Whatever happened to accountability?

THE PEOPLE SHALL REMEMBER,
COME VOTING TIME NOVEMBER!

… Let that be the accounting time!

.

Whatever happened to accountability?

I will all the comments here carefully – this is becoming more alarming by the day. I expect the next move will be a “terrorist” attack on the US or Isreal “by Iran” – then a declaration of war, and martial law – then, guess what? NO ELECTIONS – as in “NATIONAL SECURITY”. I am afraid impeachment is the only way to prevent (maybe) what may already in motion.

IF we had a Just System…

IF it wasn’t politicised…

IF CONGRESS WOULD DO THEIR JOBS…

… then Nadler wouldn’t have to excuse his mental reservations about the climate he is a part of, thus leading to an eventual evasion of his Obligation to act and hold the criminals to account in contravention TO his own Oath of Office, an Oath which is his guarantee to the Republic and the people he serves, his FAITHFUL support and defense of the entire Constitution, not just the politically convenient parts. Talk about being politicised, Jerrod!

Yes, the mouth HAS two sides…
This good(?) CONgressman just told us that Bush IS impeachable and that Nadler won’t commit to his Oath of Office.

Q U E S T I O N:
Does CONgress even have a choice as to whether or not to support and defend the Republic’s Freedoms, Rights and Liberties? Then what good does an Oath of Office do anyways? At which point is CONgress declaring themselves NULL & VOID due to THEIR breaking of the contract they made to the Republic and their constituients? Or can the People declare…
E N O U G H!!!

I M P E A C H
or R E S I G N!

p.s.
What else is a snake oil salesman but a CONgressman?

.

Did you bother signing on in support of Kucinich’s articles of impeachment?

Failure to do so, given your statement that p(R)esident bush is an unindicted criminal, makes you an accomplice in the destruction of democracy in America.

One of the few Representatives in Congress I am aware of who were willing to stand with Kucinich was Lynn Woolsey. Good on her.

But as for you? . . .

From the article:
As we witness not just Republicans, but also Democrats in Congress, acting repeatedly to immunize executive branch lawbreaking and to obstruct investigations, it’s vital to keep that fact in mind. With regard to illegal Bush programs of torture and eavesdropping, key Congressional Democrats were contemporaneously briefed on what the administration was doing (albeit, in fairness, often in unspecific ways). The fact that they did nothing to stop that illegality, and often explicitly approved of it, obviously incentivizes them to block any investigations or judicial proceedings into those illegal programs.

In December of last year, The Washington Post revealed:

Four members of Congress met in secret for a first look at a unique CIA program designed to wring vital information from reticent terrorism suspects in U.S. custody. For more than an hour, the bipartisan group, which included current House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.), was given a virtual tour of the CIA’s overseas detention sites and the harsh techniques interrogators had devised to try to make their prisoners talk.

Among the techniques described, said two officials present, was waterboarding, a practice that years later would be condemned as torture by Democrats and some Republicans on Capitol Hill. But on that day, no objections were raised. Instead, at least two lawmakers in the room asked the CIA to push harder, two U.S. officials said.

The article noted that other Democratic members who received briefings on the CIA’s interrogation program included Jay Rockefeller and Jane Harman. While Harman sent a letter to the CIA asking questions about the legality of the program, none ever took any steps to stop or even restrict the interrogation program in any way.

Identically, numerous key Democrats in Congress — including Rockefeller and Harman — were told that Bush had ordered the NSA to spy on American without warrants and outside of FISA. None of them did anything to stop it. In fact, while Rockefeller wrote a sad, hostage-like, handwritten letter to Dick Cheney in 2003 (which he sent to nobody else) — assuring Cheney that he would keep the letter locked away “to ensure that I have a record of this communication” — Harman was a vocal supporter of the illegal NSA program. Here’s what she told Time in January, 2006 in the wake of the NYT article revealing the NSA program:

Some key Democrats even defend it. Says California’s Jane Harman, ranking Democrat on the House Intelligence Committee: “I believe the program is essential to U.S. national security and that its disclosure has damaged critical intelligence capabilities.”
Harman then went on Fox News and pronounced that the NSA program was “legal and necessary” and proudly said: “I support the program.” Even worse, in February, 2006, Harman went on “Meet the Press” and strongly suggested that the New York Times should be criminally prosecuted for having reported on the illegal program. And indeed, in 2004, Harman demanded that the NYT’s Eric Lichtblau not write about the NSA program. As Lichtblau wrote in his recent book about a 2004 conversation with Harman:
“You should not be talking about that here,” she scolded me in a whisper. “They don’t even know about that,” she said, gesturing to her aides, who were now looking on at the conversation with obvious befuddlement. “The Times did the right thing by not publishing that story,” she continued. I wanted to understand her position. What intelligence capabilities would be lost by informing the public about something the terrorists already knew — namely, that the government was listening to them? I asked her. Harman wouldn’t bite. “This is a valuable program, and it would be compromised,’ she said. I tried to get into some of the details of the program and get a better understanding of why the administration asserted that it couldn’t be operated within the confines of the courts. Harman wouldn’t go there either. “This is a valuable program,” she repeated.
In light of this sordid history of active complicity, is it really any wonder that these leading Democrats are desperate to quash any investigations or judicial adjudications of Bush administration actions that they knew about and did nothing to stop, in some cases even actively supporting?

As the representative from lower Manhattan, Mr.Nadler is one of the heroic figures who helped 200 Mossad agents escape from New York right after 9/11.

Go get ‘em, Jerrold.

But if you try to explain to them all the laws concerning the justice system, the constitution and being accountable to the people…they just completely zone out. Too much information for them, they can’t process it. But sex? Hell yah! They understand that 100%!

Unfortunately, only those who inform themselves will be aware…and that is the minority of Americans who are not distracted by American Idol or Fox Noise, but instead read newspapers, books and diversify their source of information…oh yea…and are open minded! Most important!

Is it true that an impeached president cannot pardon anyone? Don’t we want all the criminals who conspired against the Constitution and the American people to be held accountable?

Y’all anti-impeachment bloggers are falling in lockstep with the Republican talking points.

It’s not about the outcome, it is about the process!

I agree with the sentiment but didn’;t you noticed my complete layout about how the process can be easily manipulated because Bush and the Repubs STILL CONTROL IT. ?

My attitude that the impeachment process isn’t enough doesn’t prevent me from wearing my impeachbush t-shirt in public nor demanding justice, nor criticizing Pelosi, nor writing to congress critters asking them what the hell they think they are doing.

And what I wrote is not a Republican talking point.