I thought your name was I. R. Baboon.

Fools have no brains to think or spell.
Name callers are children, right kid?

Yes, I believe you are correct. A member could (a) be stripped of their leadership post by majority vote of the full House and (b) be expelled from the House by a majority vote of the relevant committee, and then by a majority vote by the full House.

Now can you tone it down and treat the rightfully outraged posters with more respect? Put more weight on the overrall premise of their comments. There are moderators, not administrators, on TP’s threads.

Actions speak louder than words. Obviously Nancy is guilty of things too. She is just protecting her own wrinkly ass.

Not ALL officials may be impeached…Federal Judges and members of the EXECUTIVE branch may be impeached…..Reason being:

Impeachment is a power of the LEGISLATIVE Branch, specifically the HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES. Nancy Pelosi is NOT a member of the EXECUTIVE or JUDICIAL BRANCH, therefore

SHE

CANNOT

BE

IMPEACHED

Seriously, instead of being snarky, and responding to my comment with disrespect, YOU should be the one who reads not just the Constitution, by MY comment.

Take the time to thank them, or cuss them.

Strat many of us are getting weary of caring, protesting, writing, calling our representatives. mccain raised $3 million last night one fund raiser in Colorado. Does that tell you anything ? Except for a few hundred people nobody gives a damn about ending the war, allowing the corrupt administration give the bird to the “committees”.

Yep, I know…I have called my reps so often, I have them on speed-dial.

It doesn’t seem to bring about the change we need, but it also might be stopping the momentum we are fighting against. Maybe it is a close call, but there still needs to be a voice demanding what 80% of the American people want.

The simple fact is that the entire congress (dems/reps) are all in cahoots. The protect each other, and look the other way when one of their own is feathering their nests.

If the incumbent is on the ballot – vote ‘em out without a second thought. That might spur some change.

How many votes a day are Pelosi and Reid losing for the Democrats?

None…Whats the alternative? McSame? No way. We can be pissed at the leadership, that doesn’t mean progressives are insane. We’ll take care of the ‘blue dogs’ in our own way.

Many here on this blog have something in common with Rove. We all hold Congress in contempt.

Fair enough, but someone has got to care about the condition of this constitutional government. Do you care that Rove is laughing at the Congress? Would you like to see Rove answer questions to Congress so the American people know what has been happening? These are very simple questions for an American to answer. Somebody has got to care, do you?

Brother you said a mouthful and hit the nail on the head. How embarrassing, but how true. There are two Americas.

I think of Dylan’s song “George Jackson”. “Sometimes I get the feeling; the world’s one big prison yard; some of us are prisoners, the rest of us are guards.”

Many here on this blog have something in common with Rove. We all hold Congress in contempt.

YOU CAN’T IMPEACH PELOSI!!!!!!

WRONG! Any official can be impeached. Federal judges have been impeached more than any other office holder.

I wish people would read the Constitutuin before making stupid comments

14 House Judiciary members feel it is legally acceptable to NOT appear before the House Judiciary Committee when subpoenaed and instead, escape away on a vacation. The LAW requires that you appear and at least assert privilege.

That’s your Kabuki theater!

For the die hard T.P.er’s the Kabuki reference is a Campbell Brown/Erica Hill slight at the non-impeachment impeachment hearings that are not being reported by T.P. because T.P. is against corrupt establishment and brain-dead media.

.

Bush’s Mass Pardons Predicted

By Brent Budowsky
July 26, 2008
Consortiumnews.com

Consortiumnews Editor’s Note: As his presidency nears its end, George W. Bush will be faced with a tough choice: either run the risk, along with many of his top aides, of future prosecution for a variety of crimes from the “war on terror” — or fashion a mass pardon for all those involved.

In this guest essay, former Democratic congressional aide Brent Budowsky predicts that Bush will take the latter course, even outdoing his father’s lame-duck Iran-Contra pardons in 1992:

Before leaving office George W. Bush will issue a mass pardon, the largest collection of presidential pardons in American history.

Bush will pardon himself, Vice President Cheney, and a long list of officials involved in torture, eavesdropping, destruction of evidence, the CIA leak case, and a range of other potential crimes.

As George Bush signs the pardons and boards the helicopter to depart Washington as his presidency finally ends, even then he and those pardoned will worry about the statute of limitations.

There is an important point to this, often not recognized in official Washington during the Bush years: When the unthinkable became a way of life, acts were committed that defied constitutional and legal principles in ways never done by an American president.

Torture alone violates international law, domestic law, criminal statutes, and American principles that date back to George Washington.

Eavesdropping without court order violates a statute, FISA, that includes severe criminal penalties. If the courts ultimately conclude that these laws were broken, as I predict they ultimately will, considering the number of individual violations, and the penalties for each violation, the potential sentencing liability for anyone convicted would be huge.

On the destruction of evidence, disappearing e-mails, claims of executive privilege that I predict will be clearly rejected by the Supreme Court after Bush has departed, arguably false testimony to Congress, attempts to cover up actions that violate the law, the list, again, goes on.

There will be a huge legal debate about the right of a President to issue pardons so sweeping in their language that they cover all these potential areas of legal liability, and very possibly, it cannot be done.

Congress should pursue every pending and possible legal challenge to claims of executive privilege so completely untenable under the law that even some conservative Supreme Court justices will refuse to uphold them, as conservative justices joined liberals ruling against Richard M. Nixon.

I predict a series of historic Supreme Court cases that will defeat most of the Bush executive privilege claims and permanently end attempts for royalist interpretations of the law that the Bush years embody.

The fact that Bush attempted to seize power in ways that negate the legislative and judicial branches of government, and the fact that Congress was not heroic in defending its rightful place in the separation of powers, do not change the fact that what is illegal is illegal.

But this is not merely a liberal issue.

There are many authentic conservatives, true Barry Goldwater Republicans, genuine libertarians, honorable strict constructionist conservative jurists and legal scholars who agree entirely that on occasions George Bush has attempted and at times executed seizures of executive power that violate the American Constitution and American statutes.

So, get ready for mass pardons.

Get ready for the long-held precedents of American law to be ultimately if belatedly upheld and spurious claims of executive privilege to be rejected.

Get ready for a long-overdue debate that has barely begun and will be triggered by the mass pardons that will be the last sorry act of the presidency of George W. Bush.

Brent Budowsky was an aide to Sen. Lloyd Bentsen and to Rep. Bill Alexander, then the chief deputy whip of the House. A contributing editor to Fighting Dems News Service, he can be read on The Hill newspaper where this essay first appeared. He can be reached at brentbbi@webtv.net.