Comments (25)

Pinson wrote on July 2, 2007 7:11 PM:

She needed to add to more points:

- The is a direct betrayal of the president's oath of office.

- Impeachment is back on the table.

POed Lib wrote on July 2, 2007 7:15 PM:

IMPEACH CHENEY

Lisa wrote on July 2, 2007 7:15 PM:

"Not to be believed"??? When oh when will prominent Democrats used the word LIAR?

POed Lib wrote on July 2, 2007 7:16 PM:

Impeach Cheney, now. Today, the Democratic leadership should be drafting a Bill of impeachment.

Jake wrote on July 2, 2007 7:17 PM:

Was Cheney even involved in Bush's decision? Either way, Pelosi won't put impeachment on the table . . .

Scott L wrote on July 2, 2007 7:18 PM:

With friends like these who needs enemies.

Dreggas wrote on July 2, 2007 7:19 PM:

SO PUT IMPEACHMENT BACK ON THE TABLE!!!

codeword: desire, as in I have the desire to choke the living crap out of some people right now.

cognos wrote on July 2, 2007 7:20 PM:

Bush states in his press release that it is his view that the sentence imposed by the district court was too harsh. I will merely note that Chief Justice John Marshall held that "[the] power of punishment is vested in the legislative . . . department. It is the legislature . . . which is to define a crime, and ordain its punishment." United States v. Wiltberger, 5 Wheat. 76, 95 (1820).

As Justice Thurgood Marshall opined in his dissent from the majority opinion in Schick v. Reed, 419 U.S. 256 (1974), when the President exercises the pardon power in such a manner that calls into question the powers of the legislature to define appropriate punishments, as found in the Sentencing Guidelines, this action offends against the separation of powers. This is why the power to commute a sentence, "As a matter of comity between the branches of government . . . should be exercised sparingly." 67A C.J.S. Pardon & Parole § 34.

The pardon power is a holdover of the British monarchy in American jurisprudence. That does not excuse the President's exercise of that power as if he were a sovereign. That offends against not only principles of comity and the separation of powers, but the principle that the American government is a government of laws and not men.

Gman wrote on July 2, 2007 7:21 PM:

I'm beyond appalled at this. I'm beyond outraged. Words cannot describe what I feel, but it is more akin to someone that lives in a country that has had the government overthrown and is watching everything disintegrate before his disbelieving eyes. I am very afraid for our country this evening. I pray to God it is not lost while it may already be.

daCascadian wrote on July 2, 2007 7:22 PM:

Speaker Pelosi >"...He has abandoned all sense of fairness..."

Let me correct that for you Grandma

"...He has abandoned all connection to reality..."

"...This is not a game." - Lorie Van Auken (2001.09.11 widow)

Anonymous wrote on July 2, 2007 7:27 PM:

Bush states in his press release that it is his view that the sentence imposed by the district court was too harsh. I will merely note that Chief Justice John Marshall held that "[the] power of punishment is vested in the legislative . . . department. It is the legislature . . . which is to define a crime, and ordain its punishment." United States v. Wiltberger, 5 Wheat. 76, 95 (1820).

As Justice Thurgood Marshall opined in his dissent from the majority opinion in Schick v. Reed, 419 U.S. 256 (1974), when the President exercises the pardon power in such a manner that calls into question the powers of the legislature to define appropriate punishments, as found in the Sentencing Guidelines, this action offends against the separation of powers. This is why the power to commute a sentence, "As a matter of comity between the branches of government . . . should be exercised sparingly." 67A C.J.S. Pardon & Parole § 34.

The pardon power is a holdover of the British monarchy in American jurisprudence. That does not excuse the President's exercise of that power as if he were a sovereign. That offends against not only principles of comity and the separation of powers, but the principle that the American government is a government of laws and not men.

justadood wrote on July 2, 2007 7:29 PM:

I'll grow old waiting......

the Speaker won't actually *do* anything....she knows her Corporate minders/contributors would run back to the Republi-thugs, and the Dems might actually LOSE 2008.

No....She'll make sure that there'll be yakyakyakyakyakyak until there's no more Nation left to save, nothing more to talk about, and then she'll........just go home.

Thanks, Madam Speaker, for letting the Republicans take my country away. What's left ain't worth the humiliation of the pisss dripping off my back.

Anonymous wrote on July 2, 2007 7:31 PM:

Impeach now: Cheney, Gonzalez, and Bush

mo2 wrote on July 2, 2007 7:41 PM:

Impeach Bush and Cheney together. President Pelosi.

Duffy wrote on July 2, 2007 7:45 PM:

Hey Nancy! I spent most of the day Saturday with a guy who can probably give you some guidance. His name is Dennis Kucinich. He has a bill that's languishing in your chamber about impeach somebody.

Give him a call. He has a really good idea. Maybe sign on to his bill.

Johnsnottoodistracted wrote on July 2, 2007 8:58 PM:

Blinded by the green?
Come on nancy.Don't you know sf has you covered?
Be a hero.
Or is the money that good?
Word will not get the job done anymore.Never did.

bob voso wrote on July 2, 2007 9:08 PM:

IMPEACH CHENEY FIRST.

criticalthinker wrote on July 2, 2007 10:12 PM:

And speaker Pelosi has abandoned all sense of her DUTY by not having already started impeachment hearings!

President Bush has already CONFESSED to violating the FISA statute on national television and he been CONVICTED by a federal juge of violating the FISA statue.

What possibly more does Pelosi need, an engraved invitation?

Do we have to wait until he gets a blow job from an intern?

RubyGlare wrote on July 2, 2007 10:55 PM:

I am reminded that our Constitution has ceased functioning, ever since January 2001-this is what I'll be thinking while watching fireworks on the 4th.

henry lindsay wrote on July 3, 2007 12:12 AM:

CRIME AFTER CRIME,AND NOW.... OVERTURN A COURT VERDICT ? BUSH DECLARES HIS ADMIN ABOVE THE LAW !!!! IF THERE IS A PUBLIC/PRIVATE GROUP OF CITIZENS ANYWHERE IN AMERICA THATS READY TO BEGIN/HAS BEGUN A JUDICIAL INDICTMENT PROCESS TO INDICT/IMPEACH/BANISH THE BUSH ADMIN....PLEASE POST ON THIS BLOG SO I CAN CONTRIBUTE. I FEEL IT IS MY CIVIC DUTY (STILL WAITING FOR CONGRESS TO GROW A BACKBONE)

bjobotts wrote on July 3, 2007 12:48 AM:

"...he has failed to uphold the rule of law, and he has failed to hold his Administration accountable."

Yet Pelosi fails to hold this administration accountable by taking accountability(as provided in the constitution)off the table. Now she knows how 'we the people' feel about her actions...she should be outraged.

chuck wrote on July 3, 2007 1:29 AM:

I found this little piece in the IHT fascinating. The thrust here is that the Bush White House received expert advice particularly warning of the dangers associated with overreaching notions of what can be done in the name of "national security" and the power of the "commander in chief." Especially, they were warned to always consider the legality of what was proposed and not to consider how to torture common meaning to something hazy and loose in order to achieve their ends. Their advisor? Egil Krogh. Yes, that Egil Krogh. They should have listened to him instead of listening to Cheney, Libby, Addington, and Rove babble about "unitary executive." That bunch played the everybody else in the White House like the bunch of incompetents and saps they were.

Pierre LeClerk wrote on July 4, 2007 4:03 AM:

I believe it is now time to call on our Military specifically the National Gard and State Militias to address the Issue of removing by force, this Criminal Administration, It is the sworn duty of every Soldier Sailer Airmen and Marine to protect and defend our constitution from all enemies, both forgien and domestic.
If the Congress will not do its duty, and the courts will not, than the burden rests with the military to remove forthwith the perpertrators from the seat of power and to provide an orderly process under which new elections can be held. Free from the corruption of unlawful and immoral Corperate influence.

Failing that, only complete Anarchy will resolve this blight on the Nation

Thomas wrote on July 4, 2007 7:24 PM:

This is obstrutcion of justice. It is implied in the Constitution that any President commuting a convicted crimnal is subject to impeachment. Congressman Conyer please proceed with impeachment proceedings. Thank you.
Anyone in Mr. Conyer's district should contact him IMMEDIATELY to start impeachment proceedings. CALL HIM! THANK YOU.

tolnback wrote on July 6, 2007 7:11 AM:

Can congress just pardon Libby thus nullifying his refusal to testify while on appeal? Hes going free anyway, and we all know he's just a fall-guy patsy. I believe there is a supreme court decision allowing congress this power.