by Damozel | I've been off for a few days, so I didn't cover this. Fortunately, legal scholar Jonathan Turley, who knows more than I do, did, as did Nicole Belle at Crooks and Liars. Let's start with Turley.
Speaker Nancy Pelosi has continued her search...for a plausible rationale for personally blocking any impeachment investigation of President Bush. The latest explanation can in an interview with Time Magazine. It seems that she would not allow an investigation because Bush would never have supplied incriminating evidence against himself. It seems that House investigators rely on the accused to build an impeachment case.
I guess Nixon worked tirelessly for his own impeachment and resigned only out of a sense of self-loathing. What is particularly striking about this latest rationale is that it is so circular — as was Pelosi’s first explanation. First, we could not start an investigation for impeachment without clear evidence of crimes, but we can only confirm evidence of crimes by investigating.
Now, it appears the House cannot start impeachment proceedings unless a president and his party would agree to turn over incriminating evidence. Of course, the use of a president’s authority to conceal or destroy evidence in such an investigation is itself a potentially impeachable offense. Pelosi prevented a John Dean from coming forward by barring the hearing....
[T]he crimes are hiding in plain view. A federal court has already found the domestic surveillance program was unlawful and there is no question as to the torture question — as found by the International Red Cross when it informed Bush that that war crimes charges could be brought. [More; emphasis added]
But of course, she already made it fairly clear before the Time Magazine interview that she doesn't think impeachment is in order.
In a July 31 post, Turley discusses Pelosi's baffling assertion on The View---Jesus!---that there is no evidence that Bush committed a crime.
In a perfectly bizarre moment, Pelosi stated that there is simply no evidence of any crime committed by the President despite the findings of the International Red Cross, various international groups, and a legion of constitutional experts. It seems that America has now had its impeachment hearing before the august body of Whoopi Goldberg, Barbara Walters, Joy Bahar, and Elisabeth Hasselbeck. If you feared that our democracy is de-evolving into a caricature of itself, just watch th[e] video....
It is obviously a very frustrating and insulting moment for many. The International Red Cross warned the president in 2002 that his administration was committing a war crime for which prosecution was possible, click here. A federal judge (before Pelosi and the Democratic Congress barred further judicial review) declared that the domestic surveillance program was clearly illegal, click here. The Judiciary Committee has voted to hold Bush officials in criminal contempt and referred the matter for prosecution. Dozens of constitutional experts (including myself) have detailed impeachable offenses over the years. Yet, Speaker Pelosi insists that there is no evidence of crime while refusing to investigate that allegations. [More; emphasis added]
I recommend reading both of these pieces in full.
Nicole Belle at Crooks and Liars reacted similarly, but framed her frustration in blunter terms.
Flying Spaghetti Monster bless Dennis Kucinich. He’s in the middle of an absolutely sisyphean task of trying to make Congress actually do their job — one that far more Americans support than they did the impeachment of Bill Clinton – and one that Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi is frustratingly and blindly ignoring, as evidenced by her stop-me-before-I-throw-something-at-the-screen appearance on The View....
Have you not been paying fricking attention for the last eight years, Nancy??? What do you mean, IF [somebody had a crime that the President had committed]???? Say it with me now: warrantless wiretapping; waterboarding, lying to Congress and the American people to illegally invade and occupy a sovereign nation that posed no threat to us, firing US Attorneys for not pursuing partisan prosecutions, outing a covert CIA agent.
And those were just ones you knew about and did nothing to stop, Pelosi. How dare she play stupid on national television and insult all our intelligence and what this country (once) stood for? How. Dare. She.
So it makes me love the undaunted Kucinich that much more. He appeared on Democracy Now! and tried to spin this in the best way possible.
(T)he reason why the Judiciary Committee should hold a hearing on the impeachment itself is because there needs to be a public airing of this. So, I have a great deal of respect for Speaker Pelosi, and I think that since she made that statement on The View, there’s an opportunity now for us to come forward and to lay all the facts out so that she can reconsider her decision not to permit the Judiciary Committee to proceed with a full impeachment hearing.
Give ‘em hell, Dennis.
It's so interesting to jump on the wayback machine and peruse this article in The Nation from a year ago (Jul. 31, 2007) in which Pelosi "explained" [not at all convincingly even then] her opposition:
"The question of impeachment is something that would divide the country," Pelosi said this morning during a wide-ranging discussion in the ornate Speaker's office. Her top priorities are ending the war in Iraq, expanding health care, creating jobs and preserving the environment. "I know what our success can be on those issues. I don't know what our success can be on impeaching the president."
Democratic Party leaders do not have the votes to pass an impeachment resolution. And Democrats could be judged harshly for partisan gridlock, just as the American people turned on Congressional Republicans in the 90s for pursuing the impeachment of President Clinton....
She felt it would be "a distraction."
But that was then, and this is now. The evidence since then has piled ever higher. What on earth does she think is missing now? She just keeps coming up with excuses. And she sounds ever more disingenuous.
Diachronic at TPM Cafe asks what Pelosi's impeachment criterion is, and answers:
"Somebody sends me a blue dress and some DNA, I'll have an investigation."
Last week, I posted videos of several of the speakers (including prosecutor Vince Bugliosi) who shared their views with the House Judiciary Committee on the issue of the White House's abuses of power and potential criminal culpability.
Does Pelosi owe Bush money or anything? Is she afraid that Republican women won't by her book? I thought she was finally going to take (an eleventh hour) stand (I assumed for political purposes.) But this is not the stand I expected.
RECENT POSTINGS
Obama's Speech and New Energy Plan Receives Praise (Stance on Drilling and All)
Harry Shearer: "Addicted to Oil"
Second Wave of Mortgage Foreclosures to be Even Bigger?
Why Alan Grayson is The Congressional Candidate for Florida's Dist. 8
she is one strange cookie
Posted by: rawdawgbuffalo | August 05, 2008 at 02:12 PM
Don't know what is wrong what is rite but i know that every one has there own point of view and same goes to this one
Posted by: mulberry alexa | December 15, 2011 at 03:48 AM