."

There was much public shedding of tears among the Democratic leadership, as Reid, Pelosi and other congressional heavyweights expressed deep sadness that their valiant charge up the hill of change had been thwarted by circumstances beyond their control — that, as much as they would love to continue trying to end the catastrophic Iraq deal, they would now have to wait until, oh, 2009 to try again. "We'll have a new president," said Pelosi. "And I do think at that time we'll take a fresh look at it."

Pelosi seemed especially broken up about having to surrender on Iraq, sounding like an NFL coach in a postgame presser, trying with a straight face to explain why he punted on first-and-goal. "We just didn't have any plays we liked down there," said the coach of the 0-15 Dems. "Sometimes you just have to play the field-position game...."

In reality, though, Pelosi and the Democrats were actually engaged in some serious point-shaving. Working behind the scenes, the Democrats have systematically taken over the anti-war movement, packing the nation's leading group with party consultants more interested in attacking the GOP than ending the war. "Our focus is on the Republicans," one Democratic apparatchik in charge of the anti-war coalition declared. "How can we juice up attacks on them?"


http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/story/18349197/the_chicken_doves

[tekisui]

9. Thanks. I did see it. This Primary has become the Major Distraction.

I wouldn't be surprised if every one in DC is cheering one a long, tight race.

It keeps our eyes off the crimes and those who stand by to hold the open the gate for the criminals.

[jgraz]

8. BTW, watch how little opposition this post gets compared with six months ago

There are still a few hard-core apologists hanging on, but most people with eyes, ears and a brain have woken up to the fact that the DC Dems are not on our side.

[tekisui]

13. It is blindingly obvious, now.

I was outraged on the phone with Conyers' staffer. They sound upset as well, yet nothing happens.

Conyers' needs to do it. Forget Pelosi and the other *leaders*, they are a disgrace.

[conscious evolution]

11. The only reason I still call myself a Democrat

is that I am holding on to the hope that they have made a strategic decision to not hold the BFEE accountable in order to allow the International Criminal Court to have jurisdiction.
That hope is fading fast.

[tekisui]

12. That is my hope OR they have a strategic decision to prosecute

after the War Criminals have left the WH, and can no longer pardon, as we work up the chain.

[jgraz]

14. I promise you, neither will happen

As soon as the Democrats take the White House, they'll let bygones be bygones and get to work abusing all the new power W gave to the president.

[ladjf]

15. I hope that your prediction is incorrect but fear that it isn't.

[conscious evolution]

18. Same here. nt

[Senator]

17. Sadly, This Is Now The "New Narrative"

That Capitulosi Herself personally approved all torture and war crimes.

Whoever's doing her "strategerizing" had better get themselves to a Cranial-Rectoscopist pronto. No, it doesn't matter if Bob Graham says its all rubbish. That's still a big "War Criminal" sign hanging around Madame Squeaker's neck.

Only Impeachment can set her free.

===

[stillrockin]

20. F U, Pelosi. I despise you.

[Stinky The Clown]

22. If you want impeachment ......

..... YOU need to do some work.

Convince just one person a day that it needs to happen.

When enough people favor it, the Congress will favor it.

Thus far, like it or not, a majority of Americans have never favored impeachment. There was a time a very slight majority favored impeaching Cheney, but Bush never got more than 43% (or was it 46%) in favor of it.

Talk to people and convince one a day.

[OneBlueSky]

25. Congress doesn't give one shit what "the people" want . . .

they are beholden only to the corporatocracy, the corporate/government plutocracy that governs as they see fit to support their own ends . . . what's good for the country no longer matters, only what's good for the corporations and their "elected" stooges . . .