In a fascinating interview" target="_blank">click here with House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, bloggers Mike Stark and Dave Johnson offer us a conversation in which Pelosi tells them she had decided “at least a year ago,” before Democrats had even taken control of the House and Senate, “that impeachment was something that we could not be successful with, and that would take up the time we needed to do some positive things to establish a record of our priorities and [Republican] short-comings.”
She adds, “The President isn’t worth it…he’s not worth impeaching. We’ve got important work to do.”
Stark, in marked contrast to the limp interview techniques of MSM "journalists," then says, “Respectfully, the question is whether or not the Constitution is worth it,” to which he says Pelosi responds, “Well, yeah, the Constitution is worth it if you can succeed."
That the leading Democrat in the House, and one of the most powerful people in the Democratic Party leadership, could be so dismissive of the Constitution, so seemingly ignorant of the workings of the impeachment clause, and so openly pessimistic and negative about the power of her opposition party is simply astonishing.
Pelosi is admitting that back in early 2006, before the off-year election campaign had even gotten fully underway, she had already concluded that Democrats could never hope to obtain a majority vote in the House for impeachment!
If Democrats in 1974 had adopted such a defeatist attitude in confronting the crimes of Richard Nixon (who after all was midway through his second term, after having won a landslide victory over George McGovern in 1972), he would have slid through his second term like Bush and Cheney are hoping to do. Remember, when bills of impeachment were first filed against Nixon, only some 25 members of Congress supported the idea of impeachment, and no one thought that the idea had a chance.
The whole point of impeachment hearings is to investigate and make the case for impeachment. Until that is done, it is simply nonsense to say the process “could not be successful.”
This is especially true when one considers that this president, unlike Nixon, has actually already admitted to major crimes. There is no question that he has seriously abused power by refusing to enact laws passed by the Congress. Furthermore, in the case of his ordering the National Security Agency to spy on Americans without obtaining court orders--in direct violation of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act--a federal district judge trying that activity has ruled that it was a serial Class A felony. And even after that August 2006 decision, the president continued with the illegal program for another six months.
Not to impeach the president for these high crimes against law and the Constitution is a dereliction of duty on the part of Pelosi and the rest of Congress or major proportions. It is not as though she has a choice. We objectively have a president who is willfully violating the law and undermining the Constitution. How can Congress, all of whose members take an oath to uphold and defend the Constitution, not initiate impeachment proceedings?
Pelosi tells Stark and Johnson it is only worth protecting the Constitution if there is a certainty that the impeachment process can be won. She is wrong on several counts.
First of all, it should not at all be assumed that following impeachment hearings, a majority of the House would not vote for impeachment--at least on the issues of the signing statements and the NSA FISA crimes. And should they so vote, at that point the president would be impeached, and for all time, his crimes and abuses of power would be labeled as wrong, thus letting future presidents know that such behavior is unconstitutional and will not go unchallenged. The corollary is that if Bush is not confronted for these and other crimes, future presidents will free to adopt his cavalier attitude towards the Constitution, and his usurpation of the legislative authority of Congress.
Second, there is not even a requirement in the Constitution that the Senate try and remove an impeached federal official. That is something that the Senate decides on its own whether to do. Once the House votes for impeachment, a president stands impeached. That in itself would be an important act, and is hardly one that Pelosi can declare to be an impossible goal.
Pelosi made another important admission in her interview with Stark and Johnson, confirming something I have been saying for some time now. That is, she admits that she and the Democratic leadership have known all along that they couldn’t pass any significant legislation. Rather, they are simply hoping to use their legislative ability to pass bills (knowing that nothing of consequence could survive a veto or a signing statement), in order to “establish a record of our priorities” and of the Republican Party’s “shortcomings.”
Talk about setting the bar low!
This of course is hardly what Pelosi and the Democratic National Committee and congressional campaign committees were telling voters during last year’s election campaign, or even what they were saying when they took control of Congress in January. Back then the bold talk was all about passing an “important Democratic agenda” of measures like health care reform, electoral reform, education reform and, or course, ending the Iraq War.
I’ve always said that this was just for show, and that the only real aim of Pelosi et al has been to position themselves to win in 2008—a narrow partisan goal that has led them to sacrifice both ending the war and defending the Constitution.
Dave Lindorff, a columnist for Counterpunch, is author of several recent books ("This Can't Be Happening! Resisting the Disintegration of American Democracy" and "Killing Time: An Investigation into the Death Penalty Case of Mumia Abu-Jamal"). His latest book, coauthored with Barbara Olshanshky, is "The Case for Impeachment: The Legal Argument for Removing President George W. Bush from Office (St. Martin's Press, May 2006). His writing is available at http://www.thiscantbehappening.net
ARichardWatson made a good point in his comment on the 'google impeachment' thread: the Democrats don't want to reduce the power of the president becasue they are planning for the next president to be a Democrat -- and they want all that power without constitutional restraints.
by
Blue Pilgrim (0 articles, 3 quicklinks, 2 diaries, 997 comments)
on Monday, July 2, 2007 at 3:24:21 PM
Here's an NBC/WSt Journal poll from June 8-11 that matches
those figures fairly well. Click here to see the .pdf file -- go down to Question C, about "approve/disapprove of the job Congress is doing" -- it says 64% disapprove, while 23% approve. This survey was done about 2 weeks after the last major Dem betrayal, on the war funding.
by
Richard Mynick (2 articles, 3 quicklinks, 1 diaries, 1216 comments)
on Monday, July 2, 2007 at 9:39:15 PM
Pelosi is one of them. And by "them" I mean those that are part of the millionaire elite that have a vested interest remaining a millionaire.
Pelosi doesn't have a clue as to what the Constitution is there for. There has been little interest in that archaic document since this government was taken over by those that look to the "bottom line" that has taken its place.
If there were to be a mass protest it should be to have Pelosi removed from her post if she doesn't pursue impeachment. Enough is enough.
by
Mr M (4 articles, 0 quicklinks, 15 diaries, 1696 comments)
on Monday, July 2, 2007 at 9:34:27 PM
Pelosi and Reid have fully demonstrated that they are incapable of protecting the Constitution against its domestic enemies, the real threat to our security. They have paid no attention to the people who elected them. They are like the Bush regime in that regard. Pelosi and Reid need to be replaced immediately by persons who are committed to protecting and enforcing our Constitution. I have written a letter to my Congressman pointing out that his failure to so act can only be interpreted as an endorsement of their policies and that makes him as culpable as they are. We the People want our Constitution to be used as it was intended, to protect the People.
by
Alden Mason (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 29 comments)
on Monday, July 2, 2007 at 10:44:10 PM
Ms Pelosis has obviously forgotten whose table she is sitting at, at our invitation no less. It is the peoples table, and it is time for us to remind her of this fact, and let her know what will be on it. I personally think the center piece should be impeachment.
by
Deedee (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 6 comments)
on Tuesday, July 3, 2007 at 3:48:59 AM
It's not true that Dem leaders are "too stupid" to see that
one must impeach, in order to get rid of the dictator. They are perfectly clear about this. The problem however is that they do not really want to get rid of the dictator. Bush-Cheney could never have gotten this far, without the Democrats helping & covering for them, every step of the way.
The contemptible weasels of the Democratic Party have given in to B-C on every single issue since the stolen 2000 election (except possibly privatizing Social Security). The list of surrenders is already too long to recite concisely, but it includes stolen election(s), illegal wars, torture, loss of habeas corpus, spying on US citizens, confirming rightwing judges (which now has produced major assaults on Brown v Board of Education, Roe v Wade, & other reactionary judgements, all of which the Democrats knew would result from their refusal to filibuster the appointments of Alito & Roberts).
by
Richard Mynick (2 articles, 3 quicklinks, 1 diaries, 1216 comments)
on Tuesday, July 3, 2007 at 10:41:43 AM
12 comments
How would you rate this?
You must be logged in (if signed up) to do ratings.
It's free to signup! And easy. And takes just a minute or two....
Must Read (
Well Said (
News (
Touching (
Funny (
Supported (
Interesting (
Inspiring (
Valuable (
