Submitted by:
mamachelle

---

---

Subscribe to this Author

---

Paste this code into your site to promote this story!
<a href="http://www.breakthematrix.com/Government/1000-to-ask-Nancy-Pelosi-a-question" onClick="document.images["breakTheMatrix"].src='http://www.breakthematrix.com/badge/badge.php?cid=17488';return false"><img name="breakTheMatrix" src="http://www.breakthematrix.com/badge/badge.php?cid=17488" border="0" /></a>

http://www.democrats.com/citizen-journalism-contest-ask-pelosi-what-is-an-impeachable-crime

Home » Blogs » Bob Fertik's blog
Citizen Journalism Contest: Ask Pelosi 'What is an Impeachable Crime?'
Submitted by Bob Fertik on July 29, 2008 - 11:33am.

* ImpeachForChange
* Nancy Pelosi

Speaker Pelosi just published "Know Your Power: A Message to America's Daughters"*. Pelosi kicked off her book tour on The View and Joy Behar asked her, "why do you insist on not impeaching these people so that the world and America can really see the crimes that they’ve committed?" Pelosi did her best to avoid answering, but finally said:

If somebody had a crime that the president had committed, that would be a different story... unless you have the goods that this president committed these crimes.

Speaker Pelosi, meet Representative Dennis Kucinich. He's "somebody" and he "has" 35+1=36 impeachable offenses, most of them involving statutory crimes - and "the goods that this president committed" them. In fact, he presented them to Congress in the exact form specified by the Founding Fathers: Articles of Impeachment. You even gave John Conyers permission to hold a hearing on Kucinich's "crimes."

So we have a simple question to follow-up on Joy Behar's question:

Of the 36 detailed Articles of Impeachment introduced by Dennis Kucinich, do you consider any to be crimes? If yes, which? If no, why not - and what (if anything) would you consider an impeachable offense?

We will ask this question through Speaker Pelosi's office, but we've never received an answer to our questions. So we're also announcing a Citizen Journalism Contest: we'll pay up to $1,000 to any progressive citizen (or journalist) who succeeds in getting a direct and substantive answer to this question, and records it on video or audio tape for publication on Democrats.com.

Pelosi's book tour includes call-in shows and book signings, so we encourage you to take advantage of every opportunity to ask her this question.

We also encourage you to do your homework before you ask Pelosi our question, so you can pin her down more successfully. Start by reading Kucinich's 35+1 Articles of Impeachment. (Former prosecutor Elizabeth de la Vega turned Kucinich's list into an excellent, concise list of crimes.) It makes sense to focus on one or several that you are familiar with already.

* According to the Constitution, a President can be impeached for "treason, bribery, or other high crimes and misdemeanors." There is no definition that is more precise; former House Minority Leader (and later President) Gerald Ford said, "An impeachable offense is whatever a majority of the House of Representatives considers it to be at a given moment in history."
* "High Crimes" are generally considered to mean abuses of the power of office, whether or not those actions are "crimes" outside the context of government. For example, Bush's refusal to enforce duly-enacted laws by attaching legally-meaningless "signing statements" is one of the High Crimes documented in Kucinich's Articles of Impeachment.
* "High Crimes" can also include familiar felonies like murder, torture, and fraud, which are also documented in Kucinich's Articles of Impeachment.
* To start impeachment hearings, the House does not need to have "proof beyond a shadow of a doubt," as a jury would need to convict someone of a crime. "Impeachment" in the House is the legal equivalent of "indictment" by a grand jury. The House simply collects evidence to present to the Senate for a trial. So the relevant standard for House evidence would be the lower standard of "probable cause."
* George Bush openly admits he committed several of Kucinich's crimes, including approving warrantless wiretapping in violation of FISA and the Fourth Amendment. Bush also instructed current and former officials to refuse to comply with Congressional subpoenas and contempt citations. The House does not need to investigate these crimes, they can simply vote for the relevant Articles of Impeachment.

If you succeed, contact us with the details.

Once again, we'll pay up to $1,000 to any progressive citizen (or journalist) who succeeds in getting a direct and substantive answer to this question, and records it on video or audio tape for publication on Democrats.com.

Fine print:

*

The amount of the award will depend on the specificity and depth of Pelosi's answer in our judgment. A simple "Yes" or "No" is worth $100.
*

An award will be made only for each unique answer; for example, the $100 award for "Yes" or "No" will only be awarded the first time.
*

To qualify as a "progressive" citizen or journalist, you must be active with a known progressive group or news organization or website (including Democrats.com). Your activity can be as limited as volunteering or posting comments.

* I haven't read the book yet, but hopefully her "message to America's daughters" does not encourage them to rise to positions of power and then turn a blind eye to those who start wars based on lies that kill and mutilate hundreds of thousands of daughters and force millions to become refugees and prostitutes... who torture and murder prisoners who are the sons and husbands of daughters... who out covert CIA operatives who are daughters, etc.

* Bob Fertik's blog
* Login or register to post comments
* Printer-friendly version Printer-friendly version
* Send to friend

Comment viewing options
Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.
PELOSI AND IMPEACHMENT
Submitted by DougGiebel on July 29, 2008 - 4:49pm.

Re PELOSI & IMPEACHMENT

The Pelosi team's game is to demand proof of a crime without an
investigation. Therefore she/they will not admit anything the Bush
administration did was criminal. Shouting, arguing will not get anywhere.
Only careful questioning that backs the "avoider" into a logical corner
will have an effect.

"Will you support an INVESTIGATION to learn if crimes have been
committed?"

That is the question.

Ask it until you get a straight answer.

Doug Giebel

Read »

Created 22 weeks 5 days ago
Made popular 15 weeks 4 days ago