Speaker Pelosi’s Latest Justification for Barring Impeachment: Bush Would Never Cooperate With His Own Impeachment

Speaker Nancy Pelosi has continued her search for book sales and it seems 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.

Before moving to the obvious problems with the latest rationale for blocking any impeachment effort for years, it is worth noting that it took the Speaker’s book tour to finally prompt her to answer questions about her decision.

Only last week, Pelosi used the august body of the hosts of The View to reveal her view on impeachment: there is simply no evidence of crimes committed by President Bush, click here.

My understanding is that her office was inundated with copies of the various documented crimes alleged against Bush. Now, Pelosi is claiming a different rationale: they could not rely on the White House and GOP supplying the evidence needed to convict:

Nancy Shipes of Woodstown, NJ: Why have you taken impeachment off the table as an option for President George W. Bush?

Pelosi: I took it off the table a long time ago. You can’t talk about impeachment unless you have the facts, and you can’t have the facts unless you have cooperation from the Administration. I think the Republicans would like nothing better than for us to focus on impeachment and take our eye off the ball of a progressive economic agenda.

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. In past hearings, we have seen former Bush officials implicate the Administration in investigations such a the firing of the US Attorneys. Indeed, if this is Pelosi’s rationale for barring impeachment, why is the House pursuing contempt on these other investigations? It appears that a lack of cooperation does not end matters that the House wants to address.

The biggest problem, however, is that the 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 war crimes charges could be brought.

Moreover, Pelosi made this promise years ago and worked to prevent every effort to investigate or have courts review these programs. I do not know what lessons the Speaker has laid out for our daughters, but this is one lesson that I think I will pass on for my daughter.

For the latest interview, click here

63 thoughts on “Speaker Pelosi’s Latest Justification for Barring Impeachment: Bush Would Never Cooperate With His Own Impeachment”

  1. Dave,

    This is one thing I thought of. The Nature Consevancy goes out and buys land with direct contributions. Maybe progressives should do the same. Our politicians, almost without exception, seem bought and paid for by people who do not have this country’s best interests at heart (to be charitable). Instead of donating to political campaigns why not donate the money for example, to the solar thermal plant in NV that, with the money, could supply most of the US electricity needs?

    Why not invest in a hugh trust to cover every man, woman and child’s health care needs?

    These entities already exist. They are working towards progressive aims, why not support them? The political class doesn’t seem particularly interested in solving our problems. Let them go ahead and get their money from those they serve. Of course when it comes to gutting the Constitution we need to find and vote for the person who is least likely to make that worse, but for many things, I say forget about asking, just go do it.

  2. Don’t know where all the craziness/anti-Semitic stuff is coming from, but thanks Mespo, Jill and several others for a good conversation above, especially Bruce who makes the analogy between losing one’s parents and losing one’s country when he says “we have to stop depending on them and start to take care of ourselves.”

    I’ve been very involved in the impeachment movement here in NYC but recently completely lost my bearings when I learned that Elizabeth Holtzman endorsed Jerry Nadler for re-election. Nadler is a powerful incumbent and a total shoe-in for re-election: he doesn’t need anyone’s endorsement. Attention must be paid when one of the most visible, eloquent and knowledgeable impeachment supporter (Holtzman) endorses the Chair of the Subcommittee on the Constitution, Civil Rights and Civil Liberties (Nadler) who refuses to let any of Kucinich’s impeachment resolutions out of his subcommittee.

    Sadly Holtzman is not the only pro-impeachment Democrat to endorse Nadler – Robert Wexler, Maxine Waters, even Dennis Kucinich have also endorsed Nadler. The sense of priorities as evidenced in these people’s endorsement of Nadler tips the hand of the Democratic status quo. What we see here is that Party Loyalty trumps everything else, and to me, this betrayal – there’s no other word for it – resonates with Bruce’s comment above. We have to stop depending on the Democrats, especially “progressive” Democrats, and start figuring something else out.

    Discussing possible support for independents like Nader or third party candidates like McKinney invites a tidal wave of abuse from political realists, not all of it unjustified. But as a fairly informed, activist minded citizen, I really don’t know what to do here. The question of why the hell this country hasn’t demanded impeachment hearings since the publication of the Downing Street Memo should remain a vital issue for everyone who cares about the Constitutional order long after these two war criminals waltz out of office without ever having been held accountable for their stupendously impeachable acts. Obviously the corporatization of our government and mainstream media is a huge part of the problem, but as with electoral politics, what are the best ways to legally and peacefully fight back on the citizen/street level? If anyone, especially in NYC, wants to discuss this further I invite you to email me at drobinson@nycmail.com.

    Please check the videos available at http://www.asknadler2impeach.org

  3. To (mis)quote a line from Gore Vidal: We were all set to investigate this whole matter but now Pelosi’s too busy playing at being a statesman to be one.

    I’m reading “The Golden Age,” it strikes notes with very sympathetic vibrations to what we’re going through now.

  4. EC,

    Do you have suggestions on how to file charges? This justice dept. won’t do that. Bob Esq. addresses this somewhat in his post above.

    Certainly, I agree with everyone who thinks a recall of Pelosi is a start.

  5. Neither Bush nor Pelosi because the last time I checked America was still a democracy and if Pelosi was “recalled”, the next Speaker would begin Impeachment proceedings right away. The American people may not have the power to impeach a President, but they have the power to not re-elect a confirmed madman, recall a traitor and not now have a virtual split between the next madman and some skinny, elitist, unpatriotic, Black guy.

    I’ll save the “historians” the trouble; the American People have done the most harm to the Constitution. And since the US still has a “democracy”, the People are getting the Government they deserve.

    Eight years of McCain please, and we’ll discuss this in 2017, if the Government still allows Blogs and Internet access.

  6. Impeaching Bush, Cheney & Co. would direct incriminating illumination on Speaker Pelosi herself and her Democratic cohorts in the Gang of Eight as at best willing enablers and accomplices in administration crimes and its epic strategic disasters.

    Pelosi’s infantile justifications deceive no one minimally attentive to the US government’s antics. Lock her up with the rest of this repulsive mob of disgraceful foolish gangsters.

  7. Historians will have a field day determining who has done more harm to our constitution Bush or Pelosi. Christie Sheehan should win hands down if San Francisco wants to hold on to its perspicacity image.

  8. As recall, Nixon did not cooperate with the House Judiciary Commitee. There is a principle of law called ‘obstruction of justice’. Those who engage in it may be PROSECUTED as well as impeached.

  9. Robert,

    I saw that quote as well. No american or person from any other nation, even if you want to think those people are complete idiots, deserve harm.

    I noticed quite a bit of blood thirsty rhetoric in some of the posts. I find that disturbing. If you want to get away from a death and hate filled way of doing things, then you really have to get away from it. Just switching to another target won’t work. This country has seen enought mindless killing and torture. No more-not for anybody.

  10. dogismyth: “Instead of going to sleep and having a nightmare, these sleepy americans will awake to a nightmare. And rightly so.”

    Unfortunately, we few americans who are relatively awake are stuck here as well. No other country will take american political refugees (unless they happen to be super-wealthy).

  11. I will second the motion. Pelosi and Reid are every bit as bad as Bush and Cheney. All of them have helped destroy what’s left of our republic.

  12. George in Toronto:

    “Both parties were on the take for the 911 and Anthrax attacks. Billy GoatClinton funded the new pearl harbour attacks. Bush could not have done it alone in 8 months in office. Wake-up Doozzie america”


    How’s the new antipsychotic regimen going. Judging from your comments more work looks necessary. Good luck.

  13. Wow! Go away for a weekend and a lot of crazy stuff happens! Pelosi has proven herself unworthy of her title as Speaker and as Congresswoman. Time for her to go. I can’t even believe the stuff that she is spewing on the impeachment issue. Since Impeachment is off the Table for Bush, there is plenty of room on the table for her impeachment.

  14. Sorry, My process got interrupted.

    I was just going to say:

    The important thing would be to get everyone to testify under oath.
    Who knew what when?
    Who did what?
    Who said what?

    We would doubtless see the “I don’t remember” card played again, but – Oh well!

    Maybe a better question for a candidate than “Why don’t you wear a flag lapel pin” might be “How’s your memory?”

  15. The important thing would be to get everyone to testify under oath.
    Who knew what when?
    Who did what?
    Who said what?

    We would doubtless see the “I don

  16. george in TO; I never heard the term “Crypto Jew” before, but after researching it, I agree. I would call her a closet Jew but same difference. And of course Bush and the neocons couldn’t have planned 911. As I stated previously, Bush/McCain types couldn’t find their own asses with a flashlight and a mirror.
    Why am I not surprised that one of the few people who isn’t afraid to call it correctly also isn’t American?

    BTW, the Clintons are in the pocket of the Jews more than the Bushes will ever be, because the Bushes created their own wealth, with the help of the Saudis and other Arabs of course, but the Clintons needed the Jews as did Gore. How much do you think Rich paid for his pardon? And if you look at Gore’s voting record, he ALWAYS voted to get money, contracts, weapons, aid… to Jews and to Israel. In the end, picking Leiberman is what cost him the Presidency. He lost his own Bible Belt State because he picked a Jew over ANY Christian. And we all see that not only couldn’t Leiberman deliver the Jews in Florida, he became a Republican. Let’s see if McCain is dumb enough to pick Portman.

  17. Yes Pelosi is a Crypto Jew and a Israel firster. There is a reasonfor Pelosi not to rock the boat. Bush Blackmail. Both parties were on the take for the 911 and Anthrax attacks. Billy GoatClinton funded the new pearl harbour attacks. Bush could not have done it alone in 8 months in office. Wake-up Doozzie america

  18. Well she was given the power by the people, so then take it away before she gets critically dangerous. I thought having Bush for another 4 years was going to be disastrous (and it was), now we might have Pelosi for another 4. What a nightmare for the country.

    I think all the wheels have been set in motion. I think Amerika is going to hell in a handbasket for the next 3 to 5 years. Its not going to matter who’s at the helm. They’re all bought and paid for by elitist.

    I know thats pessimistic. Americans have had their chance to wake up and get angry about the corruption, deceit, murder, mayhem, poverty, neglect, fraud, robbery hoisted on them, but they chose to continue to shine their SUVs, suck down Aspartame drinks, eat like pagans, form shrines of their TVs, and expect everything they want using credit.

    Instead of going to sleep and having a nightmare, these sleepy americans will awake to a nightmare. And rightly so.

Comments are closed.