That sound you just heard was Pelosi blowing the *blame her* points out of the water

Video will surely follow

She signed an oath not to disclose classified information
the CIA briefed her only once on "enhance interrogation techiques" in Sept. 2002
She was the ranking member of the House Intelligence committee
She was briefed that the OLC had determined that it was legal
the only mention of waterboarding at that meeting was "that IT WAS NOT BEING EMPLOYED"
the appropriate members of Congress would be informed if that was used in the future
We now know (Congress and the American people) that opinions contrary to their legality within the executive branch existed and were not shared with Congress
We now also know that waterboarding had been employed and that those briefing her in Sept. 2002 "gave me inaccurate and incomplete information"
at the same time the Bush administration were deceiving the American people about WMD in Iraq
in February 2003 her staff informed her that the Republican chairman and the Democratic ranking member of the House intelligence subcommittee had been briefed about the use of certain techniques that had been the subject of earlier legal opinions
following that meeting a letter to the CI General Scott Mueller by the new Democratic ranking member of the committee was sent "the appropriate person to register a protest"
BUT NO LETTER COULD CHANGE THEIR POLICY
after the change in leadership (Democratic) 2007 Congress passed legislation banning torture and requiring all Federal agencies to abide by the Army Field Manual. President Bush vetoed that legislation. An override vote failed to pass because of the votes of Republicans.

"We needed to elect a new President. We did. And he has banned torture"

--------
*ballpark* game over.

that's new, isn't it?

but when did she say before today that they told her it wasn't being used, i.e. that they lied to her?

In December 2007, Mrs. Pelosi admitted that she attended the briefing, but she wouldn't comment for the record about precisely what she was told. At the time the Washington Post spoke with a "congressional source familiar with Pelosi's position on the matter" and summarized that person's comments this way: "The source said Pelosi recalls that techniques described by the CIA were still in the planning stage -- they had been designed and cleared with agency lawyers but not yet put in practice -- and acknowledged that Pelosi did not raise objections at the time."

The time was the briefing on Sept.4,2002.

I still don't like her, but a little more so than I did.

she is a Democratic leader and thus must be pilloried even worse than those who planned and executed the torture.

step back for a second.

:sarcasm:

just echoing the Jonathan Turley school of thought that hold those who prevent torture now more liable than those to executed it.

maybe I should step back, huh?

This place... :crazy:

Not a huge fan of hers (some yes some no) but she is right on this.

I watched the NBC Nightly News last night for the first time in years and there was a 30 second report on the earthshaking testimony in Congress yesterday and then a 5 minute report on Cheney's points on it.

I am sure this will be ignored. Fox News already has "blowback" from the CIA.

...they lied about informing members of Congress who, it turned out were never informed...so I have no reason to think that they would not lie to those to whom they did speak.

during the boosh admin? No one around boosh knew how to tell the truth.

Cheney, who visited the CIA regularly.

He'll lie to protect boosh and Cheney, and possibly his own ass.

saying that.....We have them right here, too:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=102x3876978#3877097

and I'm so glad they let the Pukes work up a good head of steam trying to bluff their way out of an investigation.

Now we need to start that investigation. Now.

it is about the same thing

Fox News is saying (I am not kidding) "she keeps going back to those documents (what documents? it was a top secret briefing).. and a US OFFICIAL is saying to me 'what about her own records?'" What records??? she can't take notes in a top secret meeting. Hell she had no staff there (staff runs things on the hill) she couldn't even talk to here staff about what she heard in that briefing.

They are spinning like mad. I expect the "why don't we see ALL the memos" meme to have "why haven't we seen ALL her records?" lumped on top of it---neither one can be concluded.

this new tactic provides a little hope.

And it's enormously entertaining seeing them spin themselves nearly into pieces. What morons. They probably nearly cry tears of joy that hardly anyone pays attention to this crap.

And the talking heads are jumping backwards through their assholes trying to get something to stick.

It doesn't make any difference what Nancy Pelosi knew and when she knew it. Who was it that told her this shit? When did they tell her? Those are the people we should be getting all worked up about.

And even though it appears she was not complicit, if she were she should go to prison along with the rest of them.

to illegal acts and crimes against the Constitution of the United States.

I don't understand why Congress didn't do that. Well, I guess now that I think of it, there was the threat of anthrax, and worse, I suppose.

take a Friday afternoon and impeach. There wouldn't have been a conviction but he would have been impeached and it would have been on the books.

After "ShootEmInTheFace" told Leahy to go fuck himself.....just in case he didn't get the picture clear enough, there was a little something coming in the mail.

She did not stutter one bit.

first? If we can't prove they committed the crimes then Peolsi could not have been complaisant.

Therefore, an admission or briefing of an illegal activity by a member of government is proof.

something wrong was done in the first place. How can Pelosi be guilty of being an accomplice if the court has not deemed a crime has been committed?

made on her regarding this issue. I'm just saying a pledge on "classification" is subordinate to the law and the constitution and itself is not absolving in that effect though it could be used as a mitigation. The perpetrators cannot make a case, that is why they want to shift focus onto her. It won't work because in order to try and make her an accomplice, they admit they did something illegal.

So you think Pelosi should have also committed an illegal act?

nor require silence about the commission of that crime. Classification was created to keep secret intelligence gathering methods or plans.

If the information is classified the law says that you can be fined or go to jail for revealing it, period. It doesn't matter if you think the classified information could be covering up what you think could be a crime. You are still bound by law not to reveal that classified information.

This is not Pelosi's fault. The system is set up in such a way where Congress doesn't really have any substantive oversight and their hands are really tied in these "gang of 8" meetings. The law needs to be changed so that Congress has actual oversight of intelligence activities.

to its illogical conclusion concerning classification, then classification would trump the constitution and rule of law. There would be no constitutional checks and balances because the executive branch could ignore the constitution at will by holding classified briefings of congress for any crime they may commit.

That is the problem. The National Security Act of 1947 gives the President the sole authority to handle the classification of information and various statues both preceding and following that act make it a federal crime punishable by imprisonment or a fine.

There is no law that addresses the possibility that the President might abuse his classification powers to cover up a crime. Such a law needs to be written in light of the actions of the Bush Administration.

Neither of those things have been done and frankly I don't have a clue what the outcome would be.

Pelosi might have been more inclined to consider whether that might hold up in court if she had been allowed to consult with a lawyer about whether or not that would hold up in court. But she wasn't allowed to because then she would be revealing information to the lawyer who wasn't authorized to hear it.

The Intelligence Committee at the very least needs a professional staff that is allowed access to this information that members can consult with and there should be some mechanism that an act of congress can force the President to declassify information.

I watched her press briefing. How she stayed as cool as she did, I don't know. Questions were being yelled at her rapid fire. She took the time to go over and over the time line.
She has delivered an explosive bombshell basically saying they were lied to by the CIA and the administration. (yeah, duh)
She wants those briefings all exposed so everyone can see it for themselves.
(man of color Boner now on CNN calling her a liar)
Bring it on....
:popcorn:

Sweet! Bring it!

... must be questioned in the exact same manner that she is.

the Bush White House was super secretive and tightly controlled. There were literally maybe 6 or 8 people actually involved in all governance. That was part of the problem-they only "governed" for the 24 hour news cycle (Rove). So there are really only 6 or 8 likely culprits/perps

It ain't complicated. Any cop will tell you that.

The police wouldn't allow one suspect's "testimony" to be negotiated away, would they?

I said what I said because the GOP criminals have a habit of "visiting" with Congress, instead of testifying under oath and on camera.

I say, if Pelosi does it, they damn well better too.

GUILTY

yeah, I'm one of those Kucinich Republicans

(edited, but not to correct peedle... ?)

And even if she wasn't, since when is "being tricked" an excuse? Who in their right mind would actually believe anything the CIA has to say? Absolute politician moment.

Pelosi went along with the crowd, and is now summoning the tire tracks for Conservative faces, when she was in on it too. They all were, except for a small group.

Unbelievable....

Her hands were tied. She couldn't release what she might have known and I don't think she knew much what with the CIA lying about everything. How could she know what the actual truth was?

I never said she's as bad as the torturers. That ridiculous.

But I am calling her a liar. I just don't buy this crap. They all said the same thing about the Iraq War, on how they were "tricked" into doing it. Is congress full of 5 year olds?

It's not believable at all.

If you can't prove anything, what do you THINK she lied about?

She's using the same "I didn't know" excuse that has been used for 8 years. I would think people wouldn't fall for that anymore.

Six months in now. Enjoy your stay.

she is using the "they lied to me and everyone"

Is this new to you? Did you pay attention to the Bush administration?

I see an obvious deflection of blame. Once again, all too common in the last 8 years.

"deflection of blame" even though Cheney has already admitted they both signed off on the illegal program. And Pelosi was lied to by the CIA when they tried to keep it secret.

huh...

Of course what Bush and Cheney did should be priority a million times over a few white lies told by Pelosi. It's not even close.

I'm sorry, but even if she didn't know, it's still her fault. It's her obligation to research things, instead of just believing what she's told. Instead, she just went along with the crowd.

It is illegal for them to lie to her like they did.

But still, ignorance doesn't get her off the hook. It's her duty to know about interrogation techniques if the government is going to use them. She is part of the government, and a big one at that.

Because so far, all I see in your response is that you don't believe her in general. Nothing in your answer has any specificity.

She didn't believe waterboarding was being used. I believe she knew they were waterboarding, at least to some extent, and is now backpeddling for political reasons.

You either know or you don't.

You can't base legal arguments on your gut feelings, you know.

But under these terms, yes, she did know. She at least had an idea. This backpeddling is a blatent attempt to wash her hands of any knowledge. The phrase, "See no evil, Hear no Evil, Speak no Evil" comes to mind.

This isn't "backpeddling" that she's doing... she is stating the facts.

Sorry you aren't enjoying it. I am.

It didn't look like facts were stated during Pelosi's statements. It sounded more like a textbook "CYA." Yes, she is right that the CIA is full of crap. But if they're so full it of, why would she believe them?

You seem waaay more upset at anything Pelosi MAY have known or not done about what she may have known than what boosh and Cheney ACTUALLY DID AND ORDERED!

I'm saying get your priorities straight and go after those that perpetrated these crimes. If Pelosi or any Dem is guilty of anything it will come out during those trials.

But I'm also for members of Congress telling the truth, and not making "They lied to me" excuses for not doing something about the torture. They let it happen.

As I understand it, there was nothing, within the law, she could have done to stop the boosh administration from torturing.

They could have done their jobs, and introduced legislation to ban waterboarding. They could have at least exposed the CIA and Armed Forces for what they were doing. Congress didn't do enough.

And this isn't a dictatorship. Even if there was a Republican majority and an inflated Executive Branch, they could have done something to stop it.

exactly

Do you honestly believe that Pelosi was innocent in all of this?

She was told one thing. She was told that they weren't even sure about what they told her. She was the ranking member on a committee. Turns out the lied to her then and later. and.... this is important SHE COULDN'T SAY ANYTHING ABOUT IT AND IT WOULDN'T HAVE MADE A DIFFERENCE IF SHE DID.

Isn't it their jobs to say something? Isn't that what led us into this mess?

"We also now know that techniques including waterboarding had already been employed and that those briefing me in September 2002 gave me inaccurate and incomplete information," she added. "At the same time, the Bush administration -- exactly the same time -- September of 2002, the fall of 2002, at the same time, the Bush administration was misleading the American people about the threat of weapons of mass destruction in Iraq."

"They didn't tell us everything they were doing," she told reporters. "We had to get a new president to change the policy."

The entire controversy over her role is a "diversionary tactic" by Republicans and former Bush administration officials, she asserted. "They don't want the focus on them, so they put the attention on us," she said.

http://www.boston.com/news/politics/politicalintelligence/2009/05/pelosi_defends.html

thanks

Minority Party...completely shut out of oversight. Spoonfed only what Cheney wanted them to know. Sworn to secrecy. What did you expect Pelosi to do? Break the law and go public with her concerns? She'd have been tried for treason in the press.

Making her a scapegoat for the past administration's crimes was a bad idea. Pelosi has thrown down the gauntlet and it looks like there's going to be a real investigation into this issue. Once discovery starts, I suspect that it'll open more questions in other areas of the past administration's crimes (illegal wire tapping for example)...this could really snowball and Pelosi's opening volley today should be the start of a process to finally get an independent commission to investigate what the past administration did and determine what laws (if any) were broken.

I see what she, as well as other Democrats did as "Politics over Morality." It would have been the end of her career, and the press would have murdered her reputation, but is that really worse than saying nothing about an enlarging Executive Branch that feels like it can say what is torture and what is not? I see it as being spineless.

But you do make an interesting point. Would people have listened? I do agree, however, that the Republicans are running some demented PR campaign to take the blame off themselves. They've done it before.

and answers to questions on his show.

Your account is along the lines of my own suppositions.

Only public hearings and trials - UNDER OATH - will clear this up.

pause type play pause type play

good job and thanks for that.:thumbsup:

By several orders of magnitude!

:)

:kick:

put the "blame her" in your title in quotes. It is a little hard to read without them. But your OP is very good and must have taken a lot of effort.

it tends to be more exciting to the eye and, as we can see upthread, it stirs up the natives

:-)

thanks

I was going to use a short title (PELOSI *BALLPARK*) but went with that

Does the congress pass new legislation, each and every time a law is broken, making the conduct even more illegal? With all the convictions we have in this country, I guess they keep themselves pretty busy!

both in law and in treaties including one signed by Reagan.

Or Nancy Pelosi?

I'll stick with Pelosi.

any day when it comes to who was lying.

"I felt that as an American citizen, as a responsible citizen, I could no longer cooperate in concealing this information from the American public. I did this clearly at my own jeopardy and I am prepared to answer to all the consequences of this decision" -Ellsberg on why he released the Pentagon Papers to the press.

That's why Daniel Ellsberg is a hero, and Nancy Pelosi is a cowardly, morally bankrupt, self-serving piece of crap.

A pox on the lot of them.

looks too much like a cover-up. The worst presidency in the history of the U.S. was given a free rein -- no excuse for that.