Should Nancy Pelosi Be Impeached?

[Rightlane]

Why should Speaker Pelosi -- third in the line of Presidential succession -- get away with blatantly undermining U.S. foreign policy by meeting with the leader of a country that supports terrorism?Â*Â*Why aren’t our conservative leaders calling for a full investigation of her actions, or censure or even impeachment?

http://www.cfiflistmanager.org/pelosinm.html

[Elrathin]

Because what she did is not illegal.

[CheesyMuslim]

Sorry bout that,

1. I agree, she is trying to take hold of *The Office Of The Presidency*.
2. She is over stepped her boundary.
3. She should be brought down, because she is setting a dangerous precedence.
4. All in all the Neoliberal stance in American Politics is *Criminal*.
5. They have learned to break set laws and bend rules so often that they do it with impunity.
6. It is criminal.

Regards,
SirJamesofTexas

[BoogyMan]

Because what she did is not illegal.

I don't know if that is the case El, but I think impeachment would be a mess. I want her to stay right where she is continuing to do the same divisive garbage she is doing right now so the American people can see her in all her glory.

[bobbylien]

That makes about as much sense as the liberals impeaching Bush. It wouldn't change anything, just put someone else with the same views in power.

[Buck Laser]

There are NO grounds for an impeachment of the Speaker. Period.

[BoogyMan]

There are NO grounds for an impeachment of the Speaker. Period.


I don't know that you can make that case Buck, but as I said previously, impeachment would be a mess. Besides, we would like her right where she is for as long as possible so that her actions can be seen by all.

[Elrathin]

I don't know if that is the case El, but I think impeachment would be a mess.


Boogy seriously, if she did ANYTHING illegal, she would be prosecuted so fast, she wouldn't know what happened. The bottom line is what she did was not illegal.

Do I think what she did was wrong? Yes, but definately not illegal.

[Buck Laser]

There are NO grounds for an impeachment of the Speaker. Period.


I don't know that you can make that case Buck, but as I said previously, impeachment would be a mess. Besides, we would like her right where she is for as long as possible so that her actions can be seen by all.

What grounds do you imagine there might be, Boog?

[BoogyMan]

There are NO grounds for an impeachment of the Speaker. Period.


I don't know that you can make that case Buck, but as I said previously, impeachment would be a mess. Besides, we would like her right where she is for as long as possible so that her actions can be seen by all.

What grounds do you imagine there might be, Boog?


Like I said I don't know Buck. I have read some interesting articles based on the Logan act. Some think it has been violated, some think it hasn't. I am watching with interest.

[wonder cow]

Why aren’t our conservative leaders calling for a full investigation of her actions, or censure or even impeachment

Good question. If they had grounds, don't you think they would? And considering that some of these "conservative leaders" tagged along with Pelosi, I suppose they would have to impeach themselves also, so as not to be hypocrites, God forbid.

The Logan act was written in response to a private citizen interfering with foreign relations (oh so long ago). One could hardly argue that the Speaker of the House, 3rd in line to the presidency as you pointed out, is a private citizen in this respect.

And the language of the Logan act says nothing --- please look it up and read it, I have already posted it here in other discussions --- nothing at all about getting permission from the president. It states "authority of the US".

Her trip was approved and paid for by whatever means is used in the House and that alone would constitute "authority", not to mention the other obvious implications of her position.

[piratemonkey]

Like I said I don't know Buck.Â*Â*I have read some interesting articles based on the Logan act.Â*Â*Some think it has been violated, some think it hasn't.Â*Â*I am watching with interest.


I'd advise avoiding the "some think" type of arguments.Â*Â*It's an easy way of avoiding sourcing and makes it hard to shoot down your argument.

If Pelosi is tried for this, there are at least a few major Republicans who have done exactly the same thing in the past 15 years.

I'd love to see Gingrich in jail, though. ;)

[Buck Laser]

There are NO grounds for an impeachment of the Speaker. Period.


I don't know that you can make that case Buck, but as I said previously, impeachment would be a mess. Besides, we would like her right where she is for as long as possible so that her actions can be seen by all.

What grounds do you imagine there might be, Boog?


Like I said I don't know Buck. I have read some interesting articles based on the Logan act. Some think it has been violated, some think it hasn't. I am watching with interest.


The sense I get from your post is that you're more or less hoping against hope that she did something illegal, even if you don't want her impeached.

[NortheastCynic]

No, she's done nothing illegal as far as I can tell.

Here's the Logan Act from this link. (http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/html/uscode18/usc_sec_18_00000953----000-.html)

§ 953. Private correspondence with foreign governments

Any citizen of the United States, wherever he may be, who, without authority of the United States, directly or indirectly commences or carries on any correspondence or intercourse with any foreign government or any officer or agent thereof, with intent to influence the measures or conduct of any foreign government or of any officer or agent thereof, in relation to any disputes or controversies with the United States, or to defeat the measures of the United States, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than three years, or both.
This section shall not abridge the right of a citizen to apply, himself or his agent, to any foreign government or the agents thereof for redress of any injury which he may have sustained from such government or any of its agents or subjects.
Emphasis mine. One can argue that the Speaker of the House, and any other member of Congress has the inherent authority to meet with foreign leaders in order to gather facts. If, however, the Speaker was attempting to alter Syrian foreign policy in a way not authorized by the Executive Branch, she would be breaking the Logan Act. I don't believe she did such a think; she simply made speeches with colorful, pretty language with no substance or any chance in Hell of affecting anything.

-NC

[BoogyMan]

The sense I get from your post is that you're more or less hoping against hope that she did something illegal, even if you don't want her impeached.

Buck, did I say that? No. I said I was watching with interest.

I have never before seen as much political rancor and when I said I was watching with interest, that was exactly what I meant.

I do, however, have a huge distaste for her actions and arrogance. I hope, as previously stated, that the woman gets to hold that office without such a process so that the American people can see her for what she truly is....more of the same only with arrogance and self importance tacked on.

[potter]

Is your distaste because she's a woman or a democrat? Would you have the same distaste if it were a man and a republican?

[BoogyMan]

Is your distaste because she's a woman or a democrat? Would you have the same distaste if it were a man and a republican?


Read the posts potter, such baiting is ridiculous.

I want her to stay right where she is continuing to do the same divisive garbage she is doing right now so the American people can see her in all her glory.

That old dog just won't hunt when the light of truth is shined on such a putrid attempt to derail the discussion.

[Buck Laser]

The sense I get from your post is that you're more or less hoping against hope that she did something illegal, even if you don't want her impeached.

Buck, did I say that? No. I said I was watching with interest.

I have never before seen as much political rancor and when I said I was watching with interest, that was exactly what I meant.

I do, however, have a huge distaste for her actions and arrogance. I hope, as previously stated, that the woman gets to hold that office without such a process so that the American people can see her for what she truly is....more of the same only with arrogance and self importance tacked on.

Let me get this straight: your distaste for her actions and arrogance isn't political rancor, but speaking out against calls for her impeachment is political rancor? You have the strangest way of being "objective" of anyone on DF except a couple of other posers..er, posters that I could name.

[sbannon]

Is your distaste because she's a woman or a democrat? Would you have the same distaste if it were a man and a republican?

Since I've never heard a peep here when in-fact it was a Republican (usually male) doing the same thing... I'm guessing that'd be a no?

In fairness, I'll say that when this topic first came up and it was pointed out that Republicans had done, and were doing the same thing--Boogy was quick to condemn them for it. However, I haven't seen any ongoing discussions of those Republicans nor follow-up threads at all about them like I have Speaker Pelosi, and wonder why that may be?

This discussion lost it's teeth and interest long ago, but I can see why some have to hold onto it as 'all they have'. Good 'ol Boys are being thrown off the air, the surge in Iraq suddenly seems to be turning (as many expected and predicted) for the worse, Rudy won't stay out of drag and Attorney General Gonzales has now sworn under oath that he's an incompetent administrator (unless you believe he's lying under oath and therefor a criminal?)... so Pelosi acting all up-itty is something they can latch onto to feel good I suppose.

Listen, after the past 12 years if this is the worst thing the right can point to from Democrats they should be thanking their lucky stars.

/rant

[BoogyMan]

Let me get this straight: your distaste for her actions and arrogance isn't political rancor, but speaking out against calls for her impeachment is political rancor? You have the strangest way of being "objective" of anyone on DF except a couple of other posers..er, posters that I could name.


Had I tried to make the commentary personal in my previous post I would run away from a refutation of that commentary just like you have done here Buck.

The political rancor I spoke of was in reference to the entire political environment today, one where few politicians on either side of the isle truly hold the interests of the average American as the reasoning behind his or her actions.

To point out a distaste for someones actions is NOT rancor Buck, and if you will notice I was quite kind in my commentary.

[potter]

Is your distaste because she's a woman or a democrat? Would you have the same distaste if it were a man and a republican?


Read the posts potter, such baiting is ridiculous.Â*Â*



A yes or no answer is all I ask.

[NortheastCynic]

Yeah Boogy, are you a partisan sexist, yes or no? :rolleyes:

-NC

[BoogyMan]

Yeah Boogy, are you a partisan sexist, yes or no? :rolleyes:

-NC


This is the equivalent of the old "do you still beat your wife" type of yes or no question.

I love your sarcasm NC! :D

[Elrathin]

I still think it is funny to see many Republicans outraged at this when their own side has done the same damn thing yet they felt no outrage for their side doing it.

[potter]

Heheheheheheh.......

I thought as much. :D

No problem...really....

[Stoner]

She definitly should be. She is a traitor and as anti-American as the rest of the left. What she did was disgusting and could very well be considered an act of treason.

[Elrathin]

She is a traitor and as anti-American as the rest of the left. What she did was disgusting and could very well be considered an act of treason.


Really? Want to show me where she is being put on trial or has been put on trial for treason? Oh wait, she hasn't. Why don't you try again Slick.

[BoogyMan]

Really? Want to show me where she is being put on trial or has been put on trial for treason? Oh wait, she hasn't. Why don't you try again Slick.

I honestly don't believe the political climate is such that she would be put on trial if it were determined that she had broken the law El.

[Elrathin]

I honestly don't believe the political climate is such that she would be put on trial if it were determined that she had broken the law El.


Sure thing Boogy. :rolleyes: So if it was determined she broke the logan act and did something that was considered traitorous you think she wouldn't be put on trial. Riiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii ght. :rolleyes:

No the more likely reason is that she didn't break any laws.

[BoogyMan]

I honestly don't believe the political climate is such that she would be put on trial if it were determined that she had broken the law El.


Sure thing Boogy. :rolleyes: So if it was determined she broke the logan act and did something that was considered traitorous you think she wouldn't be put on trial. Riiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii ght. :rolleyes:

No the more likely reason is that she didn't break any laws.


I honestly don't think the nation has the resolve to do the right thing with regard to this kind of activity El. I feel that resolve has been gone since the 1970s.

[Alonzo]

How about we trade pelosi and reid for bush and cheney?

[CheesyMuslim]

Sorry bout that,

1. But way before she got this gig, I was explaining how she couldn't fill this position properly.
2. This job is to big for her.
3. And she will constantly *Do The Wrong Thing*.
4. This is only the begining.
5. This will do nothing but show just how GD lost the Neoliberal is.

Regards,
SirJamesofTexas

[namguy]

Why should Speaker Pelosi -- third in the line of Presidential succession -- get away with blatantly undermining U.S. foreign policy by meeting with the leader of a country that supports terrorism?Â*Â*Why aren’t our conservative leaders calling for a full investigation of her actions, or censure or even impeachment?

http://www.cfiflistmanager.org/pelosinm.html



Anyone affiliated whit this adminstration should be tossed out:clapper:

[preservanation]

Why should Speaker Pelosi -- third in the line of Presidential succession -- get away with blatantly undermining U.S. foreign policy by meeting with the leader of a country that supports terrorism?Â*Â*Why aren’t our conservative leaders calling for a full investigation of her actions, or censure or even impeachment?

http://www.cfiflistmanager.org/pelosinm.html

She might be more useful to the Republicans to have her hold her seat by having her further prove to the American people that the Dems are unfit to lead the nation, especially in this time of global Islamic terror threats.
Our national security can not be trusted to the Dems, and her keeping her position will remind us all of that every day.

[Survivor]

Congresswoman Nancy Pelosi should not be impeached because she is more qualified than most of the other dems.

[heyjude]

Pelosi should not be impeached because she was doing what many politicians from both parties have done. If obviously is not illegal. I suppose the Republicans prefer Newt the fruit loop. Or any of the other corrupt Republicans who have been thrown out of office.
Of course the Republicans don't consider it wrong when they break laws. They are obeying a higher law. That of the Bush god.

[namguy]

Congresswoman Nancy Pelosi should not be impeached because she is more qualified than most of the other dems.


There will be a day come, and it will come, that the sun won't shine won't shine on the evil:rolleyes:

[Buck Laser]

Why should Speaker Pelosi -- third in the line of Presidential succession -- get away with blatantly undermining U.S. foreign policy by meeting with the leader of a country that supports terrorism? Why aren’t our conservative leaders calling for a full investigation of her actions, or censure or even impeachment?

http://www.cfiflistmanager.org/pelosinm.html



Anyone affiliated whit this adminstration should be tossed out:clapper:


"Administration" usually refers to the executive branch. Speaker Pelosi is definitely not affiliated with this admiistration. I don't fault her as much as some other democrats do, because the democrats in congress haven't held a veto-proof margin to force us out of Nam--errr, Iraq. Of course, that's partly due to some democrats who for various reasons don't want to fight the administration.

[namguy]

Why should Speaker Pelosi -- third in the line of Presidential succession -- get away with blatantly undermining U.S. foreign policy by meeting with the leader of a country that supports terrorism? Why aren’t our conservative leaders calling for a full investigation of her actions, or censure or even impeachment?

http://www.cfiflistmanager.org/pelosinm.html



Anyone affiliated whit this adminstration should be tossed out:clapper:


:peace: Ok...

"Administration" usually refers to the executive branch. Speaker Pelosi is definitely not affiliated with this admiistration. I don't fault her as much as some other democrats do, because the democrats in congress haven't held a veto-proof margin to force us out of Nam--errr, Iraq. Of course, that's partly due to some democrats who for various reasons don't want to fight the administration.