Bay Buchanan falsely claimed Pelosi is "letting everybody know that she's going to spend two years with impeachment hearings" if Democrats win control of the House
SUMMARY: On ABC's Good Morning America, Republican strategist Bay Buchanan falsely claimed that House Democratic Leader Nancy Pelosi (CA) is "letting everybody know that she's going to spend two years with impeachment hearings" if Democrats win control of Congress in the 2006 midterm elections. In fact, as The Washington Post reported, Pelosi has "vowed 'to use the power to investigate' the administration on multiple fronts," but she has "denied Republican allegations that a Democratic House would move quickly to impeach President Bush."
On the May 9 edition of ABC's Good Morning America, Bay Buchanan, Republican strategist and president of the conservative group The American Cause, falsely claimed that House Democratic Leader Nancy Pelosi (CA) is "letting everybody know that she's going to spend two years with impeachment hearings" if Democrats win control of Congress in the 2006 midterm elections. Buchanan added that by purportedly threatening impeachment hearings, Pelosi "will certainly help Republicans" and "is doing our job," presumably of solidifying the Republican base. In fact, as The Washington Post reported on May 7, Pelosi has "vowed 'to use the power to investigate' the administration on multiple fronts," starting with Vice President Dick Cheney's 2001 secret energy task force, but she has "denied Republican allegations that a Democratic House would move quickly to impeach President Bush." Pelosi stated on the May 7 edition of NBC's Meet the Press that a Democratic Congress would differ from the current Republican leadership in that it would "assume" the "congressional obligation and responsibility to have oversight" -- which Buchanan urged Republicans to exercise during the 1998 impeachment hearings for then-President Bill Clinton.
As the Post reported on May 7, part of the "legislative blitz" Democrats are planning if they win back control of Congress would be "launch[ing] a series of investigations of the Bush administration, beginning with the White House's first-term energy task force and probably including the use of intelligence in the run-up to the invasion of Iraq." But contrary to Buchanan's suggestion, Pelosi specifically denied that impeachment was a goal of the hearings, while not ruling out the possibility that the investigations could lead to such actions. Pelosi stated on Meet the Press: "Democrats are not about impeachment. Democrats are about bringing the country together."
Further explaining the purpose of proposed Democratic investigations during her Meet the Press appearance, Pelosi asserted that the current Republican controlled Congress "has not exercised the congressional obligation and responsibility to have oversight." Pelosi continued: "[I]nvestigation does not equate to impeachment. Investigation is the requirement of Congress. It's about checks and balances."
Buchanan asserted that Pelosi's agenda "will certainly help the Republicans" because investigations are "not something Americans want to have." But Buchanan expressed a different view of congressional oversight, arguing on the October 9, 1998, edition of CNN's Larry King Live that it was the "constitutional obligation of Congress" to investigate efforts Clinton made to conceal his affair with Monica Lewinski and to determine whether he was "guilty and should be tried for these crimes."
From the May 9 broadcast of ABC's Good Morning America:
CHARLES GIBSON [co-host]: Paul, Karl Rove, who is considered something of a political genius in Washington, is charged with putting this all back together for the Republicans. Can he do it?
PAUL BEGALA [Democratic strategist]: Well, I've known Karl for well over 20 years. We've -- I've always gotten along very well. But, you know, Karl is the guy that brought George W. Bush from 91 percent down to 31 percent, so I don't think Democrats are too all-fired intimidated by Karl. And there's still a very real risk that Karl could be indicted by the special prosecutor [Patrick Fitzgerald].
GIBSON: And what issue --
BUCHANAN: I'll tell you who will help us.
GIBSON: Go ahead. I'm sorry, Bay.
BUCHANAN: Nancy Pelosi -- That's OK. Nancy Pelosi will certainly help Republicans make that case. She's out there talking, we're gonna "gotcha" [inaudible]
BEGALA: Yeah, but she's not in front of the grand jury, Bay. She's not in front of the grand jury like Karl Rove is on five different occasions. I'll take Nancy Pelosi over Karl Rove any day of the week, Bay.
BUCHANAN: Listen, Nancy Pelosi is doing our job for us. She's letting everybody know that she's going to spend two years with impeachment hearings if she takes over. That's not something Americans want to have.
GIBSON: We're six months from the election, and this is going to be a very interesting six months with a real political dogfight. I appreciate both of you being with us, Paul and Bay.
From the May 7 broadcast of NBC's Meet the Press:
TIM RUSSERT [host]: Headlines in the Capitol Hill paper: "Dems prepare for transition." Today's Washington Post: "Confident Dems lay out agenda." You're measuring the draperies in the speaker's office.
PELOSI: No, we're not. No, we're not. The American people would like to know what we would do if we take over.
RUSSERT: Ah, absolutely. If they ...
PELOSI: And that's what ...
RUSSERT: ... and let me ask you about that, because you told The Washington Post that there will be investigations if the Democrats regain control of the House. The chairman of the Judiciary Committee would be someone named John Conyers. I went up to his website, and this is what's on his website: "Stand with Congressman Conyers. Demand an investigation of administration abuses of power and make recommendations regarding grounds for possible impeachment."
PELOSI: Democrats are not about impeachment. Democrats are about bringing the country together. This is what we have to do.
RUSSERT: But that's the man who would be chairman of the Judiciary Committee.
PELOSI: Yeah, but that is not where the decision would be made. This is a -- what I had told The Washington Post was that we will assume the responsibility that this Congress -- this do-nothing, rubber-stamp Congress, rubber-stamp for President Bush -- hasn't done, has not exercised the congressional obligation and responsibility to have oversight.
RUSSERT: So there would be investigations.
PELOSI: Well, what I told them is, we will have an investigation of energy prices. We will have an investigation. Then how that was done ...
RUSSERT: How about of the war?
PELOSI: That would be if -- I said we'd have hearings on the war. We'd have hearings on the war. But I don't see us going to a place of an impeachment or all of that.
RUSSERT: Is impeachment off the table?
PELOSI: Well, you never know where the facts take you, but the -- for any president. But, but that isn't what we're about. What we're about is going there and, and having high ethical standards, fiscal soundness, and a level of civility that brushes away all this fierce partisanship.
RUSSERT: Well, should John Conyers take his website down, talking about impeachment?
PELOSI: John Conyers does what he does on his website. John Conyers is an enthusiastic advocate. I am the leader. Our caucus will decide where we go. But it's not -- you don't decide to impeach. You -- the facts support something like that, and that's not where we're going.
RUSSERT: But the impression, Congresswoman, is that the Democrats take control of Congress it's payback. They're going to have the subpoena power ...
PELOSI: No. That's not the case.
RUSSERT: ...and there's going to be investigation ...
PELOSI: Well, that's wrong. Well, we will have subpoena power.
RUSSERT: ... after investigation. You will have subpoena power.
PELOSI: We will have subpoena power, and that's why the Republicans are so afraid that we will be able to show the public how they arrived at a prescription drug bill that is born of corruption. The cost of corruption is, is huge to the consumer, whether it's a sen -- middle-income seniors paying more at the pharmacy, whether it's the -- all American consumers paying more at the pump, or home heating oil. How did we get to this place? Those -- that is worthy of scrutiny. It's not -- investigation does not equate to impeachment. Investigation is the requirement of Congress. It's about checks and balances.
From the October 9, 1998, edition of CNN's Larry King Live:
LARRY KING [host]: Wouldn't you like see it solved, Bay, or do you want him impeached?
BUCHANAN: We're in the middle of a legal proceeding, here.
KING: Yes, but many legal proceedings end on settlements every day -- thousands of them in America today stopped.
BUCHANAN: You tell me what legal settlement was resolved for some fellow who was basically being investigated for criminal activity, was allowed not to have to plead guilty to it, until the investigation was completed in essence, and then they dealt with what the sentence would be, the punishment.
KING: How would you solve this -- if you want it solved? Do you want it solved as ...
BUCHANAN: Larry, what we are in right now is the investigative stage. It's the constitutional obligation of Congress to determine if indeed the man is guilty and should be tried for these crimes.
... but, they should. "if indeed the man is guilty"? Come on. Oh right! He's just being sarcastic.
Who's that Con kidding? Americans want investigations now. Bush will be lucky to get away with mere impeachment when the facts come out.
So NOW they think that spending two years and millions of tax dollars impeaching a president is silly. Imagine that.
The hypocrisy is so bad.
Bush. Do a quick investigation (about two pragraphs should be enough) then send him up the river along with Cheney, Rumsfeld, Rice, and Tommy Franks. Then bring back the broadcasting law concerning equal time for opposing viewpoints so that they can never have full controll of the media again. After that, let's get that Health Care for all thing going. And, oh yes, let's count the votes in future elections. That should about do it.
this fall.
"Even though the President is corrupt. You should vote Republican to make sure his corruption is not investigated further."
..I wouldn't vote anyone into power if they DON'T investigate these crimes. If that leads to impeachment, so be it.
Bay is simply exhibiting an understandable paranoia that, given half a chance, the Dems will do what the Repugs most certainly did. It's called projection.
I, for one, am in favor of turning her paranoid delusions into reality.
IMPEACH THE CHIMP!!!
Ugh. As a liberal, I really wish that the Democratic leadership came across better in the media. I cringe when I hear Pelosi struggle to make a point. And Harry Reid doesn't do much for me either. Is this the leadership that is going to win in November?
There are many more impressive folks out there. Bayh, Biden, Dodd, Feingold, and Obama come to mind in the Senate. And their are many strong leaders in the House.
How did these two rise to the top?
..would work a little harder to find competent speakers. Har har.
Anyways, I think part of the problem is trying to convey complex issues to the American public. Americans like a simple plan. Politics is extremely complicated. I don't pretend to understand much of anything in the world of politics, but I do know that people like simple solutions. Republicans offer simple solutions. Of course we all know how that works out, but hey.. people can understand it. Democrats have to try and explain a complex situation to an American population that spends more time worrying about the American Idol vote than they do elections!
Anyone remember when Republicans were all about "accountability?" Anyone that has to market accountability can't be trusted to be accountable. How dare those Democrats try and hold the President accountable!
Wasn't it just recently that Republicans were telling us all we shouldn't care about wiretaps unless we have something to hide?
Well then, why should they care about investigations unless they have something to hide.
Given the pitiful governace of this administration (White House) and the lack of oversight for the last 6 years investigations are warranted in a number of areas. If the proof is there that there was corruption then the President should be impeached. The Democrats need to say this simply and then get back to and stay on point. Pelosi did a good job on "Meet the Press" given Russert's combative stance, something NBC would not allow to occur with GOP guest. Was she perfect, no, and let those without stain cast the first stone. But she held her own something Rummy could not due with a Q&A when presented with the facts by an audience member -- granted a veteran of the CIA, but there you go.
As for Bay Buchanan, what else do you expect to come from a horse backside, but the obivious.
It seems that the Republicans are not the only group in defense mode as we approach 2006 elections. The right wing media stands to lose a lot of creditability if investigations were started. After all, the media played a very important part in the lack of oversight the Bush administration and Republican Congress enjoyed so much for the last 5 years. Christ Mathews was making the same claim about the Nancy Polosi making a pelage to impeach Bush. It almost like watching the marvel of media's ability to manipulate sound bits to say anything that would support their claim to sensationalism and why they should be watched. The assumption that somehow the American people would shove all that has happen in the past 5 years under the carpet because the truth is not important is something the American public as to make. The cable conservatives and talking heads of the Sunday talk shows no nothing about where the true resolve of the American public is. The 2006 elections will bare the real resolve of an America feed up with the Republican Party and its right wing media allies.
Excellent point.
The "Mainstream Media" fears investigations as much as Republicans do.
Investigations with subpeona power will reveal everything the Media MISSED, for the past six years. With each revelation of FACTS that shows corruption or incompetence will come the stinging indictment that the Media FAILED yet again to inform the American Public of what was going on.
Since the Media has been complicit in propping up and protecting the Bush Administration, they share in responsibility for cover-up of all wrongdoing.
It's like the Security Company paid and charged with protecting the warehouse. After the gigantic burglary, the forensic cops uncover the extent of the operation.
Cop: "They came in the skylights."
Security Guy (SG): "We missed that."
Cop: "They also came in the windows."
SG: "We missed that too."
Cop: "Turns out, the doors must've been unlocked. They came in the doors, and didn't have to jimmy them."
SG: "I guess we missed that, too."
Cop: "They pulled up trucks and looted the joint."
SG: "We should have paid closer attention."
Cop: "What the hell were you DOING?"
SG: "We feel an obligation to take a BALANCED approch to the security business."
Cop: "And so you missed this breakin altogether??"
SG: "Try to understand. These aren't the ONLY burglars around. We were keeping an eye on their rival gangs, to make sure THEY didn't hit the warehouse."
Cop: "And so you left the warehouse unguarded."
SC: "Sure, in RETROSPECT it looks bad. But you don't give us credit for keeping the OTHER gangs away. How DARE you Monday-Morning-Quarterback our efforts?? Hindsight is 20-20, you know."
Cop: "Reality Check, Bozo. You had ONE job: Protect the warehouse. You FAILED."
MMFA can't read between the lines, the luckily Bay is around to straighten them out.
Did Pelosi rule it out? No, she said you never know where it will lead.
Luckily, the Dems will fall short once again. No gains for two and half years, then they have chance.
No one needs to read between the lines - It states right in the article that they're not ruling out the possiblity that the investigations could lead to such actions.
Did you support the investigations into Clinton? Do you support investigations into the current administration or Congress? Just curious!
Why is it OK to attempt a no holds barred investigation for the sole purpose of impeaching a president with an approval rating 0f 60% but it is somehow a waste of time and effort to simply have investigations into a presidency that has a 31% approval rating? And why is this question not asked by the so-called Liberal Media everytime Buchanon or Mehlman begin their Pelosi spin. I hope the American people do not fall for this because the bottom line is, I don't think there is enough time left in Bush's presidency to actually have the investigations and the impeachment trial. It simply seems not possible.
Leatherhelmet, what does this mean exactly? Lucidity is important if we are going to try and have a discussion. There is no shame in proofreading your posts.
Is anyone but me worried about the "secure" Diebold Voting machines?
There is no point in speculationg about the election and possible impeachment if the ability to manipulate votes is still there. When many counties were registering more votes for Bu$h than registered voters in the county in the 2004 election, WHERE WAS THE RUCKUS ABOUT THIS???
I would hate to see another election soiled with blatant fraud...
Funny how Pat Buchanan's sister might be a lesbian. It always turns out that all of these Republicans and/or conservatives who always speak out against gay marriage and talk about family values often are either gay themselves or have family members or relatives who are gay or who dont exactly practice what they preach when it comes to family and moral values.
THANK YOU. njguy93@yahoo.com
...that the American people do not want impeachment.
Really? What's that based on? This American thinks that the President's serious Constitutional lapses should be investigated and if there's enough evidence, should be impeached, as the Constitution directs, and if convicted, should be removed from office.