Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

What is it, exactly, that the Republicans want to investigate Nancy Pelosi for?

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 » Archives » General Discussion (1/22-2007 thru 12/14/2010) Donate to DU
 
CTyankee Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat May-23-09 11:42 AM
Original message
What is it, exactly, that the Republicans want to investigate Nancy Pelosi for?
I'm really not understanding what even CAN be investigated here. The briefings were classified. What else is there?

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
Patsy Stone Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat May-23-09 11:44 AM
Response to Original message
1. Well, she *is* from San Francisco after all
so that's a start.

(They got nothin'.)
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Warpy Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat May-23-09 11:45 AM
Response to Original message
2. Investigation = guilt
This is just another stupid PR stunt. There is nothing they can investigate. The meeting was classified, no notes were taken, no aides were permitted, no records were kept.

The big, scary word, "investigation," means she's guilty of something, though. That's how they play the game. Dirty.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Kerrytravelers Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat May-23-09 11:46 AM
Response to Original message
3. Having a D after her name.
How dare she!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
napi21 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat May-23-09 11:46 AM
Response to Original message
4. They want to prove she was told about WBing and had no problem
back then. Therefore she was complicit in what she's now calling illegal torture.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
CTyankee Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat May-23-09 11:51 AM
Response to Reply #4
7. I get that but how do they expect to do it? It's a complete nonstarter. nt
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Puzzler Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat May-23-09 11:47 AM
Response to Original message
5. The more they investigate her, the more they implicate themselves...
I think they're hoping that all investigations will somehow grind to a screeching halt at Pelosi's front door.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
LiberalFighter Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat May-23-09 11:50 AM
Response to Original message
6. They want to investigate Pelosi because Hastert was House Speaker when it happened.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
CTyankee Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat May-23-09 11:52 AM
Response to Reply #6
9. and that means what? nt
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
LiberalFighter Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat May-23-09 12:02 PM
Response to Reply #9
14. She wasn't Speaker of the House at the time last I knew.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
geckosfeet Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat May-23-09 11:51 AM
Response to Original message
8. For not having a tough guy demeanor. Hey - if you look like a woman, well, you know.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
LiberalAndProud Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat May-23-09 11:53 AM
Response to Original message
10. Failing to impeach Bush? Wait, that can't be the problem.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
L0oniX Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat May-23-09 11:57 AM
Response to Original message
11. So uhm if she knew about torture and its wrong ...what about Bush, Cheney, Rummy, Rice etc?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
havocmom Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat May-23-09 11:59 AM
Response to Original message
12. For a diversion
and for a scapegoat
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Marr Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat May-23-09 12:01 PM
Response to Original message
13. For knowing about torture. But it isn't torture. And for not stopping them from committing
Edited on Sat May-23-09 12:02 PM by Marr
crimes... but they were perfectly legal and the really responsible thing to do. And for holding the position of Speaker... which was held by a totally different person during the time they're complaining about... but not.

Yeah, I don't really get their position, either.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
emulatorloo Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat May-23-09 12:11 PM
Response to Reply #13
15. Here it is in a nutshell: "Torture GOOD! Pelosi BAD!!!"
It is about the most ridiculous stunt I've seen them pull, and they have some done some pretty ridiculous stunts.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
bluedeminredstate Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat May-23-09 12:22 PM
Response to Original message
16. They don't want to investigate her.
They are just throwing that word out there to make the public think she did something wrong by being briefed about the Bush administration's "legal" "enhanced interrogation techniques" and then not standing up as the minority member of the intel committee and breaking the law by divulging classifed information, then single-handedly not stopping the Bush administration from breaking the law which they said they weren't and then not standing on the steps of the Capitol and objecting to the very methods and policies that kept us SAFE FOR EIGHT YEARS!!! Got that? OK, good.


Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
librechik Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat May-23-09 12:29 PM
Response to Original message
17. for if they don't loudly scream and point over at her
people would be looking at the actual issue of BushCo's crimes and fraking out over that.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Cleita Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat May-23-09 12:33 PM
Response to Original message
18. Poor Nancy Pelosi. She was really caught in a catch 22 situation here.
It's the reason she didn't impeach Bush IMHO was because she would be implicated in knowing about the war crimes that she couldn't talk about because the information was classified. I was always suspicious because her excuses for not impeaching didn't ring true. It seemed like she was covering her ass. Like a true politician she wouldn't do the right thing by impeaching and letting the chips fall where they may. Now the chickens are coming home to roost. The Repugs of course are only making themselves look like total asses. They got away with these tactics with Clinton's impeachment, but in the past decade of Bush's criminal mismanagement of the country is making people take a harder look at what they are doing. They won't succeed, but Nancy may be looking at her last term because I feel her San Francisco constituency are considering this the last straw. The Repugs won't bring Nancy down but her own district voters will.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
mmonk Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat May-23-09 12:37 PM
Response to Reply #18
19. There is no real requirement in law that one must stay silent
about illegal acts. It may be that you can be punished for disclosing classified information, but if classification is used to cover a crime, she wouldn't be sentenced.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Cleita Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat May-23-09 12:44 PM
Response to Reply #19
20. I understand why she said nothing while the Bush administration was in
power. They would have dropped a metaphorical cement block on her. However, she should have impeached once the Democrats gained control of the House. It would have been harder for them to drop that block because then all the eyes would be on them and the impeachment. Of course she knew that, so I believe her motives were more sinister to cover her ass so that this information that she knew about possible water boarding wouldn't get out like it would in impeachment hearings. Well, it got out anyway, so I think La Pelosi's goose is cooked among the Democrats unless she pulls the right rabbit out of her hat. What the Republicans do from now on is really irrelevant unless they go directly to the fact that she should have impeached and that isn't going to happen, ever.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
mmonk Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat May-23-09 01:47 PM
Response to Reply #20
24. Yes, I can understand given the surveillance state and the condition
Edited on Sat May-23-09 01:48 PM by mmonk
of our media.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Diamonique Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat May-23-09 12:51 PM
Response to Reply #18
21. She should have impeached the bastard anyway
<<It's the reason she didn't impeach Bush IMHO was because she would be implicated in knowing about the war crimes that she couldn't talk about because the information was classified.>>

I always thought they should have been impeached for lying us into a war. That to me is high treason, and screamed for impeachment. She wouldn't have had anything to cover for if she had gone after those lies. All the other crimes they committed were efforts to cover up the "real" crime of lying us into a war.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Cleita Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat May-23-09 01:02 PM
Response to Reply #21
23. Yes, she should have but all those other crimes like the torture would
come up in the hearings including the possible water boarding and that she knew about it. I think what she did was cynical and self-serving and she probably thought it would never come to light once the Bush administration was out of the White House and walking into the sunset.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Warren Stupidity Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat May-23-09 12:58 PM
Response to Original message
22. For being briefed in secret about crimes they committed.
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, 12:29 AM
Response to Original message
Advertisements [?]
 Top

Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion (1/22-2007 thru 12/14/2010) 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