Pelosi on Impeachment and Defending the Constitution: It's Just Not Worth It

These people are so failing us. She is worthless.
Worth the read.

You're quoting from NewsMax, a scummy right-wing propaganda site.

I also don't believe impeachment should be attempted until it's supportable. A failed impeachment would hand the country right back to the Republicans.

---

Until the polls are over 51 % or 2/3, impeaching Bush would drive the country BACK into the Republicans' arms.

Impeaching Cheney, on the other hand, should begin immediately.

And it may ;-}

---

We have always said impeach Cheney first.

Maybe you should vote for Cindy "Mother" Sheehan. She's full of...ideas.

---

"The Clinton impeachment failed and look who won."

EXACTLY-- as the Republicans shown you can not stab at the king unless you are sure you can kill him. An unsucessful impeachement (as any would be right now) would only give the Republicans the chance to blame EVERYTHING on vengeful Democrats.

The next step would be for Congress to vote to hold Harriet Miers or Sara Taylor in contempt.

Here's Conyers's response to Harriet's lawyer [my bold for emphasis]:

===

July 11, 2007

BY FAX AND U.S. MAIL

Mr. George Manning
Jones Day
1420 Peachtree St., NE, Suite 800
Atlanta, GA 30309-3053

Dear Mr. Manning:

We write in response to your letter dated July 10, which was not faxed to us until 7:15 pm last night. We are disappointed and very concerned by your statement that, based upon a July 10 letter to you from White House Counsel Fred Fielding, your client Harriet Miers intends to disregard the subpoena that was duly issued to her by the Committee on the Judiciary, and refuse even to appear at tomorrow’s hearing of the Subcommittee on Commercial and Administrative Law. A congressional subpoena, such as the one issued to Ms. Miers, carries with it two obligations: the obligation to appear, and the obligation to testify and/or produce documents. Even if a witness intends to assert privilege in response to a subpoena, that intention to assert privilege does not obviate the obligation to appear.

We are aware of absolutely no court decision that supports the notion that a former White House official has the option of refusing to even appear in response to a Congressional subpoena. To the contrary, the courts have made clear that no present or former government official – even the President – is above the law and may completely disregard a legal directive such as the Committee’s subpoena. In fact, both present and former White House officials have testified before Congress numerous times, including both then-serving and former White House counsel. For example, former White House Counsel Beth Nolan explained to our Subcommittee that she testified before Congressional committees four times, three times while serving as White House counsel and once as former White House counsel. A Congressional Research Service study documents some 74 instances where serving White House advisers have testified before Congress since World War II.

Moreover, even the 1999 OLC opinion referred to in Mr. Fielding’s July 10 letter refers only to current White House advisers and not to former advisers and acknowledges that the courts might not agree with its conclusion. Such Justice Department opinions are not law, state only the Executive Branch’s view of the law, and have no legal force whatsoever. We note finally that another former White House adviser subpoenaed by the Senate Judiciary Committee in the U.S. Attorney matter, Sara Taylor, appeared today pursuant to Congressional subpoena and testified about many of the relevant facts while also declining to testify about other relevant facts based on the assertion of executive privilege.

A refusal to appear before the Subcommittee tomorrow could subject Ms. Miers to contempt proceedings, including but not limited to proceedings under 2 U.S.C. § 194 and under the inherent contempt authority of the House of Representatives.

We are prepared at the hearing tomorrow to consider and rule on any specific assertions of privilege in response to specific questions. We strongly urge you to reconsider, and to advise your client to appear before the Subcommittee tomorrow pursuant to her legal obligations. The Subcommittee will convene as scheduled and expects Ms. Miers to appear as required by her subpoena.

Sincerely,

John Conyers, Jr.

Chairman

---

And George Bush "governs" but has no idea.

double post.

---

Updated On: 7/11/07 at 06:03 PM

Yeah, and the public pays attention to Mr. Bush taking the law into his hands in such a way. Even if he ends up pardoning the person anyway, he's still putting another nail in his party's coffin.

I hate to say it, but at this point impeachment is sort of pointless, isn't it?

As for Clinton's impeachment, well, Bush lost the popular vote anyway. Not that the popular vote matters!

---

>> If Harriet Miers is found guilty of contempt, all hell breaks loose.

Much as I hate to say it, probably nowhere near as much as we might think. It'll be on the nightly news for about three minutes tops, then we'll hear about George and Congress making some kind of "deal" to keep it all quiet.

---

>> George and the Congress ain't makin' no deals. One of 'em has to give in--and it's all about the approval ratings and the 2008 election.

:: cough cough recentrefundingofIraqwar cough ::

---

...when the public and the press cease to support a president's failed war.

would that be kennedy's war or johnson's war that they passed off onto tricky dick? and if vietnam was nixon's war, will that make iraq the next president's war?

---