digg

Join DiggAbout

Discover and share the best of the web!
Learn more about Digg by taking the tour.

Judiciary chairman says Pelosi can't stop impeachment proceedings

rawstory.com — Rep. John Conyers declared House Speaker Nancy Pelosi could not stop him from beginning impeachment proceedings against a 'long list of people' in the Bush administration, although he did not make a firm commitment to begin proceedings. "Pelosi has impeachment 'off the table,' but that's off her table, it is not off John Conyers' table."

Bury
show profanity settings
expand all
  • dreamtiger, on 10/10/2007, -7/+48Seems like Conyers is stalling, saying he'd like to see more public support for Impeachment before he goes ahead. He is also being coy about who should be impeached. What is he waiting for? Public support is overwhelming, and we all know who needs to be removed from office. Why is it that Democrats, who were returned to power by public mandate in 2006, have delivered nothing but waffling, appeasement, capitulation and failure? Could it be that Democrats are merely the other arm of the war=profit machine?
    • art42, on 10/10/2007, -1/+14'saying he'd like to see more public support for Impeachment before he goes ahead'
      That's not what he said. He meant that the protesters are not the only consideration. If it was impeachment would be underway. He's saying he needs more support from members of Congress to proceed. I agree it's more stalling.

      IMO He should go ahead with proceedings NOW. Let the chips fall where they may. Support in Congress will grow as the hearing uncover more crimes. Those that don't vote for impeachment should be voted out in the next election.

      Keep contacting your reps, Conyers, Pelosi and members of the House Judicial Committee. I contacted my Congressman (Sam Farr) frequently (almost daily) for over a year before he signed onto H RES 333.
      Encourage others to do the same. Nixon's impeachment gained steam when We The People demanded it.
    • TJATL, on 10/10/2007, -15/+4Public support is not overwhelming for impeachment unless you are a member of the loony left. Quit fooling yourself.
      • evil-doer, on 10/10/2007, -3/+8ever notice that the ONLY thing the bush loving, war mongering minority have left at this point is name calling? when theres no argument against the truth... NAME CALL!
        loony left, libtards, moonbats, troofers, etc. is that really all youve got? silly names?
      • TJATL, on 10/10/2007, -6/+3Please, anytime someone doesn't agree with the left they are homophobes, racists, etc etc. Give me a break.
    • luckyllama, on 10/10/2007, -5/+2Seriously, public support is hardly "overwhelming" for Bush's impeachment... according to an American Research Group ( http://www.americanresearchgroup.com/ ) poll in July of this year, 45% of all Americans are for it and 46% oppose impeachment (9% were undecided). The numbers are up to 54% in favor of impeachment hearings for Cheney but still not "overwhelming".
      • clark24, on 10/10/2007, -1/+954% is more than what Bush/Cheney won either election by so I'd say that is enough.
      • iofthestorm, on 10/10/2007, -2/+7Are you kidding me? Those aren't disapproval rates, this is actually how many people want them gone, now. 45% and 54% are PHENOMENAL.
      • Shandooga, on 10/10/2007, -2/+6Public support is irrelevant to the question of violation of the law and war crimes.
      • Terr01, on 10/10/2007, -4/+5BTW, The poll stats for people who wanted Clinton impeached/tried were incredibly lower than the current results.
    • jkizzle, on 10/10/2007, -5/+3impeachment is stupid. its not going to happen, and all it will do is give the left a bad name. conyers might be the only thing that could screw up the inevitable dem win next fall.
    • Shandooga, on 10/10/2007, -1/+4Yes! Finally, somebody has stopped taking this den of thieves at their word! Of course they're in on it; the Democrats are mostly rich, white men too. There are, no doubt, some pretenders; infiltrators from the Republican party. Pelosi may well be one of these. Her initial public opposition may well have been a ploy to make it appear that she was an enemy of the chief serpent. We would thus assume that if she doesn't back impeachment it's not because she doesn't *want* to.

      We know the Dems are really republicans because whenever they *really* want the Republican candidate to win (like 2008) they promote a black and a woman as their forerunners. They did it in '80, handing the election to Regan and now (when Charles Manson would make a good showing against Bush) they put up Obama and Clinton. They well know that no woman or black will ever sit in the white house any longer than it takes to focus cross-hairs upon him.
    • Fabozz, on 10/10/2007, -1/+5Just shut up and keep voting for Democrats. When the DNC wants you to have an opinion, it'll instruct the New York Times to give it to you.
  • art42, on 10/10/2007, -6/+16Looks like more posturing by Conyers. Keep contacting your rep's, Conyers and Pelosi daily.

    http://house.gov
    http://senate.gov
    http://speaker.gov
    http://judiciary.house.gov/Contact.aspx
  • Styve, on 10/10/2007, -5/+2I submitted this comment, and RS made one correction. Overall, my statement still stands...this guy Juliano consistently writes headlines on Raw Story that belie a GOP obfuscation intent, and the writing in this piece is very tangled, perhaps for the same reason?!
    --------------------
    Juliano again writes a confused report to obfuscate for the GOP, or was that the result of Raw Story posting snafus? Consider these tangled, nonsensical sentences!!
    * ...Pelosi could not stop him from beginning impeachment proceedings against a 'long list of people' in the House Judiciary Committee, although he did not make a firm commitment to begin proceedings.
    * Conyers did not announce plans to begin impeachment proceedings, which he has previously said would be politically untenable. Rather, his speech seemed to indicate that pro-impeachment activists did not yet convince him that Bush and Cheney deserved to be booted from office.
    * "I only wish that I could be moved by a lot of people coming to my office."
    * "I understand the politics of impeachment," Conyers said. "But we have something going on now that we've never had before."
  • notque, on 10/10/2007, -13/+31We need impeachment hearings, and we need to put our support behind them.

    Join the General Strike on 9/11 and let's work towards a better future in the time honored tradition that works. Hard work.

    Digg my #1 and support the cause.
    • TJATL, on 10/10/2007, -11/+3quit....being...a....robot...sheep...
    • TJATL, on 10/10/2007, -10/+3Screw the 9/11 strike!!!! http://digg.com/politics/Screw_the_9_11_Strike_it_s_Islamo_Fascism_Awareness_Week_October_22_26
    • knomevol, on 10/10/2007, -1/+7PROTECT AND DEFEND THE CONSTITUTION, against all enemies, foreign and domestic.

      those who do not support the Constitution ultimately support terrorism.
      • Monk22, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1and those who think you not going to work is going to prove anything other than the fact that you didnt make any money that day are fooling yourselves.
    • RGWX, on 10/10/2007, -4/+1Aren't you cute? Now, mommy will drop you off at demonstration with your little friends at 10am and pick you up at 4pm. You have your hoodie? Your cell phone? Don't talk to strangers and don't get in anyone's car. Have fun now!
  • shedmyskin, on 10/10/2007, -4/+28they should impeach 80% of Washington, both parties. All the CFR, big government, corporate cronies, world bank puppets who serve everything and everything other than the American people.
    • apexim, on 10/10/2007, -6/+7agree 100%
      RP 08
    • chase001, on 10/10/2007, -2/+10I would go so far as to say anyone who voted to give Bush sweeping war powers to attack countries that did not attack us and who voted for the "Patriot Act" without reading it should be removed from office from either party. It's time to break up the establishment in Washington.
      • rabidsquirrelOG, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1'without reading it'? What are you saying? Why stop there?

        Hell, if they actually read it and voted for it, then they should be tried for treason!
    • supermanred, on 10/10/2007, -3/+7Impeach, Imprison and take back America.

      Burn the Patriot act and restore the Constitution, the heart of America.

      USA!!! USA!!! USA!!!
      • fuzzmeister, on 10/10/2007, -3/+2Take your pills please. I appreciate the sentiment, but you sound just as crazy as the hardcore pro-Bush people.
  • apexim, on 10/10/2007, -18/+17IMPEACH
    arrest Cheney first
    bring our troops home NOW
    elect a man of integrity wisdom and courage Dr Ron Paul president
    he voted against the war
    against the patriot act
    join our revolution to restore the Constitution
  • ajsidener, on 10/10/2007, -10/+6thank you john conyers
    • dtschwe, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1thank you for what? he has not done *****.
  • Obscenewords, on 10/10/2007, -11/+19Articles of Impeachment
    of
    President George W. Bush
    and
    Vice President Richard B. Cheney,
    Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice,
    Secretary of Defense Donald H. Rumsfeld, and
    Attorney General Alberto Gonzales

    Link here to read further 937798 have already signed petition
    http://www.impeachbush.org/site/News2?page=NewsArticle&id=5054&news_iv_ctrl=1061
    • Compared2What, on 10/10/2007, -5/+2Go whacko DiggBotts. .
    • RGWX, on 10/10/2007, -1/+1Call for it all you want...its not even close to reality. I'd LOVE for the Democrats to try it...its like giving a drunk the car keys.
  • swrostmore, on 10/10/2007, -8/+21http://www.Sept15.org Gen. Clark will present a petition supporting impeachment with 1,000,000 signatures to congress, coinciding with Gen. Petraeus' Iraq report and a mass rally on the national mall in DC. Be there or be [ ]
    • LastVisibleDog, on 10/10/2007, -7/+3Jim Morrison and Elvis Presley will provide the entertainment and Vladimir Ilyich Lenin will be the keynote speaker - all the Democrat presidentual candidates that are for ending the war NOW will also be there (zero)
      • DarkPrincess74, on 10/10/2007, -3/+0Well to be honest the democratic candidates would totally be there for ending the war if the polls showed that that's a good idea and the republicans too.
  • nouns, on 10/10/2007, -3/+16Know what? Talk is cheap.
    • nihilite, on 10/10/2007, -1/+2too true. We have no shortage of tough talk.

      About time our democratic leadership "put up or shut up"
  • chicofaraby, on 10/10/2007, -7/+5Hasn't Dennis Kucinich already begun gathering co-sponsors on a bill to impeach Mr Cheney? Conyers doesn't have to do anything but sign on as a sponsor.
    • LastVisibleDog, on 10/10/2007, -3/+2Lots of talk - pretty much all the Democrats know how to do
      • Monk22, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1its all they ever do, thats why i will never vote for a dem. they whine and bitch all day long. in congress, here on digg, yet not one of them can devise even one alternative solution to any problem, just complaining about what they dont like.
  • SqueakyWheel, on 10/10/2007, -11/+8Hillary illegally taped her opponents we should impeach her right now.
    • nihilite, on 10/10/2007, -4/+11shhh... adults are talking.
    • MacSuxWindozSux, on 10/10/2007, -1/+5George Bush illegally taped everyone's phone calls.
      • Monk22, on 10/10/2007, -1/+1actually he didnt but your tin foil hat must have blocked your view of reality, its okay i understand
  • jellygraph, on 10/10/2007, -6/+3go for it... it needs to be done, even if too late, it needs to be done
  • chubbybubba, on 10/10/2007, -19/+12I want to impeach those retard diggers who keep posting all this impeachment propaganda. Waste of time. Waste of money. Let's move on to 08.
    • StatiK69, on 10/10/2007, -5/+9Wake up and smell the coffee. If these ass clowns aren't impeached or held accountable for their misdeeds, there may not be a 2008 election. IF there is, who's to say the next pres wouldn't take up where bushco left off since these guys aren't being held accountable now.
      • luckyllama, on 10/10/2007, -4/+2Why on earth would there not be a 2008 election?
        • spyd3rweb, on 10/10/2007, -1/+7if any terrorism event triggers a national emergency the united states goes into martial law. read all the wonderful executive orders bush signed.
        • fuzzmeister, on 10/10/2007, -2/+2If Bush would be willing to declare martial law to keep his job, I'm pretty sure impeachment wouldn't do jack *****.
          • Matthew720, on 10/10/2007, -0/+2Unless he's impeached before he gets a chance to do so.
      • DarkPrincess74, on 10/10/2007, -1/+4Wait, there's an election in 2008? Has anyone asked the Emperor what he thinks about that?
    • LoveWidescreen, on 10/10/2007, -0/+8Are you serious? They're still pissed off about 2000!
    • headt0thebunker, on 10/10/2007, -2/+3Yeah....that's a good plan....lets show future politicians they can do what the hell ever they want without fear of being held accountable......GOOD PLAN ....

      Or how about this.....we impeach the two crooks....investigate the rest.....and start locking people up.......


      No you got a better plan.....let them off scott free....that will teach them to lie to the American public.....
  • skyscape, on 10/10/2007, -14/+6another spam. If you guys are really eager to impeach someone you should start today with Clinton Administration,because when she'll become the president, you will have enough time to impeach someone. The senate which rating are under the toilet is trying to impeach someone whose rating are in the toilet. How is this possible?
    • swrostmore, on 10/10/2007, -0/+6Bear is driving! How can this be?
  • GreedKills, on 10/10/2007, -9/+5Its getting to the point if they dont start now impeachment now, it will never happen, not enough time is left. The democrats in power now are cowards, plain and simple.

    Where is Oswald when you need him?
    • Compared2What, on 10/10/2007, -3/+1*****
    • RGWX, on 10/10/2007, -2/+0"Where is Oswald when you need him?" I know you think you're very clever, just scooting up to the line, but why don't you say what you're thinking. Unless you're too ***** to do so...come on, call for the assassination of George Bush...that's what you're TRYING to say, isn't it?
  • UrinalPooper, on 10/10/2007, -7/+10I think Conyers is a knuckle-head of the first order, but that having been said a broken clock is right twice a day. There should have been impeachment proceedings months if not years ago, however the democrats would rather get elected by promising (and not delivering) change than risk their political careers stopping the republicans from doing stupid things.

    The more people dislike this administration the better their chances of getting the presidency in '08. If they actually put a damper on the rampant stupidity going on, their chances wouldn't be as solid. That's politics and it's also why I think voting is a fools' game.

    All these bastards want to do is pick your pocket and profiteer off the positions to which they've been elected, both sides of the aisle.
  • TJATL, on 10/10/2007, -13/+7rawstory.com, where left wing nuts spam mindless propaganda all over the internet.

    • LoveWidescreen, on 10/10/2007, -0/+4Uh, yeah. Why else would it be so popular on Digg? Duh.
    • fuzzmeister, on 10/10/2007, -1/+2Now that's an open mind.
    • Matthew720, on 10/10/2007, -1/+3Here's your homework for tonight, TJLALABAD, or whatever your name is......
      1. Look up the definition of "propaganda".
      2. Post the definition on here so we know you've looked it up.
      3. Explain in 50 words or less how this article is "mindless propaganda" based on that definition.
      • RGWX, on 10/10/2007, -1/+1Let me help you, Matt.

        It's a channel FOR propaganda, because selective information can constitute propaganda just as much as false information. Rawstory is a de facto arm of the Democratic party apparatus shoveling out stories with a partisan axe to grind and a view of journalism that would make the editors of the Weekly World News uncomfortable. In that, they could be considered an element in a propaganda campaign. Don't confuse them with actual reporting: it's a selective, blinkered source of self-reinforcing liberal groupthink. "All Republicans are pure evil, all Democrats (except Lieberman and anyone against impeachment) are pure goodness." Don't claim Rawstory is a news site, because its not.

        By the way, you'll want to learn to recognize that liberal smugness is the characteristic that makes normal people want to beat the living ***** out of you.
  • maz2331, on 10/10/2007, -2/+8Impeachment in the House is a pointless gesture. Even if successful there the possibility of a conviction in the Senate is below zero. As I have stated earlier, even if you had video of Bush personally hooking a puppy's balls to a car battery, you still would not get a 2/3 Senate vote to remove him from office.
    It just isn't going to happen.
    • headt0thebunker, on 10/10/2007, -0/+3But it would be nice to see all of the ney sayers on that vote trying to get relected......
      • Monk22, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1well since the nays would be republicans, i dont think it will ruffle that many feathers.
  • LastVisibleDog, on 10/10/2007, -11/+8The Democrat Congress with the lowest approval rating in the history of approval ratings is going to try and impeach a president with a higher approval rating - and still no impeachable offenses have been enumerated - the Left Wing Nut Wet Dream continues....
    • headt0thebunker, on 10/10/2007, -3/+6you obvioulsy haven't been searching very hard if you haven't seen the "ENUMERATED CHARGES"......
      • LastVisibleDog, on 10/10/2007, -1/+1I said CHARGES - not Left Wing Wet Dreams.
    • feckineejit, on 10/10/2007, -0/+5having private contractors doing soldiers jobs really sends the wrong message to our troops and to the iraqi people as they are not bound by local or US law.
      • Monk22, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1im sure youve been over there and spoken to the people first hand about this of course.
    • Matthew720, on 10/10/2007, -2/+4It seems many a republican are under the misconception that if a tree falls in the woods and there's no one there to hear it, then it didn't make a sound. Even when you DO point them in the right direction, to an article, or a study, they try another tactic by discrediting the source. When you do back it up with a mainstream source, they label it as propaganda and start calling you names. It's the same old ***** story with these hacks. They're like an ape on the loose with no brains. You can't reason with them and they are as ignorant as a lawnmower.
      • LastVisibleDog, on 10/10/2007, -1/+1To quote Aerosmith "Dream on, dream on, dream on, dream on til your dreams come true"
        Tapdance all you want - hurl insults - it does not matter - to impeach you need real articles of impeachment and a congress with the support of the people and you ain't got jack. I know this pisses off you freedom-hating left wingnuts but we will have to let the Constitutional process of elections run its course.
  • LastVisibleDog, on 10/10/2007, -14/+8I think we should impeach Rawstory, Thinkprogress, and MoveOn
    • Compared2What, on 10/10/2007, -3/+4Seconded
      • b1gm1ke, on 10/10/2007, -2/+2To: LastVisibleDog/Compared2What/TJATL.....would any of you be willing to share how much you're getting paid? I'd be willing to spew nonsense like you..........if the price is right...
        • LastVisibleDog, on 10/10/2007, -1/+1Is that supposed to make sense?
  • Cyberen, on 10/10/2007, -4/+7The fact that Conyers is even bringing Impeachment up shows he has more spine than most congressmen.
    • LastVisibleDog, on 10/10/2007, -3/+1It shows he does not want to do the hard work he was elected to do - he just wants to talk - In less than a year the Democrat Congress has nose-dived to the lowest approval rating in the history of congressional approval ratings - do-nothing nut-jobs like Conyers are a major cause of this disaster of a congress
  • Snaieke, on 10/10/2007, -6/+4Impeachment should be upto the American voters. REAL voters, not teenagers, not convicts, not online commentators from Canada, Europe, Australia etc.. Forget the 1 million petitions, show me a petition with at least 40% of the population, or 60% of the registered voters 1 million signatures is only 1/300th the population and only 1/120th the number of votes in the last election. Then there should be an impeachment proceeding.
    • chicofaraby, on 10/10/2007, -1/+10Sure, why leave it up to the constitutionally established process when you can have a make-believe process for removing corrupt officials?
      • Snaieke, on 10/10/2007, -2/+1That was in repsonse to the guy above, regarding Gen. Clark's 1 million signatures. There was no way to move the post.
    • Bilabrin, on 10/10/2007, -1/+2Yeah, Let's forget the vast number of impeachable offenses and make it a popularity contest instead! You can only be impeached by popular demand or lying about a blowjob! Nice!
  • LoveWidescreen, on 10/10/2007, -7/+5Oooh! Here we go again! The word "impeach" hasn't been in the subject line for a while. So, how long are you going to have daily calls for impeachment this time? I'm so eager to see how many days in a row the ever-so-tolerant-of-opposing-views (not) Diggers call for impeachment this time. It seemed like it went on for weeks last time. Every, single, f**king day another call for impeachment. Will this be the start a new record breaker? Hey, let's see if you folks can make it go on for a month! Go on, you can do it. I have faith in you.

    (Disclaimer: That last sentence was not an indication or solicitation of any religion. See store for details. Void where prohibited.)
    • Bilabrin, on 10/10/2007, -1/+1Yeah, ok, you're annoyed. Deal with it. This administation is so corrupt it's surreal. THAT'S why poeple want impeachment! A new impeachable offense or two occurs each week C'mon!
  • logiksan, on 10/10/2007, -3/+2This guy's an idiot. The Dems have a lot more to worry about than impeaching a lame duck president with a little over a year left. *****, it would take nearly that long for the process to even work itself out, and there's no way in hell they get the votes needed to convict in the Senate, so they might as well not bother and spend their time dealing with ***** that actually matters.
    • LoveWidescreen, on 10/10/2007, -0/+3But ... but ... but then Conyers can't go back to his constituents and scream "I tried! I tried for you! Vote for me again and I'll keep trying!"
    • chase001, on 10/10/2007, -0/+3Think about this repugs: If he and Cheney aren't impeached then Hillary Clinton may soon have all the powers he has assumed for the Executive Branch. I would think regressives would want a speedy impeachment before the 2008 election.
  • bonhoeffer, on 10/10/2007, -2/+1John Conyers has got to be a Republican mole. He's going to lead a "Democratic" impeachment effort against his political "enemies" in an election year? Go for it JC!
  • kamiller, on 10/10/2007, -1/+4I would actually like congress to waste their time trying to impeach anyone of the corrupt asshats. As long as they are doing that they won't be able to pass anymore ***** laws that erode our personal freedoms, like FISA, Patriot Act, Military tribunals, etc....
  • caferrell, on 10/10/2007, -1/+5I began to read articles and comment on digg a little over a month ago. Here we have the opportunity to educate each other with information and ideas that are not aired on major media. It is a tremendous opportunity to overcome the propaganda of the Consortium (Big government, Big Military Business, AMA, Insurance companies, Big Media).
    Sometimes we manage to have good dialogue, but sometimes it looks more like the above. It looks like an argument between high school freshmen.
    This topic is very important. This President is about to take us into another war and this one will have repercussions that are impossible to predict, but will be definitely tragic for Americans and the world.
    So quit bitching at each other. Share your ideas in an atmosphere of mutual respect. Please.
  • prophet5, on 10/10/2007, -3/+2John Conyers is a pinata of stupidity - no matter which way you whack him, something stupid falls out.
    • RGWX, on 10/10/2007, -1/+1I bow to that one and I am going to shamelessly steal it. :)
  • fredricko, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1America: You can have your cake and eat it too.
  • PrivateGuy, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1If they can impeach then why aren't they doing it?
    • Monk22, on 10/10/2007, -0/+2exactly, thats why we laugh at the moonbats. they elected not a lame duck pres, but managed to fill the entire congress with useless ***** that cant even support the people that voted for them.
  • Nickwltrs, on 10/10/2007, -1/+1 I agree that there are approx 20 or so, Liebermans(fake democrats), that must go. FOLKS to make this happen watch the "Dem's" vote, NOT what they say. then you will know which ones to dump when there time comes !!!!
    IT DOES WORK, I've been watching for some time now and Pelosi, Hillary, & a few others Say one thing, but vote the other way.
    • Monk22, on 10/10/2007, -1/+1and you read the bills completly that they were voting on? because there is never anything added to bills, the title at the top of the page means nothing.
  • sazerac, on 10/10/2007, -0/+4What! Pay attention? How dare you. Look...over there...American Idol is on!
  • londubh, on 10/10/2007, -0/+2That is almost the best news I've heard in a long long time. Impeach Cheney first! Let the hearings begin.
  • Beylan, on 10/10/2007, -0/+4Oh please, the democratic congress wont do crap. They see 08 as a sure win for them and are unwilling to do anything that might screw that up.

    They might piss and moan about how the Bush administration is evil, but when push comes to shove they are going to cave and give him anything he wants.
    • RazielX, on 10/10/2007, -1/+2That's why you vote Republican or Independent in the next election :) I see this as very hurtful to their party, and I think they might have lost my vote because of it.

      Besides, you need more than one party in office, anyway. It'll alleviate (apparently not resolve) some of the crookedness.

      And sometimes, the best thing to do is to abstain.
    • LastVisibleDog, on 10/10/2007, -1/+1The Democrat congress has the lowest approval rating in the history of approval ratings and left wing nuts think 08 is a sure win for the Democrats - can you say delusional...I knew that you could.
  • brownzilla, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1Dugg for a representative talking in the thrid person.
  • banders9, on 10/10/2007, -0/+2Someone please invent a rescue apparatus capable of removing a politician's head from his ass.
  • rabidsquirrelOG, on 10/10/2007, -1/+1I'd fire every damn congressman/woman and those in the Senate today if I could for NOT BEGINNING IMPEACHMENT PROCEDINGS and getting us the hell outta IRAQ right now if I could.

    The Democrats are doing NOTHING!!! NOTHING!!! NOTHING!!!

    All of them suck. We asked for leadership and we've had none! Someone needs to stand up within the legislative branch and start kicking butt and taking names.

    It's past time that corporations, conglomerates, and special interest groups got their butts put in a sling. We need a leader to step up and lead two of the biggest damn special interest groups around - Human Beings and American Citizens!!!

  • headt0thebunker, on 10/10/2007, -1/+0People need to start RECALLING the morons they sent to Washington......After the first couple go home....the rest may actually start paying attention to what their voters want.

    I can guarantee you.....if we start recalling these spineless wonders they will start doing their jobs
  • WikiYourRights, on 10/10/2007, -2/+1Here are some things I would like to share. The film seems like a really great way to "WAKE UP!" people.

    Who should we IMPEACH first?
    http://www.usalone.com/impeach_first.php

    "No End In Sight" -- Don't Miss The Film That "Has The White House Spooked"
    http://noendinsightmovie.com/

    Study: US preparing 'massive' military attack against Iran
    http://rawstory.com//news/2007/Study_US_preparing_massive_military_attack_0828.html
  • Compared2What, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1Pelosi and Conyers are assholes. . . .garden variety scumbag assholes. Suck it DIggBotts!
  • tpimpeach, on 10/10/2007, -0/+0Just as Nixon’s impeachment began with the Watergate hearings and Clinton’s with the Starr investigation, impeachment of Bush and Cheney needs an investigation to convince a majority of House members to want to impeach. Former House Judiciary Committee member Liz Holtzman helped get Nixon out of office and co-authored the Special Prosecutor law.

    This may be another road to impeachment. (in addition to H.Res.333)

    NEW YORK, Aug. 28 / PRNewswire-USNewswire/ — Former Congresswoman Elizabeth Holtzman served on the House Judiciary Committee during Nixon’s impeachment. She co-authored the 1973 special prosecutor statute, and co-wrote (with Cynthia L. Cooper) the 2006 book The Impeachment of George W. Bush (http://www.impeachbushbook.com).

    Take Action: Call the members of the Judiciary Committee and ask them to investigate possible crimes and abuses of power during Attorney General Gonzales‘ tenure as part of the AG confirmation.
    More Info:
    http://impeachthem.wordpress.com/2007/09/27/holtzm ...
  •  

    Login or register to add a comment

    Create a new account or login to join in the conversation on Digg. You'll also be able to Digg stories to help promote things you like.


© Digg Inc. 2008 — Content posted by Digg users is dedicated to the public domain.
DIGG, DIGG IT, DUGG, DIGG THIS, Digg graphics, logos, designs, page headers, button icons, scripts, and other service names are the trademarks of Digg Inc.