Skip to main content

View Diary: Pelosi on Impeachment and Defending the Constitution: It's Just Not Worth It (884 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  My point about the ad was that right now - today (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    lefthanded, Simplify, Mind That

    if they were to signal impeachment was on the table the GOP would have an opening to turn public opinion against it.  But building the case without signaling that impeachment is on the table they prevent the Republicans from having a narrative to undermine the findings of the investigations by making distracting arguments about bogus power grab theories.  What I am talking about here is sort of PR 101 stuff where you build a public case for a certain issue by providing facts and information that leads the audience to a controversial conclusion on their own rather than insisting that they accept your gospel as truth.

    In case you are at all interested, you might want to read this article from 1974 which was written a little farther along in the Nixon process, but illustrates the plethora political considerations that are being taken into account right now.  Please also note that until they were ready - they did not trigger impeachment against Nixon either.  It took a long time then and they had been working on it for at least a year.

    http://www.time.com/...

    •  Thanks for comprehensive article (4+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      inclusiveheart, JVolvo, sasher, Mind That

      I was looking for one of those.

      Since October, the House Judiciary Committee has been at work assembling evidence and defining the modern meaning of high crimes and misdemeanors; it hopes to finish its work by April or May.

      That means "on the table" as of October 1973 or earlier.  "On the table" and kicking off impeachment are two completely different things.  I've also been trying to find out when it was "on the table" for Nixon -- if you have any sources on that, I'm all ears.

      When Pelosi says, "off the table," I take her at her word.  So far as I can tell, what that means is no impeachment under any circumstances, and I have seen no evidence to make me think otherwise.

      That's the narrative to undermine the findings.  What whistleblower is going to come forward, relying upon the Democrats to ride to the rescue?  Who truly thinks the Democrats are going to remove Republicans from office, when they ran away as fast as they could from mere censure, under the clearest of Constitutional circumstances?

      Government and laws are the agreement we all make to secure everyone's freedom.

      by Simplify on Mon Jul 02, 2007 at 01:59:06 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  I think it was finally on the table officially (3+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        Simplify, JVolvo, Mind That

        in October - and you will note that O'Neill and Albert stopped an attempt that was made probably nine or ten months prior.  I also know that the work my dad was doing was not supported at all by the leadership until much, much later in the game - a lot of people thought Patman was a crazy old coot.

        Here is another book excerpt that is worth reading.

        http://www.theatlantic.com/...

        The thing is that Nixon provoked Congress with the Saturday Night Massacre.  Until that time, there was a desire to investigate, but little real desire to impeach.

        Here is a site that has a lot of different stuff if you are interested in digging through it.

        http://watergate.info/...

        On February 6, 1974, The Committee on the Judiciary of the House of Representatives was authorised by Resolution 803 of the House "to investigate fully and completely whether sufficient grounds exist for the House of Representatives to exercise its constitutional power to impeach Richard M. Nixon, President of the United States of America."

        I have been looking for a timeline that offers a bit more about Congressional evolution - most focus on Nixon's actions and the key responses we all know by heart.  Someone who has a Times Select Account could probably go back and find the comtemporary articles that would provide the detail that you and I are both sort of looking for.

        In any case, this Congress has only been working on the Bush Admin for six months.  Watergate took a lot longer to unravel than six months.

        •  It seems even harder this time (3+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          inclusiveheart, JVolvo, Mind That

          because, instead of a steady train of new revelations, with Congress taking more action at each step, we already know Bush/Cheney have done so many illegal things, and (the until recently Republican) Congress did nothing.  Per a comment of Major Danby's, we're asking Congress to impeach itself.

          Thanks, I'll definitely check those out.

          Government and laws are the agreement we all make to secure everyone's freedom.

          by Simplify on Mon Jul 02, 2007 at 02:45:15 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  They knew then too and the media was much (2+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            JVolvo, Mind That

            better about reporting things like the Pentagon Papers.  It really isn't that different now except the media isn't nearly as aggressive as they were then - that is why Nancy asked for help.

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site