Greg Tinti has video of Pelosi from her interview on 60 Minutes this evening. Lesley Stahl, surprisingly, asked Pelosi some good questions and at one point during the video Pelosi says that if she becomes House Speaker, Bush will not be impeached.
Here’s the transcript of her interview.
Three words: Don’t Believe Her.
Others blogging about this: Stop The ACLU, Wake Up America
Prior:
Pelosi Says No Impeachment If She Is Speaker Of The House
Its off the table she says. “Making them lame ducks is good enough for me”!
Here is the entire transcript of her on 60 minutes.
The Political Pitbull has more.
Now that is a soundbite for the fence sitters. How reassuring. Meanwhi…
Trackback by Stop The ACLU — 10/22/2006 @ 10/22/2006 - 10:42 pm
Making Them Lame Ducks is Enough for Pelosi
Exactly who will win and who will lose if that happens? Will the president lose anything? The republican party? Or will it be us, the American people that end up the losers?
Think about that. Vote in November and Vote Republican.
Trackback by Wake up America — 10/22/2006 @ 10/22/2006 - 10:51 pm
RSS feed for comments on this post.
Comment moderation is in use. Please do not submit your comment twice. If you are new to this site please make sure to read my policy on comments and trackbacks before submitting your comment/trackback.
Sorry, the comment form is closed at this time.
| S | M | T | W | T | F | S |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| « Sep | Nov » | |||||
| 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 |
| 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 |
| 15 | 16 | 17 | 18 | 19 | 20 | 21 |
| 22 | 23 | 24 | 25 | 26 | 27 | 28 |
| 29 | 30 | 31 | ||||
Comment moved to current thread on the issue. –ST
No, the President isn’t probing interns — Republican House Members are.
Phoney issue. Pelosi will not move to impeach. Why impeach a clown that provides you with so much good material every day….it would be like killing the golden goose. No, Grandmother Nancy will send common sense legislation to the Democratic Senate for Georgie to veto. His mother will be proud.
Comment by Keith @ 10/22/2006 - 10:38 pm
Comment by Sister Toldjah @ 10/22/2006 - 10:44 pm
Nancy will send common sense legislation to the Democratic Senate for Georgie to veto
Nancy? Common sense legislation?!
That’s the best laugh I’ve had all week!! Thanks!!
I’d hold onto that video if I were them. She will absolutely try to impeach Bush. Since they have no other platform to run on, you can bet they will try to impeach him.
Comment by NC Cop @ 10/22/2006 - 11:13 pm
She’s also saying that she’ll get the 9/11 commission recommendations enacted - Didn’t she already vote “No” on those in Oct. 2004?
Where are those flip-flops I used during the Kerry campaign…. You simply can’t believe a word from her - EVER.
Comment by Cate @ 10/22/2006 - 11:42 pm
No actually, she didn’t Cate. She will enact the Commissions reforms…let’s see how many Republicans vote yes.
How cute. We are bringing back the flip flops — I think you may find in too cold on November 7 to wear them though.
And, Nancy, will never try to impeach Georgie. He is too good for the fundraising efforts to do that.
Comment by Keith @ 10/22/2006 - 11:47 pm
“Voted NO on adopting the recommendations of the 9/11 Commission. (Oct 2004) ” ontheissues.org
Comment by Cate @ 10/23/2006 - 12:01 am
Grandmother Nancy will send common sense legislation to the Democratic Senate for Georgie to veto.
Of course, Pelosi isn’t in the Senate, she’s in the House. But we already know Keith’s grasp of the issues is rather limited…
Comment by Great White Rat @ 10/23/2006 - 1:08 am
Don’t Beleive Her, Heck I don’t beleive any Liberal.
If anyone is gullable enough to beleive a Liberal send them my way cause I got a nice lake front property to sell them.
Comment by Phil @ 10/23/2006 - 3:55 am
Keith, can you give us your version of *didn’t*? Hopefully it won’t mirror Bill’s concept of what *Is* is.
Comment by forest hunter @ 10/23/2006 - 5:15 am
Impeachment proceedings are already in the works. Check out The Coming Impeachment by Rocco DiPippo.
Comment by CavalierX @ 10/23/2006 - 5:22 am
That interview on cbs was just part of the media’s October surprize package … there will be one a day till election day …. thats how these sleeze bags operate.
:
If you are planning on sitting this election out .. picture this …… drive thru abotions clinics, morning after pills and condoms, without parental consent and we’ll even provide transportation if we ain’t got it here …. the complete unravaling of the Patriot Act cuz it takes your freedoms away …. full and fair trails for each an every terrorists in Gitmo …. the rollback of any taxbreak the folks have received …. gay marriage and man boy love clubs established next door to our YMCA’s …. just sit it out and see what happens, it keeps me up at night.
Our only saving grace if they take over is Bush can veto and keep bills tied up and if they impeach him Cheney will veto, lets see if frozen face polosi keeps her word that she gave us all last night on 60 minutes, a dem operative broadcast company.
Comment by Drewsmom @ 10/23/2006 - 6:12 am
I’m a proud life member of our nation’s oldest civil rights organization; the NRA. I’m voting for Chris Shays R-CT, even though he gets an “F” rating for gun owners rights. Nancy Pelosi is delusional if she thinks the rest of the country hasn’t heard of her! Remember, President Clinton blamed the loss of a Democrat House majority in 1994 on the NRA; we are everywhere, and never forget.
Comment by Tom TB @ 10/23/2006 - 6:25 am
White you wrote, “Grandmother Nancy will send common sense legislation to the Democratic Senate for Georgie to veto.
Of course, Pelosi isn’t in the Senate, she’s in the House. But we already know Keith’s grasp of the issues is rather limited… ”
Well, where to begin? Many times legislation starts in the House and is sent to the Senate — remember “School House Rocks” White? And, when a bill originates in the House it is sent to the Senate for consideration. That’s the way things work here in DC — Speaker Pelosi will work with the leader of the Senate to pass legislation to enact certain reforms — especially lobbying reforms to stop future Abramoffs and when it comes to protecting the little boys who have been molested lately in the House.
And now we are referencing someone named Rocco DePippio as an expert source of proof that the Democrats will impeach Bush if they gain the majority. Why would they do that? It would only mean that Darth Vader would be President. Desperate to motivate the base I see.
Speaker Pelosi will have better things to do than that — and, Tom TB, only 25% of the American public knows who Nancy is — but, they sure know Hastert now as he lumbers out to speak to the press to explain why he kept a child molester on the Republican ticket for the November election.
They know the faces of the old white men who run this country and I think they don’t like what they see.
Comment by Keith @ 10/23/2006 - 6:48 am
Drew, you wrote, “man boy love clubs established next door to our YMCA’s” — I think the man/boy love clubs have been established in the Republican House of Representatives and, if I am to believe what I read about Senator Craig of Idaho, in the Senate too! Can you say hypocrisy?? The family values party is no more.
Comment by Keith @ 10/23/2006 - 6:52 am
The hypocrisy is that Pelosi supported Gerry Studds for years after he had REAL sex with a House page, and feigns shock…shock that Hastert didn’t stop Foley from e-mailing. Did you know that the age of consent for sex in D.C. is 16? Therefore, a House page legally is not a “boy” or a “child”. Did Nancy Pelosi ever call for raising the age?
Comment by Tom TB @ 10/23/2006 - 7:37 am
Actually, another question might be who actuated lowering the age of consent?
I don’t believe it started at 16.
Comment by sanity @ 10/23/2006 - 8:19 am
Tom — did Denny Hastert ever call for raising the age? He is Speaker, he could make it happen.
Comment by Keith @ 10/23/2006 - 8:22 am
Oh, and Tom, I would think that you would be shocked that Coach Hastert didn’t move to control a child molestor in his ranks. You seem to forget that he has had complete control of the House for over at least eight years. Why they didn’t even include the Democratic Member of the Page Committee in the discussions. And we are complaining about Pelosi?
Comment by Keith @ 10/23/2006 - 8:28 am
Doesn’t matter why Hastert doesn’t raise the age…WHO lowered it in the first place to 16?
Answering the question by asking why Hasterts doesn’t raise it is tryin gto shove blame off on someone else. WHO lowered it to begin with?
Comment by sanity @ 10/23/2006 - 8:33 am
Go find out Sanity. DC is under the thumb of Congress. Google it and find out. I suspect it has been that low for a long time.
And, if he were being responsible and trying to protect children rather than his party — I think Hastert would move to raise the age to 18. Maybe he is tyring to protect other members of his party…..
Comment by Keith @ 10/23/2006 - 8:38 am
States are already trying to raise the age of consent, for instance Georgia to 18.
But Age of consent also does more than just define sexuality, but also when they buy cigarettes, enter into marriage contract, obtain body piercings or tattoos, making health care decisions, ect.
Trouble is, you seem to think we are defending Foley, but if you care to read through, you would find most everyone has called on him to resign and if he wouldn’t have, would have called on his removal, and are thoroughly disgusted with his actions.
And while it is a favorite knocking point of liberlas to say “Your suppose to be the party fo values”, I find it strangely ironic that if the Republicans are tring to be the party of Values…what does that make the Democrats? Morally Superior? I don’t think so, not by a LONG shot.
Let them investigate, if there has been anything criminal that has been done, then those responsible should be punished. We ALL have been advocating that all along.
Maybe this would all be easier if we had a timeline put together, because as far as I know so far, and i haven’t overly brushed up on it, Hastert knew of some of the emails early on, but the emails while overly friendly sent up warning flags and they told him to back off…at this point there was nothing criminal in the emails. This was then moved over to private emails and AIM accouns where the talking continued and escalated I assume.
What we do know is that both Foley and the Page in question have both stated that they did not have sex. Whether it is true or not, well, up to the investigators to find out.
At this point if there was no sexual activity going on, age of consent most likely shouldn’t even be applied to this, if what they both say, that they haven’t had sexual contact is true.
At this point it seems you have an outted creepy gay man, sexually explicit emails, and no sex.
If that is all there is to it and nothing more, unless the investigation proves otherwise, I think his removal or resignation from office is proper.
And again, if it is found out that there was sexual relations before the age of consent, and if the leadership knew about it and did nothing, then I would say they need to be removed also. I believe that is what we all have been saying all along.
BUT, don’t try and play the high road with teh democrats making it sound like they are all sweetness and Light, they are not. They have had their fair share of scandals including proven sex with underage pages also, death (kennedy), bribery, pardoning of known terrorists (clinton), ect.
Personally I would not object to a good cleaning of both parties, because they surely need it.
Comment by sanity @ 10/23/2006 - 9:36 am
Keith, you keep referring to Mark Foley as a “child molester” even though there is no evidence that he did anything other than send e-mails to a teenager. Nancy Pelosi voted 5 times to put Representative Studds on commitees after he admitted having sex with a page. Foley resigned, Studds was defiant.
Comment by Tom TB @ 10/23/2006 - 9:39 am
Of course there is no evidence of that Tom. That’s how people like Keith operate. They live in their own little fantasy world and believe only what they want to, completely disregarding any other viewpoint. Apparently Studds did nothing wrong, in Keith’s mind, yet Foley is the devil incarnate. You were saying something about hypocrisy, Keith?
Comment by NC Cop @ 10/23/2006 - 10:04 am
Hey Tommy, the stories come out daily about Foley’s activities and his molestation of young pages under the Speaker’s protection. And worst of all, they knew what he was doing, he wanted to quit Congress and they insisted he run again. Studds was defiant and he was also re-elected at least six times by the voters of his district to Congress. Let’s see if Mark Foley is “elected” to Congress in November.
It is just so sad that the Speaker could not have protected those young children.
Comment by Keith @ 10/23/2006 - 10:07 am
Hey Copper, you said, “Of course there is no evidence of that Tom. That’s how people like Keith operate. They live in their own little fantasy world and believe only what they want to, completely disregarding any other viewpoint. Apparently Studds did nothing wrong, in Keith’s mind, yet Foley is the devil incarnate. You were saying something about hypocrisy, Keith?”
Yes, what Studds did was wrong. But, the Democratic Leadership at the time did not know what he was doing like Hastert knew about Foley. Why is that so difficult for you to understand? The House Leadership protected Foley. Studds was censured and went before the voters. Big difference. Do you think Mark Foley will “win” this election?
Comment by Keith @ 10/23/2006 - 10:11 am
Keith, a “Copper” is a snake. NC Cop is not a snake. Please refer to him as NC Cop, not “Copper.”
Comment by Sister Toldjah @ 10/23/2006 - 10:15 am
In my town a copper is a cop. But, of course, I wouldn’t think of upsettig him.
Comment by Keith @ 10/23/2006 - 10:17 am
Well I certainly can’t speak for him, I just know it bothered ME when you used the term. It may not bother him. All the same, I’d still prefer it if people called each other by the names they use on the blog.
Comment by Sister Toldjah @ 10/23/2006 - 10:19 am
Rep. Alexander’s Office Sued for Harassment
“Rep. Rodney Alexander (R-La.), already enmeshed in the ex-Rep. Mark Foley (R-Fla.) page scandal, now faces a new controversy as a former staffer has sued his office for sexual harassment.
“Elizabeth Scott, Alexander’s former scheduler, claims that Royal Alexander, the Congressman’s chief of staff, ‘engaged in a course of misconduct’ that included ‘inappropriate sex-based comments, ogling and touching’ and ’sexual advances,’ according to Michael Hoare, Scott’s attorney. Scott told the Congressman of his aide’s alleged improper behavior but the Louisiana Republican took no action to correct the situation, Hoare said.” (Roll Call)
Ah, those Republicans, they just can’t seem to keep their hands to themselves.
Comment by Keith @ 10/23/2006 - 10:22 am
Ah, Nancy “Do as I say not as I do” Pelosi.. amazing how the unions don’t care how she runs her businesses.
Comment by Ryan @ 10/23/2006 - 10:39 am
Well, Ryan, I will compare any of Nancy Pelosi’s business dealings with the land deal Hastert pulled in Illinois. What business dealing Ryan? And, do you think Mark Foley will be re-elected this year?
Comment by Keith @ 10/23/2006 - 10:54 am
Ask Nancy if any of her businesses employ union workers. And as I recall, this thread is about Nancy Pelosi.
Comment by Ryan @ 10/23/2006 - 11:35 am
You ask her….what businesses? You mean her husband’s businesses. And I would assume that you are against unions right? Please give examples.
Comment by Keith @ 10/23/2006 - 11:47 am
Pat Robertson suggested talking points to Republican leaders to distance the party from the Foley scandal: “The best thing they could do would be to say ‘Well, this man’s gay; he does what gay people do.’”
The House Republicans better be very careful with this one….too many gays in their ranks.
Comment by Keith @ 10/23/2006 - 11:53 am
she is a liar. period.
Comment by Carole @ 10/23/2006 - 1:09 pm
So, Keith, the fact that AFTER it was known that Studds had sex with a 17 year old and all the Dems came out in support of him, means nothing? He was censured, that’s it. If what he did was wrong why was he not forced to resign? Why were there not calls of “child molestor”? Instead, the Dems came to his defense and some of them voted AGAINST censure, including a few who today are blasting Foley.
The cry of cover up is just typical. I would expect nothing less from people like you.
Pot, meet kettle.
Comment by NC Cop @ 10/23/2006 - 4:22 pm
Palmer Appears Before Ethics Panel
Monday, Oct. 23; 2:46 pm
Scott Palmer, chief of staff to Speaker Dennis Hastert (R-Ill.) and a critical player in the Congressional page scandal involving former Rep. Mark Foley (R-Fla.), is being interviewed by the House ethics committee this afternoon.
This should be good. He will be sworn in.
Comment by Keith @ 10/23/2006 - 4:24 pm
Good Lord, I was going to cut and paste most of this stuff, but there is just TOO MUCH!!!!!
You were saying, Keith?
http://www.newsmax.com/articles/?a=2000/8/11/190221
Clinton legacy
Comment by NC Cop @ 10/23/2006 - 4:27 pm
NC, you wrote, “Instead, the Dems came to his defense and some of them voted AGAINST censure, including a few who today are blasting Foley.”
Which ones, please name them? Do you have a copy of the roll call?
The point NC is that no one in the House knew about Studds’ activities until years after the event. And, the Republican leadership (I am sure Mr. Palmer will confirm this today) knew for years. Mr. Palmer, btw, is gay. The velvet mafia strikes again.
Comment by Keith @ 10/23/2006 - 4:28 pm
So now we have switched to Bill Clinton — what was that someone was saying about avoiding the issues?
Comment by Keith @ 10/23/2006 - 4:29 pm
Here you go, Keith.
Enjoy.
In case you missed the best part, I’ve got it here:
Many of Studds’ Democratic colleagues including some in the current House and Senate leadership voted against the slap on the wrist of censure. (Conyers, Frank, Lantos, Miller, Obey, Rahall, Waxman, Hoyer and Schumer all voted against it.)
Let me know if there is anything else I can get you, champ.
Gerry Studds
Comment by NC Cop @ 10/23/2006 - 4:37 pm
So now we have switched to Bill Clinton — what was that someone was saying about avoiding the issues?
Last time I checked the topic was Pelosi, you’re the one who went off on the Foley tangent. I believe you started with “especially lobbying reforms to stop future Abramoffs and when it comes to protecting the little boys who have been molested lately in the House. ”
So the question is, why did you bring up Foley? I know you have a short memory so I cut and pasted from one of your previous posts, just in case you forgot.
It just seems interesting that you blast all Republicans yet seem to forget the very recent events of the Democrats.
Comment by NC Cop @ 10/23/2006 - 4:42 pm
keith, don’t talk to me about anything a republican slime ball has done, we throw ours out, yall celebrate yours and make him head of a committee …
you, sir, are a FOOL.
Comment by Drewsmom @ 10/23/2006 - 4:54 pm
Oh really? Don Sherwood (the mistress choker) will be removed by the voters. Bob Ney has yet to resign and he plead guilty in court. Curt Weldon is busy lining his daughter’s pockets. Doolittle is making his wife rich. Jerry Lewis in a shady land deal and, even the Speaker has used public funds to enrich himself.
And, once again, the insults. You guys are just too used to talking to one another.
And tomorrow even more Members will testify about what they knew about Foley’s pedophila.
Comment by Keith @ 10/23/2006 - 5:42 pm
So, you get rid of your slim balls do you. Try harder!
Top aides to Speaker of the House Dennis Hastert (R-Ill.) are expected to testify this week in the House Ethics Committee investigation of the Foley page scandal.
Hastert may also appear, according to Chicago Sun-Times political reporter Lynn Sweet. Today Chief of Staff Scott Palmer entered the room to testify before the committee around 2p.m.
The investigation of how the Republican leadership handled the issue has provoked turmoil and finger-pointing in Hastert’s office, congressional sources say.
Some of Hastert’s principal aides have hired criminal defense lawyers to represent them during the investigation. Ted Van Der Meid, Hastert’s chief in-house counsel, has retained Washington, D.C.-based attorney Lee Blalack, who also represents convicted former Congressman Duke Cunningham.
A key focus of the congressional investigation is the timing of when Hastert and his top staff first learned of Foley’s problem behavior toward congressional pages.
The results of an internal review conducted by the speaker’s office, released on Sept. 30, said Hastert’s staff only learned of complaints about Foley in the fall of 2005 after a congressional page complained about inappropriate e-mails.
But former House Clerk Jeff Trandahl as well as Kirk Fordham, Foley’s former chief of staff, have both told associates, and are believed to have testified before the House Ethics Committee, that top staff in Speaker Hastert’s office were informed several years ago about Foley’s inappropriate behavior toward congressional pages.
Comment by Keith @ 10/23/2006 - 6:03 pm
What? Are you still here wasting your time Keith? C’mon, don’t you know there are only 15 more window-smashing days (or more importantly nights) till the election? So many Republican campaign offices, so little time. Chop chop!
Comment by Severian @ 10/23/2006 - 6:41 pm
Don’t forget about tire slashing!!!!!!
Comment by NC Cop @ 10/23/2006 - 7:13 pm
- NC….Only Democratic Officials sons are allowed to do that. You have to be a card carrying member of the Marxocratic party for that privilege. You can, however, shoot out Republican campaign office windows though, even if you’re just a SecProg groupie. Have to observe dissident pecking order.
- Bang
Comment by Big Bang Hunter @ 10/23/2006 - 7:42 pm
Severian, I ask again. How old are you? Only 15 more days and I do have work to do on the campaign. But, it won’t entail breaking windows or making unfortunate comparisons to Kristallnach.
But, tomorrow I will be watching what the house ethics committee will be doing. It should be fun.
You know, Bill Maher said something very funny tonight — Republican have sex the same way they govern — barely legal. And Congressman Gibbons of Nevada has seemed to join the sex bandwagon.
Comment by Keith @ 10/23/2006 - 8:25 pm
Wow, Bill Maher!! Now I know where you get your great insight and information. From a washed up actor who couldn’t hack it in Hollywood. Good job!
Comment by NC Cop @ 10/23/2006 - 9:02 pm
But, tomorrow I will be watching what the house ethics committee will be doing.
I’m sure you will. After the Plame debacle didn’t work out for you I’m sure you are looking for anything you can. So if the Foley “scandal” doesn’t work out, what’s next?
I heard Hastert got a speeding ticket when he was 16!!! I’m sure you will be all over it!
Comment by NC Cop @ 10/23/2006 - 9:05 pm
- Yeh, that Plame thing really worked out well. the real culprit confess’s and the nutroots were so burried in their own rhetoric, it took two weeks for them to realize what happened. Now you don’t hear a peep about it anymore. Well they mined it for all it was worth, so they have to move on to this weeks “AnythingGate”. I see the top dawg at the NY Trash has repented on the job they did killing the terrorist money tracing program. Maybe flagging sales is sending them a message from the electorate.
- Bang
Comment by Big Bang Hunter @ 10/23/2006 - 10:27 pm
Ah geez…the troll is at it again.
He’s unable to speak more than a word or two without changing the subject to Foley, mainly because that’s all he apparently thinks he has. Even then, he gets it wrong by braying about “child molesters” in the GOP, by which he means Emails. But if you read his nonsense on the other thread, the real child molesters - the ones who go far beyond Emails - are fine with him. Like Pelosi, he’s OK with the real pedophiles. You won’t get him to say one word against them. Go check his recent posts.
But what can we expect from someone who gets his news from Bill Maher?? But give him credit - that’s as close as he’s come to actually citing a source for any of his deranged rantings.
Comment by Great White Rat @ 10/23/2006 - 10:46 pm
I don’t see her pushing for impeachment.
Why should she? Democrats have been out of power for years in Congress, and if they win people will watch to see how they govern. They saw how the impeachment of Bill Clinton cost Republicans seats in Congress in 1998 (including, specifically and not coincidentally, two of the House impeachment managers.) Pelosi is smart enough to know that a Bush impeachment trial is the fastest road they could take back to the minority.
Besides, even if Bush were impeached, then the Senate would have to convict him. Which would require (even assuming the Democrats pick up the six seats they need for control and that every single Democrat voted for conviction) sixteen Republicans to join them.
And, even if they impeached Bush and he were convicted, what would be the reward? Turning on the TV and hearing, “I, Richard Cheney do solemnly swear…”
No, I doubt if Pelosi would want impeachment hearings. Every grain of common sense argues against it.
Comment by sinister minister @ 10/24/2006 - 12:38 am
“No, I doubt if Pelosi would want impeachment hearings. Every grain of common sense argues against it.”
- That’s why we’re sure she’d try it.
- Bang
Comment by Big Bang Hunter @ 10/24/2006 - 1:12 am
Ah geez…the troll is at it again.
He’s unable to speak more than a word or two without changing the subject to Foley, mainly because that’s all he apparently thinks he has.
Well, GWR, I think I’ve got it figured out. Keith obviously has the most raging case of homophobia I’ve ever seen. With him, it’s all “who played hide the salami” all the time. I bet he’s even afraid to bend over in his own shower at home alone he’s so hyper.
How else can you explain the fact he views sending dirty IMs as a more serious crime than shooting at and attacking campaign offices?
Comment by Severian @ 10/24/2006 - 8:26 am