No, conflict of interest doesn’t really explain the situation.

If you’ll recall, Pelosi took impeachment off the table before the midterm elections. It was a subtle, calculated ploy to attract enough independent voters who were disgusted with Bush, in order to get control over (at least) the House of Representatives. “Vote for Democrats and we won’t tie up government for the next two years with impeachment proceedings.”

That’s the short, public story.

The other, even less flattering story is that impeachment was a trade-off for getting a historical first: The first woman as Speaker of the House of Representatives. And because a woman is Speaker (and 2nd in the succession line to the presidency), and because there has yet to be a woman as President, and because we’re not talking about impeaching just Bush or just Cheney but both Bush and Cheney, there will be no impeachment of Bush and/or Cheney.

Because the first woman president is going to have to be elected. That’s a historical first that they’re all telling each other in Congress has to happen through a vote of the people.

And so because of Nancy Pelosi getting to be Speaker, we traded away stopping this insanity, impeaching Bush and Cheney.

What if he were to say, “Let’s see here. I work for Gonzo, The Incompetent” And George Bush, The Lesser. GWB just commuted a sentence in total dissconnect with his policies for everyone else. I guess I should just jump right in with whatever Scoots says as he has better relations with these assholes than I do!”

Any ideas on that?

newtonusr @ 136

Although Adam Schiff is the strongest to me, I agree. And 5 minute rounds work for the minority here. Perhaps the formation of a smaller subcommittee and longer rounds would do it.

yes – i should have included schiff

These five would make a helluva sub-subcommittee.

Educated Plaintiff @ 135

then again – if conyers allows hank johnson, robt wexler, artur davis & keith ellison (the best lawyers on the committee inmho),to have more time to question whoever is before the committee – then maybe the rehearsed testimony could be penetrated.

Although Adam Schiff is the strongest to me, I agree. And 5 minute rounds work for the minority here. Perhaps the formation of a smaller subcommittee and longer rounds would do it.

yes – i should have included schiff

then again – if conyers allows hank johnson, robt wexler, artur davis & keith ellison (the best lawyers on the committee inmho),to have more time to question whoever is before the committee – then maybe the rehearsed testimony could be penetrated.

Although Adam Schiff is the strongest to me, I agree. And 5 minute rounds work for the minority here. Perhaps the formation of a smaller subcommittee and longer rounds would do it.

Educated Plaintiff at 123 — Yes, and so did Monica goody-two-shoes Goodling, and look how much she held back. These people are true believer political operatives — the only thing they want to do is try and thread the needle between saving their own asses and protecting their political puppeteers at the same time — anyone who thinks that Taylor won’t protect Rove at all costs is fooling themselves.

christy – yes – i agree – but their ability to present their rehearsed testimony is only as good as the committee members who question them. if taylor had to be questioed by the SJC rather then the HJC it would be a horse of another color.

then again – if conyers allows hank johnson, robt wexler, artur davis & keith ellison (the best lawyers on the committee inmho),to have more time to question whoever is before the committee – then maybe the rehearsed testimony could be penetrated.