Nancy Pelosi is guilty as sin

[Atman]

It will all come out. Watching her on Rachel Maddow now...flopping around like a gasping fish on a dry dock. She's known about Bush's crimes since day one, which is why "impeachment is off the table."

Try her along with Bush.

.

[begin_within]

1. Well, in her own words,

[Enrique]

2. is Obama guilty too?

maybe more guilty, since he seems more reluctant than Pelosi to investigate now?

[Atman]

5. I guess we'll find out some day.

It's almost Shakespearean.

.

[Enrique]

8. why not now?

he's stalling on investigating now. Why not judge him now?

[leftofthedial]

22. If he refuses to seriously investigate the bushgang's crimes,

Obama should be impeached.

[Captain Hilts]

11. Don't bring up facts. Though I would like to have seen Dems in Congress...

be a LOT tougher with Bush, the outcome would not have been any different. It's a numbers game.

[elleng]

15. I think he doesn't want the political mess it would entail for DOJ to do it,

he'd rather it be handled on the Hill, one way or another.

[rwheeler31]

3. Good luck with that.

[Torgo Johnson]

4. I guess impeachment has to be off the table...

since he is no longer in office.

[Atman]

Actually, no...Bush and Cheney can still be impeached.

Really.

.

[DeepBlueC]

6. I take her at her word

I know what she says about proscriptions on speaking about classified briefings to ANYONE to be true. There was quite a bit of discussion about this from others. It is a devilish restriction which muzzles them with the full force of law.

[Atman]

14. Here is my argument with that argument

If you, me or Nancy Pelosi sits in on a meeting in which CRIMINAL CONDUCT IS DISCUSSED, you can claim anything you want including a special blessing from The Pope, but since it is CRIMINAL, it's not rendered legal simply by the criminal himself simply saying "you can't talk about it."

Pelosi is purported to be an intelligent woman. Which is why I suspect she's guilty as sin. No one speaking from the heart has so much trouble getting the words out. She was relying on linguistic gymnastics to distance herself from the BushCo policies she was made very aware of.

Point being; if Pelosi were to indeed reveal a high-level government crime, she wouldn't have to worry about the rules BushCo made up...she'd only have to rely on the Constitution and the rule of law. IOW, "I was just revealing criminal behavior which was discussed with me." She'd be absolved. This "classified briefings" bullshit is bullshit. They'd have to deal with two trials, or maybe three if you include the court of public opinion. Because once the truth is revealed by a somewhat respected House Speaker, a National Security trial in any venue would take on a strange twist. Because the information would have already been made public by a patriotic American.

THAT'S THE POINT.

If Nancy thinks, "yeah it was super-duper important to the world but I wasn't allowed to talk about it," then she's a fucking idiot. Her duty is to talk about it. Her duty is/was not to protect the self-proclaimed powers of the executive, Bush, Obama or otherwise. Her duty is supposed to be to the country.

.

[Sinistrous]

19. That's an intersting picture you paint.

Too bad it doesn't reflect anything in the real world.

First off, the restrictions on discussing classified material are real and exist for many good reasons. And, they have teeth. They are not BS as you allege. Furthermore, If there was a blatant leak of classified briefing material by someone of Ms Pelosi's rank, the loss of trust would cause this exchange of information to cease or to become so superficial as to be meaningless.

[leveymg]

23. Congresspersons have immunity. No "teeth" for disclosure, other than being cut-off from briefings.

The system was set up so that those Congressional leaders who were "read-in" to classified programs could do nothing with the knowledge they had.

That favored the Administration, and since Pelosi refused to go public and challenge Bush-Cheney, nothing was done.

[smalll]

7. LOL - "try her along with Bush" -- you're like a tricoteuse of the French Revolution,

longing for the heads not only of the nobles, but the Girondins. Or like a Bourbon legitimist after Napoleon, far from satisfied by your restoration, and thirsting for a white terror.

Revenge is a dish best served -- in small, tapas-style portions. We can't send half the nation to the Hague; Holland is a relatively small country.



Stop eating your own children! (Would not a wise move for almost anyone. Except perhaps Octomom.)

[Helga Scow Stern]

17. Now this I can relate to in terms of myth, which

underlies everything. I thought that Obama's election was a nod to the Old Order being consumed by the new. Like, Enough of the old heirarchy and bulls__t. A new devourer is in town. And I believe in this new mouth and teeth to say what it means, and mean what it says.

[proud2BlibKansan]

9. Proud to be #5

[madokie]

10. I agree with the fish analogy but not the rest, sorry

at one point I heard her saying that the way it all came down her hands were tied. she said she was in agreement that some rules concerning that need and will be changed. I can't for the life of me put bushco crimes in a way to make her guilty of them too. I just can't do that.

splchk

[Captain Hilts]

12. She just didn't have the numbers to make it work. It's that simple. nt

[OmmmSweetOmmm]

25. That argument doesn't hold water IMHO. If Impeachment was on the table and the facts saw the light

of day, and the American people heard the truth, the votes would have been there.

[specimenfred1984]

13. You're a slanderer, I find you GUILTY

in the court of internet falsehoods and propaganda. Post your proof of Pelosi's guilt and see if you can address what she said tonight, that there will be NO IMMUNITY FOR ADMINISTRATION CRIMINALS.

[rateyes]

24. No immunity means that the criminals can (and will) assert 5th amendment

privileges. By refusing immunity to the Bush administration, she effectively keeps their mouths shut. And, IMO, that's what she wants. She could care less about prosecuting anyone in the Bush administration---especially for torture and warrantless wiretapping. That's why she supports Conyer's investigation into the US Attorney firings, but not the Truth Commission that will deal with the stuff to which, IMO, she is complicit.

[SmileyRose]

16. What, specifically, was she supposed to do?

Sorry but the crimes sit on the shoulders of the Bush Admin.

[jgraz]

20. Hmmm.... it begins with an 'I'

Need another hint?

[SmileyRose]

21. I believe INCARCERATION is the point of not wanting immunity available.

Impeaching GW or Cheney either one would have removed them from office but would not have stopped any of the shennanigans. It might also have cost Obama the presidency (this we can't know for sure)

[Gregorian]

18. There's optimism, and there's gullibility.

Being off the table was highly unnerving. But being an accomplice or being unable to testify will require evidence of some kind.

I admit that I hold a grudge against the Speaker. But I don't have a sense that she's bs'ing us. None of us know the truth yet.