# What is Nancy Pelosi'a stated reason(s) for taking Impeachment off the table? **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [July 18, 2008, 2:13pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-is-nancy-pelosia-stated-reason-s-for-taking-impeachment-off-the-table/456954 "2008-07-18T14:13:03Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 2
**Author:** ![Northern\_Piper](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/northern_piper/32/5304_2.png) [@Northern\_Piper](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Northern_Piper)\ **Post date:** [July 18, 2008, 7:09pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-is-nancy-pelosia-stated-reason-s-for-taking-impeachment-off-the-table/456954/21 "2008-07-18T19:09:41Z")
[QUOTE=BarnOwl] She could have said this forthrightly, but I guess you don’t get to be Speaker of the House by talking honestly. [/QUOTE] Well, my recollection is that when she campaigned for the Speaker’s chair following the 2006 elections, she said right from the start that if elected, she would oppose any attempts to impeach. Her colleagues in the Dem caucus knew what they were getting and voted her in, so the majority of the caucus evidently agreed with her position. ---
**Author:** ![rowrrbazzle](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/rowrrbazzle/32/414_2.png) [@rowrrbazzle](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/rowrrbazzle)\ **Post date:** [July 18, 2008, 8:07pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-is-nancy-pelosia-stated-reason-s-for-taking-impeachment-off-the-table/456954/22 "2008-07-18T20:07:30Z")
[QUOTE=An Arky] I don’t want to see the Bush administration let off the hook, either, but the impeachment mechanism a) won’t pass and b) will likely cause blowback that will cost the Democrats seats. Congress’ approval rating is about as low as Bush’s; [/QUOTE] Rasmussen: Congress approval rating - 9% [http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public\_content/politics/mood\_of\_america/congressional\_performance/congressional\_performance](http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/mood_of_america/congressional_performance/congressional_performance) Bush approval rating - 33% > **[President Bush Job Approval](https://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/political_updates/president_bush_job_approval)** > > In the final full month of his Presidency, just 13% of American adults said they Strongly Approved of the way that George W. Bush performed his job as president. Forty-three percent (43%) Strongly Disapproved. Gallup (May): [http://www.gallup.com/poll/107242/Congress-Approval-Rating-Ties-Lowest-Gallup-Records.aspx](http://www.gallup.com/poll/107242/Congress-Approval-Rating-Ties-Lowest-Gallup-Records.aspx) Congress approval rating - 18% Bush approval rating - 29% (scroll down) So “about as low” to you means “lower by 11-24 percentage points”. Hmm. I’ll look for another accountant. Here’s what she said: “The popular support is not there, there will be no Republican votes to go forward…George Bush is just not worth it” " Here’s what I imagine she wanted to say: “To impeach Bush, we need to actually prove something and get the votes in Congress and convince the people. We can’t do any of those. It’d be political suicide and a futile gesture and a squandering of political capital. So it ain’t gonna happen. NOW BUG OFF!” Cost the Dems seats? It’d destroy the party. ---
**Author:** ![Whack-a-Mole](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/whack-a-mole/32/141_2.png) [@Whack-a-Mole](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Whack-a-Mole)\ **Post date:** [July 18, 2008, 8:32pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-is-nancy-pelosia-stated-reason-s-for-taking-impeachment-off-the-table/456954/23 "2008-07-18T20:32:04Z")
[QUOTE=John Mace] No it doesn’t. Clinton was impeached, but not convicted in the Senate. The Senate must convict and then decide if removal from office is appropriate. Again, no. See above. [/QUOTE] Nitpicker. I’m well aware that impeachment requires conviction but in this thread I thought it safe to use the shorthand with the implication that a conviction occurred if I was suggesting he was out of office. ---
**Author:** ![Duckster](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/duckster/32/1244_2.png) [@Duckster](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Duckster)\ **Post date:** [July 18, 2008, 8:35pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-is-nancy-pelosia-stated-reason-s-for-taking-impeachment-off-the-table/456954/24 "2008-07-18T20:35:54Z")
Just came our from the House Judiciary Committee today: > [@](#): > > (Washington)—Today House Judiciary Committee Chairman John Conyers, Jr. announced that, on July 25, the House Committee on the Judiciary will hold a hearing on the Imperial Presidency of George W. Bush and possible legal responses. > > “Over the last seven plus years, there have been numerous credible allegations of serious misconduct by officials in the Bush Administration,” said Conyers. “At the same time, the administration has adopted what many would describe as a radical view of its own powers and authorities. As Chairman of the Judiciary Committee, I believe it is imperative that we pursue a comprehensive review commensurate to this constitutionally dangerous combination of circumstances. Next Friday’s hearings will be an important part of that ongoing effort.” Source: [http://judiciary.house.gov/news/071708.html](http://judiciary.house.gov/news/071708.html) ---
**Author:** ![Whack-a-Mole](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/whack-a-mole/32/141_2.png) [@Whack-a-Mole](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Whack-a-Mole)\ **Post date:** [July 18, 2008, 8:36pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-is-nancy-pelosia-stated-reason-s-for-taking-impeachment-off-the-table/456954/25 "2008-07-18T20:36:36Z")
[QUOTE=BMalion] Do you honestly think that there’s any slim chance a United States president would be prosecuted? [/QUOTE] Probably not but possibly. Recently a book was published called _The Prosecution of George W. Bush for Murder_. In it the case is made that any state would have grounds for prosecution. The only impediment is if a President is immune from this sort of prosecution hence what I said. Opinion seems to be you cannot go after an ex-president in this fashion but if he were impeached (and convicted) then perhaps the door opens wider to allow a state prosecution. All it takes is one eager District Attorney wanting to make a splash to have a go which I could see happening somewhere in the country. ---
**Author:** ![Whack-a-Mole](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/whack-a-mole/32/141_2.png) [@Whack-a-Mole](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Whack-a-Mole)\ **Post date:** [July 18, 2008, 8:45pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-is-nancy-pelosia-stated-reason-s-for-taking-impeachment-off-the-table/456954/26 "2008-07-18T20:45:46Z")
[QUOTE=rowrrbazzle] Here’s what I imagine she wanted to say: “To impeach Bush, we need to actually prove something and get the votes in Congress and convince the people. We can’t do any of those. It’d be political suicide and a futile gesture and a squandering of political capital. So it ain’t gonna happen. NOW BUG OFF!” Cost the Dems seats? It’d destroy the party. [/QUOTE] Proof is not a problem. They have that in spades. American public? Well, they probably want to see congress working on the economy and would probably view this as a waste of effort but by your own numbers Bush is disliked by a majority of people. The republicans spent 7 years and $70 million dollars chasing Clinton over a personal finance issue which came to nothing but ultimately netted him for lying about a private, consensual affair. I think Bush stomping on the Constitution and breaking treaties merits at least that much attention don’t you? In the end they cannot get it off the ground because there are not enough Democrats to pull it off over a Republican defense. ---
**Author:** ![Captain\_Amazing](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/6de8d8/32.png) [@Captain\_Amazing](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Captain_Amazing)\ **Post date:** [July 18, 2008, 9:17pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-is-nancy-pelosia-stated-reason-s-for-taking-impeachment-off-the-table/456954/27 "2008-07-18T21:17:04Z")
[QUOTE=Whack-a-Mole] The only impediment is if a President is immune from this sort of prosecution hence what I said. Opinion seems to be you cannot go after an ex-president in this fashion but if he were impeached (and convicted) then perhaps the door opens wider to allow a state prosecution. [/QUOTE] If he were immune to such prosecution, impeaching him and convicting himwouldn’t take away such immunity. All it would do would be to remove him from office and take away his pension. ---
**Author:** ![An\_Arky](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/87869e/32.png) [@An\_Arky](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/An_Arky)\ **Post date:** [July 18, 2008, 9:45pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-is-nancy-pelosia-stated-reason-s-for-taking-impeachment-off-the-table/456954/28 "2008-07-18T21:45:16Z")
[QUOTE=John Mace] At the risk of straying into debate territory… I believe that is incorrect. The House can pass articles of impeachment with a simple majority, and the Dems have a majority in that Chamber. [/QUOTE] You’re quite right…I meant “wouldn’t pass the Senate”. I was at work and typing hurredly… …and **rowrrbazzle,** you’re right, as well…I just meant that their approval rating was very low and and pursuing impeachment would drive it lower and be a very bad thing for the party…for once, I was trying to avoid hyperbole, haha! ---
**Author:** ![DrDeth](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/b487fb/32.png) [@DrDeth](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/DrDeth)\ **Post date:** [July 19, 2008, 12:40am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-is-nancy-pelosia-stated-reason-s-for-taking-impeachment-off-the-table/456954/29 "2008-07-19T00:40:44Z")
1. They do not have the votes in the Senate to convict, or “finish impeachment” (remove from office). Pelosi can count to 100, or 66 as the case may be. 2. They could “just” "impeach (indict) him in the House. But it would serve little purpose besides what happened at the end of the Roman Republic. Look the GoP “impeached” Clinton- it was bogus and strained the intepretation of "“treason, bribery, or other high crimes and misdemeanors.”\* A good portion of the GOP is now embarrassed they did that. But if the Dems “impeached” GWB (but could not “convict” then the very next time the GoP had a majority and a Dem was either Prez or just had stepped down- they’d “impeach” him. And they could- pretty much Congess could get away with defining “other high crimes and misdemeanors” as anything at all- farting in public. And so the Dems would then “impeach” the next GOP Prez when the Dems had a majority and so forth. This is what happened at the end of the Roman Republic where any Politician with imperium could look forward to endless trails as soon as he stepped down- which is exactly why Julius Ceasar did not step down but “cross the Rubicon” with armed troops. This might lead to a Prez taking dire steps while in Office. This would be Very Bad. Now if we \*could \*convict GWB in the Senate, then I’d say “hmm, let’s consider this” but it’s _impossible._ Thus it is pointless and could lead to Very Bad Things happening. It’s a “break-even/lose” proposition, and so why even play? \*Gerald R. Ford defined the criteria as he saw it: “An impeachable offense is whatever a majority of the House of Representatives considers it to be at a given moment in history.” But SCOTUS has not ruled on a Presidential Impeachment yet. I use “” around “Impeach” as the normal mean is"remove from office" but the Const has a two step process where they call what is for most purpose the indictment the “impeachment”, but generally when we speak of impeachment we do mean “remove from office”. ---
**Author:** ![Whack-a-Mole](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/whack-a-mole/32/141_2.png) [@Whack-a-Mole](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Whack-a-Mole)\ **Post date:** [July 19, 2008, 11:26am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-is-nancy-pelosia-stated-reason-s-for-taking-impeachment-off-the-table/456954/30 "2008-07-19T11:26:26Z")
[QUOTE=DrDeth] Thus it is pointless and could lead to Very Bad Things happening. It’s a “break-even/lose” proposition, and so why even play? [/QUOTE] I agree the political realities make an impeachment/conviction near impossible. Why play though? Because Bush would not be impeached for farting in public. Yes we do not want a government that constantly impeaches the president if the opposing party controls a sufficient amount of congress. The witch hunt over Clinton was crazy. In Bush’s case there are very real reasons to suspect he committed very real breaches of executive power and stomped on the US Constitution which he took an oath to uphold. It is not a witch hunt picking on some slim thread of evidence over some nitpicky point of law. The crimes large. The evidence for him having done this are manifest. I thought it was an underlying assumption in the US that _no one_ is above the law. Yet here it seems that is exactly what we have. If some here believe he did not break any laws or violate his oath of office fine but I think anyone would have to agree there are some serious questions and reasonable debate to be had over what he did. And that is why you go to trial. Let congress investigate, lay out the evidence and see where the chips fall. Conservatives blocking this is just proof that if you have the right friends in the right places you can consider yourself immune to the consequences of your actions. If we pride ourselves on being a country of laws and ruled by laws this should not be allowed to happen. It makes a mockery of the US claim to the rest of the world that we are about freedom and fairness to all. ---
**Author:** ![Rico](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/rico/32/3582_2.png) [@Rico](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Rico)\ **Post date:** [July 19, 2008, 5:47pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-is-nancy-pelosia-stated-reason-s-for-taking-impeachment-off-the-table/456954/31 "2008-07-19T17:47:44Z")
\ Let’s move it to _Great Debates_ and see what happens there. GQ \> GD \ ---
**Author:** ![foolsguinea](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/foolsguinea/32/14751_2.png) [@foolsguinea](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/foolsguinea)\ **Post date:** [July 19, 2008, 7:45pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-is-nancy-pelosia-stated-reason-s-for-taking-impeachment-off-the-table/456954/32 "2008-07-19T19:45:33Z")
[QUOTE=An Arky] Pelosi doesn’t need a stated reason except maybe “Because at this late date, it would be stupid”. He’s gone in less than 6 months anyway, and I have a hard time believing they could even get preliminary hearings scheduled in that amount of time, if at all. “Not worth it” is right for a number of reasons, number one being that voters would see this as a huge waste of time and money just in time to go into the voting booth and throw them all out on their asses. [/QUOTE] Eh? Really? And that’s been the case since January of 2007? If so, how? ---
**Author:** ![kaylasdad99](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/kaylasdad99/32/3398_2.png) [@kaylasdad99](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/kaylasdad99)\ **Post date:** [July 19, 2008, 8:28pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-is-nancy-pelosia-stated-reason-s-for-taking-impeachment-off-the-table/456954/33 "2008-07-19T20:28:03Z")
I’d like to see him indicted by the International War Crimes Tribunal in the Hague. Along with Cheney. And I’d like to see President Obama turn him over. Along with Cheney. And I’d like to see him foot the bill for his own defense, with no monetary assistance from the United States Treasury. Along with Cheney. And I’d like to see him convicted. Along with Cheney. I could probably live with acquittal on the fourth one, as long as he had to go through the first three. Along with Cheney. ---
**Author:** ![An\_Arky](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/87869e/32.png) [@An\_Arky](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/An_Arky)\ **Post date:** [July 19, 2008, 9:09pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-is-nancy-pelosia-stated-reason-s-for-taking-impeachment-off-the-table/456954/34 "2008-07-19T21:09:40Z")
[QUOTE=foolsguinea] Eh? Really? And that’s been the case since January of 2007? If so, how? [/QUOTE] Not enough votes in the Senate. See above. ---
**Author:** ![kaylasdad99](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/kaylasdad99/32/3398_2.png) [@kaylasdad99](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/kaylasdad99)\ **Post date:** [July 19, 2008, 10:08pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-is-nancy-pelosia-stated-reason-s-for-taking-impeachment-off-the-table/456954/35 "2008-07-19T22:08:28Z")
[QUOTE=An Arky] Not enough votes in the Senate. See above. [/QUOTE] I think he was quibbling about the “six months to go” thing. ---
**Author:** ![Gangster\_Octopus](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/g/a8b319/32.png) [@Gangster\_Octopus](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Gangster_Octopus)\ **Post date:** [July 19, 2008, 10:57pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-is-nancy-pelosia-stated-reason-s-for-taking-impeachment-off-the-table/456954/36 "2008-07-19T22:57:04Z")
THe House is abrogating their Constitutional duty by not impeaching the President. ---
**Author:** ![elucidator](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/8edcca/32.png) [@elucidator](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/elucidator)\ **Post date:** [July 19, 2008, 11:28pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-is-nancy-pelosia-stated-reason-s-for-taking-impeachment-off-the-table/456954/37 "2008-07-19T23:28:45Z")
Its certainly a political calculation, and somewhat understandable, if very disappointing. The following conjectures are not citeable. First, why rouse sympathy for BushCo, with an election coming and the electorate moving your way. Even with a good shot at the WH, Congresscritters tend to think of themselves as the definitive branch of government, the part that counts. The horizon looks good for them, and they want that more than anything else. Second, they’ll look impotent and feckless. There are a thousand parliamentary maneuvers that could slow this down, even if the Congress were 95% Dem. And, of course, they are not. So any move in that direction will get a major foot-draggin’, with perhaps a soujourn to Federal court for a side-trip. No way it gets done in time, which just makes the Dems look stupid for wasted effort. Numero Three-o, why bother? They probably figure that the Prez’s power to do something really, really disastrous is so limited, its worth the risk to wait him out. This is the only one of these that I have significant doubts about, I fear they underestimate how much Bush wants to be a War President. He dreams about having an 85% approval rating and sobs into his pillow. ---
**Author:** ![DrDeth](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/b487fb/32.png) [@DrDeth](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/DrDeth)\ **Post date:** [July 20, 2008, 2:51am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-is-nancy-pelosia-stated-reason-s-for-taking-impeachment-off-the-table/456954/38 "2008-07-20T02:51:18Z")
[QUOTE=kaylasdad99] I’d like to see him indicted by the International War Crimes Tribunal in the Hague. Along with Cheney. . [/QUOTE] \ For the 3rd or 4th time, GWB has not commited any crimes that the IIC is interested in. _On 10 February 2006, the Prosecutor published a letter responding to complaints he had received concerning the 2003 invasion of Iraq.[115] He noted that “the International Criminal Court has a mandate to examine the conduct during the conflict, but not whether the decision to engage in armed conflict was legal”, and that the Court’s jurisdiction is limited to the actions of nationals of states parties.[115] He concluded that there was a reasonable basis to believe that a limited number of war crimes had been committed in Iraq, but that the crimes allegedly committed by nationals of states parties did not appear to meet the required gravity threshold for an ICC investigation.[6_ [Internship - Wikipedia](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intern)…\_Criminal\_Court He is not guilty of any Crimes against Humanity and no International body of any real standing is interested in arresting him for Iraq. True, there were many false statements as to why we attacked Iraq, and several other possible violtions of his oath. Thus, I would not shed a single tear if he really was Impeached and Removed from Offcie. But it \*is impossible- ain’t going to happen. \* And as **elucidator** correctly pointed out, an Indictment/Impeachment without removal, will do nothing besides raise GWB’s approval rating, just as it did for Clinton. ---
**Author:** ![DrDeth](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/b487fb/32.png) [@DrDeth](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/DrDeth)\ **Post date:** [July 20, 2008, 2:52am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-is-nancy-pelosia-stated-reason-s-for-taking-impeachment-off-the-table/456954/39 "2008-07-20T02:52:39Z")
[QUOTE=Gangster Octopus] THe House is abrogating their Constitutional duty by not impeaching the President. [/QUOTE] Cite? ---
**Author:** ![foolsguinea](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/foolsguinea/32/14751_2.png) [@foolsguinea](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/foolsguinea)\ **Post date:** [July 20, 2008, 6:23pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-is-nancy-pelosia-stated-reason-s-for-taking-impeachment-off-the-table/456954/40 "2008-07-20T18:23:15Z")
[QUOTE=rowrrbazzle] Cost the Dems seats? It’d destroy the party. [/QUOTE] There’s a chance Obama loses in the fall. If that happens, the Democratic Party is dead to me. And probably to history as well. Pelosi has proven the Congress is either collaborating with Bush or impotent. Obama losing would drive a dagger through its heart. And you think failing to impeach destroys the party? [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-is-nancy-pelosia-stated-reason-s-for-taking-impeachment-off-the-table/456954.md?page=1) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-is-nancy-pelosia-stated-reason-s-for-taking-impeachment-off-the-table/456954.md?page=3)