After blocking any serious investigation or impeachment hearings on crimes committed by President Bush, Speaker Nancy Pelosi finally addressed the allegations of presidential crimes on that forum of deep intellectual and legal thought: the television show The View. She agreed to answer a question from Joy Behar, who will have to suffice as a substitute for Peter Rodino. 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 this video.
Here is what will suffice as the impeachment hearing of George Bush as the Speaker of the House of Representative is questioned by a comedian:
JOY BEHAR: You’ve ruled against impeaching George Bush and Dick Cheney, and now Kucinich is trying to pass that. Why do you insist on not impeaching these people, so that the world and America can really see the crimes that they’ve committed?
REP. NANCY PELOSI: Well, I think that it—I think it was important, when I became Speaker—and it’s, by the way, a very important position—President, Vice President, Speaker of the House—I saw it as my responsibility to try to bring a much divided country together to the extent that we could. I thought that impeachment would be divisive for the country.
In terms of what we wanted—set out to do, we wanted to raise the minimum wage, give the biggest increase in veterans benefits to veterans in the seventy-seven-year history, then pass research for stem cell research, all of that. This week, we’re going to pass equal pay for equal work. It has been a long time in coming—pay equity. We’re going to pass legislations for product safety, for toys that children put in their—there’s an agenda that you have to get done. You have to try to do it in a bipartisan way. The President has to sign it.If somebody had a crime that the President had committed, that would be a different story.
BEHAR: Can they still do it after he is out?
BARBARA WALTERS: When, when we first- when I interviewed you last year, you had just begun, and you were going to clean up the mess, remember?
PELOSI: We did.
WALTERS: You, you look around this country, 75 percent of the country, forget George Bush, thinks that Congress is doing a lousy job.
HASSELBECK: I think it’s 91 percent now.
PELOSI: Well, I don’t disagree with that because largely it’s predicated on ending the war in Iraq. That’s the main question, and we were not successful. In our House of Representatives, I’m very proud of our members because they voted overwhelmingly over and over again to bring the war to an end, to bring the troops home safely and soon, send it to the Senate, and it hits a dead end. But in terms of that particular standard, I would say I disapprove as well. But we do, we passed some of the things I just mentioned, the energy bill. We worked in a bipartisan way, and ovation, agenda, we have to create jobs, expand health care, protect the American people, and educate our children. And you can’t do that if you’re trying to impeach the president at the same time, unless you have the goods that this president committed these crimes.
BEHAR: They did it to Clinton.
PELOSI: But they didn’t have the goods and it was wrong, and it was wrong, and it was wrong when they did that. Not that I- I have total disagreement with president on the war, the reason why we went in, which was based on a false premise. But that’s a different story than saying “can we try to get something accomplished for people,” have concerns about the economy and the rest.
For the video, click here and here.
Ironically, even this statement only came about because Pelosi was trying to sell her new book, “Know Your Power: A Message to America’s Daughters.” It appears that the message is that you should not let principle get in the way of politics when it comes to such issues as presidential crimes.
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.
What is particularly troubling is that the Speaker is now on the record as suggesting that torture and illegal surveillance are simply not crimes. That will be a useful fact when future president decides to engage in the same unlawful conduct.
Obviously, the Speaker is fully aware that respected organizations and experts have detailed crimes ordered by this President. Indeed, it took repeated interventions by Congress to keep courts from continuing to rule on such illegality — destroying any notion of plausible deniability that Democrats have no knowledge of alleged crimes. The Constitution foresees that, once credible allegations have been made (as here), the House would investigate (which Pelosi has blocked). Instead of the proceedings envisioned by the Framers, Speaker Pelosi has reduced the matter to a fun exchange with a comedian on a gossip and gripe show. In next week’s episode, Elisabeth Hasselbeck will work out the details of the Iraq appropriations budget with Pelosi.
The Speaker had to compete on the home page for the View with pictures of male strippers and a segment “Sheri Can’t Cook!,” click here. Now, that is a perfect forum for discussing one of the most important constitutional questions of our time.
She looks younger every year. Botox and glam shots
well,thank you for share your article
I like your article very much, and I would appreciate it if you can write more article about this. We have the same opinion about this, so I think that you may have the same interest in
Louboutins
well,thank you for share your article
I like your article very much, and I would appreciate it if you can write more article about this. We have the same opinion about this, so I think that you may have the same interest in
mbt
emuboots
Sorry. It’s takin’ whatever comes your way, the good AND the bad, that give life flavor. It’s all the stuff rolled together that makes life worth livin’. Help me! Can not find sites on the: Stock trading company. I found only this – day trade stock picks. Mind confinement is a skin of simple year trading dirt and an clear cargo trading retirement, stock trading. Stock trading, simple sites in media money are pegged when the brokers part keeps then forget whether the buying company government will cancel or find. Best regards :eek:, Ramla from Islands.
Действительно интересно. А инфу не с ЖЖ случайно взяли? 🙂
I just received an update from Center for Constitutional Rights. The interview in the prior post above will not take place today. It will be tomorrow.
More non-evidence from the Center for Constitutional Rights:
Please tune in this Wednesday, September 17, 2008 to hear an interview with Canadian rendition survivor Maher Arar and CCR attorney Maria LaHood on Fresh Air from WHYY.
Hear Arar and LaHood speak to Fresh Air’s Terry Gross about how U.S. officials sent Arar to Syria to be tortured, his struggle for justice, and the Second Circuit Appellate Court’s extremely rare order last month that approximately 12 judges will rehear Arar’s case on December 9, 2008.
Mr. Arar and CCR seek to hold accountable the high-level administration officials responsible for sending him to be tortured and detained in Syria for a year – a practice known as extraordinary rendition.
In 2002, Maher Arar, a Canadian citizen, was detained at a New York airport on his way home from a family trip. He was interrogated by U.S. officials about alleged links to al-Qaeda and was prevented from getting assistance from a lawyer. He was then delivered to Syria, a country renowned for torture. Mr. Arar was interrogated, brutally tortured and held in a grave-like cell in Syria for over ten months. No country, including the U.S., has ever charged him with any crime.
CCR originally filed the case in the Eastern District of New York in January 2004; the first ruling, in February 2006, dismissed the case because letting it proceed might harm national security and foreign relations. CCR appealed the decision, arguing before a three-judge panel in November 2007, but the Court of Appeals issued a 2-1 decision in June 2008 along similar lines. The dissenting judge found that the majority decision gives federal officials the license to “violate constitutional rights with virtual impunity.”
In stark contrast to the response of the U.S. government, the Canadian government conducted an exhaustive inquiry in response to public outcry, found that Mr. Arar had no connection to terrorism, and, in January 2007, apologized to him for its role in what happened and awarded him $10 million compensation.
This is some updated info from Gleen Greenwald about the pre 2004 domestic spying ordered by cheney/bush. Ms. Pelosi was an integral part of the evidence against bush so no wonder it’s impossible for her to “find” it! This information is in the 2nd half of the column.
http://www.salon.com/opinion/greenwald/index.html?source=newsletter
Nothing to see here Nancy…move along…
PR Push for Iraq War Preceded Intelligence Findings
“White Paper” Drafted before NIE even Requested
For more information contact:
John Prados – 202/994-7000
http://www.nsarchive.org
Washington, DC, August 22, 2008 – The U.S. intelligence community buckled sooner in 2002 than previously reported to Bush administration pressure for data justifying an invasion of Iraq, according to a documents posting on the Web today by National Security Archive senior fellow John Prados.
The documents suggest that the public relations push for war came before the intelligence analysis, which then conformed to public positions taken by Pentagon and White House officials. For example, a July 2002 draft of the “White Paper” ultimately issued by the CIA in October 2002 actually pre-dated the National Intelligence Estimate that the paper purportedly summarized, but which Congress did not insist on until September 2002.
A similar comparison between a declassified draft and the final version of the British government’s “White Paper” on Iraq weapons of mass destruction adds to evidence that the two nations colluded in the effort to build public support for the invasion of Iraq. Dr. Prados concludes that the new evidence tends to support charges raised by former White House press secretary Scott McClellan and by the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence in its long-delayed June 2008 “Phase II” report on politicization of intelligence.
Visit the Web site of the National Security Archive for more information about today’s posting.
http://www.nsarchive.org
Nothing to see here Nancy…move along…
PR Push for Iraq War Preceded Intelligence Findings
“White Paper” Drafted before NIE even Requested
For more information contact:
John Prados – 202/994-7000
http://www.nsarchive.org
Washington, DC, August 22, 2008 – The U.S. intelligence community buckled sooner in 2002 than previously reported to Bush administration pressure for data justifying an invasion of Iraq, according to a documents posting on the Web today by National Security Archive senior fellow John Prados.
The documents suggest that the public relations push for war came before the intelligence analysis, which then conformed to public positions taken by Pentagon and White House officials. For example, a July 2002 draft of the “White Paper” ultimately issued by the CIA in October 2002 actually pre-dated the National Intelligence Estimate that the paper purportedly summarized, but which Congress did not insist on until September 2002.
A similar comparison between a declassified draft and the final version of the British government’s “White Paper” on Iraq weapons of mass destruction adds to evidence that the two nations colluded in the effort to build public support for the invasion of Iraq. Dr. Prados concludes that the new evidence tends to support charges raised by former White House press secretary Scott McClellan and by the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence in its long-delayed June 2008 “Phase II” report on politicization of intelligence.
Visit the Web site of the National Security Archive for more information about today’s posting.
http://www.nsarchive.org
We got an automated call from (at least I hope it was) Kucinich’s office to press 1 if you were for impeaching bush, 2 if not. His campaign site has an e-mail petition to sign. Most likely he was unable to present any real crimes that Nancy could believe in. She’s in the faith based crime determination process I guess!