I mention this on ackerman’s thread

greg sargent strikes an interesting note, my bold;

That’s pushback against Pelosi, to be sure. But that’s not all it is. The agency also restated the agency’s earlier unwillingness to vouch for the overall reliability of what the docs say about what happened. He’s saying, in effect, that only Congress can determine the truth about what members of Congress were told.
That’s not a call for a Congressional probe. But it does seem like a suggestion that such a probe is the only way the truth can be established. If nothing else, the CIA is redoubling its efforts to distance itself from the political charges some are making — on the basis of CIA info — about who knew what and when about torture.

I say it is a call for an investigation and I believe the professionals in the organization want the entire affair exposed

this might be code for;

“please help us out here”

I sure hope congress recognizes that or takes it as a plea for help even if it’s not

team b is in the cia but they’re morons running around mucking up the works

the real inteligence is with the professionals and this might be them asking for some congressional help exposing team b

Yeah, I think that’s really interesting.

And I hope everyone calls Rove and Newt’s bluff. They might be trying to turn the heat up on Pelosi thinking everyone will naturally want to protect her or something.

But I think most people here are saying, bring it on. Doesn’t matter which party approved torture, bring them to justice. The blowback is bound to hurt the GOP more but they don’t seem to think so. I didn’t know they were so short sighted.

Without Googling, I do seem to remember how remarkable were the similarities between this little gimlet’s profile and Clinton’s. Both had affairs with youngsters and utilized fellatio for deniability. (Only Gingrich was a serial divorcer.) Both were accused of perjury, Gimlet because he lied to Congress about Gopac, or whatever the Repugnant front was called. I do remember perjury was part of the admission of guilt.

The penalty was interesting too. He was fined some $350K, and Bob Dole stepped up and paid it out of his leftover campaign funds. It was called a “loan.” This is how serious the Repugnants are about malfeasance whenever it’s one of their own doing it, which is most often the case.

Check me out on all this and report back, people.

Tres chic! (((((Jane!))))

Of course it’s a bluff. They think nobody will ever do it.

Call it.

I left an adendum for you over at ackerman’s, have a look c

everyone here I believe wants all those who condoned or allowed torture to get the boot out of government and prosecuted

It’s all about the politics, facts be damned. The GOP sees an opportunity to get Pelosi to resign, and they’re doing their typical projection about things she must have done. Since GOP speakers have been crooks, it must be a given that Pelosi is as well.

As Josh at TPM points out, Pelosi wants an investigation. All the GOP puke funnel is doing is throwing up a cloud of doubt around her and ignoring the issue of actually getting facts. And typically, our asinine media play along.

I’m not sure what Panetta’s angle is, though. He’s claiming the “documents” support the CIA position, except how does he explain the issue with them lying about briefings to Bob Graham, claiming they did so on days he wasn’t even in DC?

In the interest of full disclosure, maybe he should have mentioned that a member of that ethics committee was one Nancy Pelosi.

TMT (too much truth)

Hey, this is Newt we’re talking about, right? hell, he might stroke out.

Bring it on. If the only way to get a full investigation and prosecution of the Bush administration is to sacrifice Pelosi and all the rest of the complicit Dems, I say go for it.

But Jane! That would be hypocrisy! From a repiglican! **** nearly faints of shock and surprise ****

In the interest of full disclosure, maybe he should have mentioned that a member of that ethics committee was one Nancy Pelosi.

Sure. That said, while I am not suggesting that she lied (the jury is still out, IMO), Nancy has been as clumsy as she could have been about all this. Her political operation should be ashamed of themselves for not seeing this coming. She stepped on the rake, got bonked pretty good. Left a mark.

She gave the assholes all the running-room they could have wanted.

If former Rep. PorterGoss and Senator Shelby are telling the truth and Pelosi and Graham are lying then they all knew that a prisoner was waterboarded 83 times in August – the month before they were supposedly informed. At what point does waterboarding constitute torture? Does it take 84 times in one month? It seems to me that Goss and Shelby have admitted to being complicit to war crimes. Newt seems to argueing the same since he has called Pelosi – a liar. Someone must not being telling the truth. To knowingly indicate someone has commented a crime is probably defamation. I am not a lawyer but I believe that there is what is called malice – even for a public official it would be defamation.

Only a Congressional investigation, with documents and witnesses under oath, will discover who lied, who broke the law and the how and why of the whole fiasco. Any lawbreakers can then be referred to the Justice department for prosecution. The Republicans do not want this, that is why they are content to lob bombs from outside because they want to win in the court of public opinion, not in a real court.
Obama doesn’t want it because he wants to attack the problems that were left for him to clean up. The Democrats wish it would all go away so they can move onto 2012. I say a curse on all their houses. Open the hearings, subpoena all those involved and put them under oath. Lawbreakers and their supporters are laughing their asses of at this bumbling attempt at Obama and the Democrats to “look forward” because they know how reluctant he is to look back.

If the only way to get a full investigation and prosecution of the Bush administration is to sacrifice Pelosi and all the rest of the complicit Dems, I say go for it.

But there’s so may Dem’s I really, really like. Lemme count ‘em up…….

huh – I *do* still have some fingers left over.

Jane you ended the interview in a very charming fashion. Wonderful work articulating a complex issue simply. Hat Tip That was fun to watch.

Great work Jane – I liked the reaction at the end “We always know where you stand!”

This has been today’s edition of IOKIYAAR.

What the hell kind of parent names their kid for an amphibian, anyway? Maybe Newt’s momma knew something about what she’d produced?

It’s the height of absurdity to have people (of Newt Gingrich’s ilk, no less) demanding an investigation about whether Pelosi had foreknowledge about the Bush administration’s COMMISSION OF WAR CRIMES, and no interest in investigating the WAR CRIMES.

Taking that position requires a hell of a lot of chutzpah.

I say, go for it. Appoint a special prosecutor. Unleash the hounds. I’d love for every memo Cheney issued, every e-mail Rove wrote (the ones that weren’t deleted), every report Rice ignored, and the minutes of every meeting Bush slept through exposed for the world to see.

I know I missed something in this Pelosi thing but for the life of me, I cannot figure out how the Conservatives think that jumping on her will lessen their culpability on torture. It was a Republican thought-up and a Republican executed fiasco. At some point, somebody needs to go to jail. Yu, Gonzales, Cheney…any of those folks would be a good start.

Perhaps, pursuing this vigorously wherever it leads is the right thing to do. Clearly, not to do so would represent a significant ethical compromise. But, is it worth possibly postponing the completion of the New Deal/Great Society for another generation? What are the ethics of another generation of Americans not having universal heath care and such? Is this a false choice?

Some here see this much more clearly than I do. For me, it is a time to think very carefully about this. One hell of a lot hangs in the balance.

Ok, now I’m understanding the ins and outs {possible} of the Panetta move. Thanks, guys. Pelosi’s messaging at the press conference was pitiful. I knew what she was saying. She should have been better prepared to sum it up in 3 clear points. But, upside? The confusion may get us closer to fuller investigation!

I have never thought the briefings were anything but bogus. It’s a relief to be getting some facts to support that feeling. BushCo co-opted the CIA and lied about everything that they didn’t keep secret.

OUT!

Jane, Jane, Jane…if the Newtster said it, it must be true. How can you question the probity of a man whose character has been forged in the crucible of all political crucibles? It is not easy to divorce several times while screwing the country…think about all the attorney expenses.

Sometimes, having no conscience weighs heavily on a man with no conscience. He doesn’t know shame because he can’t. Take pity on him. Offer him alms.

Go in peace, Newt, and take your big fat ass with you.

If people in my party stood by while torture was going on, I want them OUT OF MY Party. I don’t care who they are. I don’t care how important they are. I don’t care if they are ”favorites.” If Obama himself knew, I want him out too.

OUT! OUT! OUT.

And wasn’t it Denny Hastert as Speaker of the House who put through legislation that benefited himself personally to the tune of millions? Oh wait! Everything is Nancy’s fault! She also forced Hastert to porky-pork his own pockets! Nevermind. I forgot. Republicans are always innocent and Democrats take the fall for their actions. Spit.

Good luck with that. We wanted George Bush, Dick Cheney, and the rest of the Criminal Cabal out….and look what we got?

Swopa is upstairs!
As California Drowns in Red Ink, Schwarzenegger Offers a Mix of Drastic Cuts and Political Gimmicks

I know, I know. What was I thinking?

(smacks self on head)

Even if Nancy Pelosi did know, she would not have been complicit or an accomplice — at least according to my analysis of the legal definitions of those words in my trusty (but admittedly old) Black’s Law Dictionary.

Her goes:

One who knowingly, voluntarily and with common intent unites with the principal offender in the commission of a crime. {case citation omitted]
One who is in some way concerned or associated in commission of crime; partaker of guilt; one who aids or assists, or is an accessory. {case citation omitted] Equally concerned in the commission of crime. {case citation omitted] One who is guilty of complicity in crime charged, either by being present and aiding or abetting in it, or having advised and encouraged it, though absent from place when it was committed, though mere presence, acquiescence, or silence, in the absence of a duty to act, is not enough, no matter how reprehensible it may be, to constitute one an accomplice. One is liable as an accomplice to the crime of another if he gave assistance or encouragement or failed to perform a legal duty to prevent it with the intent thereby to promote or facilitate commission of the crime.

Black’s Law Dictionary (6th ed.)pg. 17

Complicity: A state of being an accomplice; participation in guilt. {case citation omitted] Involvement in crime as principal or as accessory before the fact. May also refer to activities of conspirators.

Black’s Law Dictionary (6th ed.) pg. 285

This portion of the definition strikes me as most important.

Nancy Pelosi’s “mere presence, acquiescence, or silence, in the absence of a duty to act” would not be “enough, no matter how reprehensible” would not make her an accomplice.

IMO, so far, there is no evidence that Nancy Pelosi was “knowingly, voluntarily and with common intent” united in the commission of the crime of torture by the Bush administration. Her approval or disapproval of their torture was essentially irrelevant, especially since they had already tortured at least once, apparently, before they told her anything about it. (She was briefed only once before being replaced as the top Democrat on the Intelligence Committee.)

Further, Nancy Pelosi did not assist in the commission of the torture. She was not involved in giving any of the orders. She claims that she was merely informed that torture had been approved and did not even know until later that it had actually been performed. Whether she is misrepresenting what she was told can only be decided by a court. We really don’t have any evidence that she was told anything different from what she has said she was told. The CIA’s memos and notes are hearsay. You would have to cross-examine the CIA’s witnesses on this.

Nancy Pelosi was not, by any stretch of the imagination, “equally concerned” in the commission of the torture.

Nancy Pelosi was not “present” and did not aid or abet the commission of the torture. There is no evidence that she advised or encouraged it, “though absent from place when it was committed.” We have no evidence that Nancy Pelosi assisted or encouraged the torture. Nor did she fail “to perform a legal duty to prevent it with the intent thereby to promote or facilitate commission of the crime.” She had a legal duty to be silent about everything she was told in the hearing.

Bob Graham pretty much supports Pelosi’s statements.

I posted this on another website and did not rewrite it.

I think Nancy Pelosi was about as “complicit” as a customer in a bank during a bank robbery. She was sworn to secrecy if she did know anything, and the only evidence about what she was told released thus far is hearsay. There was no court reporter present during the briefings as far as I know. So we have to have prosecutions. I don’t think that Congress has the legal procedures to decide these issues.

By the way, why is Rove commenting on this? Shouldn’t he respond to the subpoenas served on him before he requests hearings about Pelosi?

I don’t think that Congress has the legal procedures to decide these issues.

Motivations may vary a great deal, but it concerns me that both Pelosi and the Newt’s of the world continue to push for commissions or inquires.

Congress should not investigate itself or the torture which happened on to many of their clocks.

Special prosecutor or BUST!

Thanks Jane.