"Here is what will suffice as the impeachment hearing of George Bush as the Speaker of the House of Representative is questioned by a comedian:

JOY BEHAR: You've ruled against impeaching George Bush and Dick Cheney, and now Kucinich is trying to pass that. Why do you insist on not impeaching these people, so that the world and America can really see the crimes that they've committed?

REP. NANCY PELOSI: Well, I think that it, I think it was important, when I became Speaker and it's, by the way, a very important position ”President, Vice President, Speaker of the House” I saw it as my responsibility to try to bring a much divided country together to the extent that we could. I thought that impeachment would be divisive for the country.

In terms of what we wanted, set out to do, we wanted to raise the minimum wage, give the biggest increase in veterans benefits to veterans in the seventy-seven-year history, then pass research for stem cell research, all of that. This week, we're going to pass equal pay for equal work. It has been a long time in coming ”pay equity. We're going to pass legislations for product safety, for toys that children put in their there's an agenda that you have to get done. You have to try to do it in a bipartisan way. The President has to sign it.

"If somebody had a crime that the President had committed, that would be a different story."  (Emphasis added.) 

How addled can Pelosi be?  Is she for real? 

Turley continues: "It is obviously a very frustrating and insulting moment for many. The International Red Cross warned the president in 2002 that his administration was committing a war crime for which prosecution was possible, click here. A federal judge (before Pelosi and the Democratic Congress barred further judicial review) declared that the domestic surveillance program was clearly illegal, click here. The Judiciary Committee has voted to hold Bush officials in criminal contempt and referred the matter for prosecution. Dozens of constitutional experts (including myself) have detailed impeachable offenses over the years. Yet, Speaker Pelosi insists that there is no evidence of crime while refusing to investigate that allegations.

"What is particularly troubling is that the Speaker is now on the record as suggesting that torture and illegal surveillance are simply not crimes. That will be a useful fact when future president decides to engage in the same unlawful conduct.

"Obviously, the Speaker is fully aware that respected organizations and experts have detailed crimes ordered by this President. Indeed, it took repeated interventions by Congress to keep courts from continuing to rule on such illegality — destroying any notion of plausible deniability that Democrats have no knowledge of alleged crimes." 

Here is Crooks and Liars' comment on Nancy Pelosi's audacious statement: "Have you not been paying fricking attention for the last eight years, Nancy???  What do you mean, IF???? Say it with me now: warrantless wiretapping; waterboarding, lying to Congress and the American people to illegally invade and occupy a sovereign nation that posed no threat to us, firing US Attorneys for not pursuing partisan prosecutions, outing a covert CIA agent.  And those were just ones you knew about and did nothing to stop, Pelosi.  How dare she play stupid on national television and insult all our intelligence and what this country (once) stood for?  How. Dare. She.

Now, because the Speaker was showered with evidence of Bush administration crimes after her appearance on The View, this hypocritical Democratic elected official is trying another lame excuse for her inexcusable statement.  Pelosi seems to forget that many Americans received lessons on impeachment during the Nixon era and are appalled by her deliberately stupid remarks regarding the process.

Another Turley posting: "My understanding is that her office was inundated with copies of the various documented crimes alleged against Bush. Now, Pelosi is claiming a different rationale: they could not rely on the White House and GOP supplying the evidence needed to convict:

Nancy Shipes of Woodstown, NJ: Why have you taken impeachment off the table as an option for President George W. Bush?

Pelosi: I took it off the table a long time ago. You can’t talk about impeachment unless you have the facts, and you can’t have the facts unless you have cooperation from the Administration. I think the Republicans would like nothing better than for us to focus on impeachment and take our eye off the ball of a progressive economic agenda.

"I guess Nixon worked tirelessly for his own impeachment and resigned only out of a sense of self-loathing. What is particularly striking about this latest rationale is that it is so circular ”as was Pelosi's first explanation. First, we could not start an investigation for impeachment without clear evidence of crimes, but we can only confirm evidence of crimes by investigating.

"Now, it appears the House cannot start impeachment proceedings unless a president and his party would agree to turn over incriminating evidence. Of course, the use of a president's authority to conceal or destroy evidence in such an investigation is itself a potentially impeachable offense. Pelosi prevented a John Dean from coming forward by barring the hearing. In past hearings, we have seen former Bush officials implicate the Administration in investigations such a the firing of the US Attorneys. Indeed, if this is Pelosi's rationale for barring impeachment, why is the House pursuing contempt on these other investigations? It appears that a lack of cooperation does not end matters that the House wants to address.

"The biggest problem, however, is that the crimes are hiding in plain view. A federal court has already found the domestic surveillance program was unlawful and there is no question as to the torture question ”as found by the International Red Cross when it informed Bush that war crimes charges could be brought."

Pelosi has ignored her oath to the Constitution in taking impeachment off the table.  The Democratic Speaker of the House no longer deserves to remain in that position.  She actually no longer deserves to be in Congress, nor is she a real Democrat, but only a hack, covering Bush posterior and probably her own role in rubber stamping the Bushite regime' torture policy. 

One final note: Wonder what her reception would have been like if she had made this statement on The View before her appearance at the Netroots Nation convention in July?   As it was, despite her reprehensible FISA vote, and her contemptible impeachment off the table dictum, she seems to have snowed the attendees big time.