Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

TYT: Was Nancy Pelosi Misled On Torture? Or Is She Complicit?

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread		 This topic is archived.
Home » Discuss » Political Videos Donate to DU
 
ihavenobias Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri May-15-09 02:35 PM
Original message
TYT: Was Nancy Pelosi Misled On Torture? Or Is She Complicit?
 
Run time: 04:40
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=upJJkukFeHo
 
Posted on YouTube: May 15, 2009
By YouTube Member:
Views on YouTube: 0
 
Posted on DU: May 15, 2009
By DU Member: ihavenobias
Views on DU: 1673
 
Summary: Cenk plays and analyzes Nancy Pelosi's denial regarding the information shared during intelligence/torture briefings.



Also, Check Out These 5 Clips You May Have Missed:

1)-

2)-

3)-

4)-

5)-

PS---There are Also, you can Download the first hour of The Young Turks (M-F) free on Itunes
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
winter999 Donating Member (530 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri May-15-09 02:36 PM
Response to Original message
1. Complicit and trying like hell to dig herself out. nt.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
jgraz Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri May-15-09 02:53 PM
Response to Original message
2. The right answer is: both
Pelosi may have passively allowed herself to be misled, but she HAD to know that the administration was torturing long before she took impeachment off the table.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
tabatha Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri May-15-09 02:53 PM
Response to Original message
3. Nope.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Aslanspal Donating Member (303 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri May-15-09 02:57 PM
Response to Original message
4. Her daughter and Nancy got to chummy with these people...
in the early years...they used her...she did not cover her ass ...bottom line.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
JDPriestly Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri May-15-09 05:26 PM
Response to Reply #4
12. Is the customer in the bank who looks on while gunment rob the bank complicit?
I don't think so. Pelosi was a single Congresswoman pledged to silence -- legally required to maintain silence. Whatever she knew, she was no more complicit than the customer in the bank.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
lob1 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri May-15-09 03:00 PM
Response to Original message
5. Let's assume that she's as guilty as hell. So what?
First of all, let me say that I'm not a Pelosi fan. I disliked her when she took impeachment off the table, and my view of her hasn't changed. But why are are we and every cable news show talking about Pelosi being complicent? Why aren't we talking about the people who instituted the practice? The pubs claim Bush and Cheney are innocent of committing torture, yet Pelosi is guilty for going along with it. That argument doesn't even make sense. We're not out of the rabbit hole yet. I'm not sure we ever will be anymore.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
florida08 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri May-15-09 03:03 PM
Response to Original message
6. as much as I like Cenk
what is she guilty of? As reported in the press, a cover letter from CIA Director Panetta accompanying the briefings memo released this week concedes that the descriptions provided by the CIA may not be accurate. Bob Graham has come out and said their accounts of his briefings were flat out wrong. If the briefings are released and prove she lied then I'll join the lynching mob. Am surprised Cenk would even consider their folly in this much less making a statement like that. Innocent until proven guilty Cenk.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
cadmium Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri May-15-09 03:47 PM
Response to Reply #6
9. Cenk is either being naive taking Repub bait or
he is being craven to push a story. It should be obvious to anyone who has watched repubs in media in action that they can turn their worst sins into the fault of Dems in the arena of talk radio and cable TV.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
florida08 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri May-15-09 06:38 PM
Response to Reply #9
14. Amen!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
ihavenobias Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri May-15-09 06:42 PM
Response to Reply #14
15. No Amen.
Edited on Fri May-15-09 06:43 PM by ihavenobias
We can have a reasonable disagreement on this issue and it has nothing to due with being craven or naive. At any rate, I'm not weighing in one way or another, but I will say that if she *did* know, I'm sure as hell not giving her a pass because of the (D) next to her name.

And yes, the big and much more relevant issue is the people who started it all, but that's so incredibly obvious (to all of us here, including Cenk) that it should go without saying.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
stlsaxman Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat May-16-09 05:13 AM
Response to Reply #15
27. but "what is so obvious" to us here should NOT go "without saying". this is why many are buying
Boeners assertion of guilt. Cenk, evidently, among them.

Just when did "innocent until proven guilty" go out of fashion in America?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
JDPriestly Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri May-15-09 03:19 PM
Response to Original message
7. More relevantly, was she an accomplice?
Here are some legal definition of "accomplice."

One who knowingly, voluntarily and with common intent unites with the principal offender in the commission of a crime. {case citation omitted]
One who is in some way concerned or associated in commission of crime; partaker of guilt; one who aids or assists, or is an accessory. {case citation omitted] Equally concerned in the commission of crime. {case citation omitted] One who is guilty of complicity in crime charged, either by being present and aiding or abetting in it, or having advised and encouraged it, though absent from place when it was committed, though mere presence, acquiescence, or silence, in the absence of a duty to act, is not enough, no matter how reprehensible it may be, to constitute one an accomplice. One is liable as an accomplice to the crime of another if he gave assistance or encouragement or failed to perform a legal duty to prevent it with the intent thereby to promote or facilitate commission of the crime.

Black's Law Dictionary (6th ed.)pg. 17

Complicity: A state of being an accomplice; participation in guilt. {case citation omitted] Involvement in crime as principal or as accessory before the fact. May also refer to activities of conspirators.


Black's Law Dictionary (6th ed.) pg. 285

This portion of the definition strikes me as most important.

Nancy Pelosi's "mere presence, acquiescence, or silence, in the absence of a duty to act" would not be "enough, no matter how reprehensible" would not make her an accomplice.


IMO, so far, there is no evidence that Nancy Pelosi was "knowingly, voluntarily and with common intent" united in the commission of the crime of torture by the Bush administration. Her approval or disapproval of their torture was essentially irrelevant, especially since they had already tortured at least once, apparently, before they told her anything about it. (She was briefed only once before being replaced as the top Democrat on the Intelligence Committee.)

Further, Nancy Pelosi did not assist in the commission of the torture. She was not involved in giving any of the orders. She claims that she was merely informed that torture had been approved and did not even know until later that it had actually been performed. Whether she is misrepresenting what she was told can only be decided by a court. We really don't have any evidence that she was told anything different from what she has said she was told. The CIA's memos and notes are hearsay. You would have to cross-examine the CIA's witnesses on this.

Nancy Pelosi was not, by any stretch of the imagination, "equally concerned" in the commission of the torture.

Nancy Pelosi was not "present" and did not aid or abet the commission of the torture. There is no evidence that she advised or encouraged it, "though absent from place when it was committed." We have no evidence that Nancy Pelosi assisted or encouraged the torture. Nor did she fail "to perform a legal duty to prevent it with the intent thereby to promote or facilitate commission of the crime." She had a legal duty to be silent about everything she was told in the hearing.

Bob Graham pretty much supports Pelosi's statements.

I think we need prosecutions to sort this out. A Truth Commission would never clear the names of the innocent people in this. It would just look like a cover-up. If Pelosi is telling the truth and willing to stand on it she should take the lead in requesting prosecutions of those who are responsible.

Just to be thorough: 2004 comment on a definition of accessory after the fact from a Model Penal Code

Accessory after the fact
MPC §242.3 : 5 conditions
i. Harbors or conceals the other, or
ii. Provides or aids in providing a weapon, transportation, disguise or other means of avoiding apprehension or effecting escape, or
iii. Conceals or destroys evidence
iv. Warns the other of impeding discovery
v. Volunteers false info to a law enforcement officer (new by MPC)

law.usc.edu/students/orgs/jlsa/assets/docs/CRIMcode%20-%20spring%202004.doc

I don't think Pelosi is an accessory after the fact under this definition either.

But, only a trial will tell.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
izquierdista Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri May-15-09 03:23 PM
Response to Original message
8. Blaming the backseat driver
No, that's a little too strong. How about blaming the person sitting in the very back of the bus with a gag in their mouth for the drunken driver falling asleep at the wheel?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
AlbertCat Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri May-15-09 04:27 PM
Response to Original message
10. I don't give a rat's ass what Pelosi knew or didn't know
Edited on Fri May-15-09 04:27 PM by AlbertCat
She wasn't in charge.
Her friggin' party wasn't in charge.
She didn't order it up.
She didn't have meetings orchestrating exactly how certain prisoners were to be tortured.

Could we go after those in charge at the time 1st? Could we go after who ordered the torture and orchestrated it 1st?

Her "Impeachment off the table" thing is irrelevant too.... no matter how much REVENGE you might want for that.

Could we stop kow-towing the Right Wing torturers and defenders of torturing.

It's that "Liberal Media" again!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
AlbertCat Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri May-15-09 04:33 PM
Response to Original message
11. I know! Prosecute everyone who voted for Bush!
They should have known!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
MasonJar Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri May-15-09 06:33 PM
Response to Original message
13. Nancy Pelosi may or may not be complicit, but Obama now knows for sure.
Cheney has actually bragged about his hand in torture on national tv. The evidence now is insurmountable; therefore, why is there even any discussion about Pelosi at this point? It is pure subterfuge by the GOPers; Obama is now in charge. If he fails to act with the amount of proof (which Pelosi did not have)we currently have, he is 1000 times more complicit than the members of the Intelligence Committees.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
stlsaxman Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri May-15-09 06:43 PM
Response to Original message
16. If Pelosi is complicit so is Former Sen Bob Graham- and he IS NOT complicit.
Watch it, Cenk- you're becoming a Republican shill.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
ihavenobias Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri May-15-09 08:09 PM
Response to Reply #16
18. Sure, sure
You disagree with his take on this issue and the phrase "Republican shill" comes out? That's laughable.

:)
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
stlsaxman Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri May-15-09 08:59 PM
Response to Reply #18
19. Cenk used to be a republican, no?
Edited on Fri May-15-09 09:00 PM by stlsaxman
okay "shill" was a bit harsh. i love Cenk- it was said half in jest.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
ihavenobias Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri May-15-09 09:05 PM
Response to Reply #19
20. So was Arianna Huffington!
Edited on Fri May-15-09 09:06 PM by ihavenobias
:)
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
stlsaxman Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat May-16-09 04:58 AM
Response to Reply #20
26. true, but she was republican by marriage. leaving the party was part of her divorce.
still, point taken!

i'm just glad they both had enough sense to get out.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
OhioChick Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri May-15-09 08:06 PM
Response to Original message
17. K&R
:kick:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
20score Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri May-15-09 09:49 PM
Response to Original message
21. We should all agree to prosecute the people actually responsible for torture, then and only then
talk about who they told, and what was said.
K&R
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
20score Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri May-15-09 10:23 PM
Response to Reply #21
22. Okay that was a lame response, but I hate the way attention is being diverted from the real issues.
The argument about whether or not to torture was settled long before anyone living was born. No one should be tricked into having it again.

And Pelosi is another diversion from the real criminals.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
ihavenobias Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri May-15-09 10:31 PM
Response to Reply #22
23. The thing that gets me is the Republican response.
They are acting outraged. Karl Rove said she's an "accessory to the crime of torture". That's is UN-F*ng-believable. I was STUNNED to hear that.

Shouldn't *that* be an enormous headline all over the place? Former top Bush aide admits to torture/crimes, or something like that.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
rhett o rick Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri May-15-09 11:34 PM
Response to Original message
24. Total distraction. nm
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Kablooie Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat May-16-09 12:40 AM
Response to Original message
25. Who cares!? Get Bush, Cheney, etc in jail, then we can talk. Until then-- who cares!?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
LWolf Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat May-16-09 12:03 PM
Response to Original message
28. Complicit. nt
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DU AdBot (1000+ posts) Click to send private message to this author Click to view this author's profile Click to add this author to your buddy list Click to add this author to your Ignore list Thu May 16th 2024, 01:18 PM
Response to Original message
Advertisements [?]
 Top

Home » Discuss » Political Videos Donate to DU

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators

Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.

Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals |  Store  |  Donate

About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy

Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.

© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC