Excellent use of initial caps on the paragraphs. That's some sweet formatting.

Usually, one must go to a LaRouchite site to find such a lucid and compelling argument.

I guess one way to get traffic to your blog posts is to make utterly ludicrous assertions in the title so that a person clicks to see what the hell you are going on about.

This shows how the questions hope to solicit slightly different aspects of Pelosi's decision making. The time to ask the questions, and demand some straight answers is now, not "maybe later," after an important decision. Only Pelosi knows what is going on inside Pelosi's mind. Her job is to share with us her thinking behind the change.

When investigations start, it's important to ask about the same issues from different angles. Let's review each of the questions, and you'll see each of them looks at the issue slightly differently.

"The greatest ignorance is to reject something you know nothing about"

- Attributed to H. Jackson Brown, Jr.

It is the burden of others to explain, despite no answers, why the reject even a question about something we do not know: The inner workings of Pelosi's decisionmaking on this public issue.

“I know that I am intelligent, because I know that I know nothing.” ~Socrates

Reviewing How the Different Questions Yield Different Discussion Points

This question (A.) does not specify a time, but is an open question:

A. "Why did Pelosi suddenly change her tune on impeachment and investigations?"

Pelosi is free to discuss her answer in terms of:

Distinguishing between an investigation and a vote on impeachment (the two are not the same);

Distinguishing between an investigation in the House and the trial phase in the Senate.

- Did Pelosi change her position because she views impeachment as an exclusive House action that should be done regardless of the Senate vote; or

- Did Pelosi change her position only on the investigation, and still is not serious about examining any evidence for purposes of reviewing the charges on the House floor?

This question (B.) doesn't focus on impeachment, investigations, the House, or the Senate, but narrowly looks at the agenda:

B. "What is Pelosi's reason for suddenly reversing herself on her 2006 agenda of inaction?"

It's for Pelosi to comment whether Pelosi's decision was or wasn't linked with an agenda. The above question leaves open the option that the "agenda" is unrelated to the President, impeachment investigations.

- How Pelosi defines "agenda" is a separate issue than what we believe the agenda is.

This question (C.) looks at the catalyst for Pelosi to change her position on investigations and impeachment:

C. What legal consequences prompted Pelosi to open her eyes to the "benefits" of an investigation?

The above question focuses on the specific catalysts for that change, which could be a meeting, a memo, or a discrete event that may or may not be recent. We don't know. Perhaps it was new polling data, a memo, or some conversation she had. Perhaps there were no specific legal consequences discussed. Again, this is for Pelosi to discuss and disclose.

- Was there something she was not considering, but changed her view because she realized there may be legal consequences for refusing to investigate?

- Are there memos Members of Congress may wish to disclose showing what Pelosi documented behind he reasons not to open all the doors to an investigation?

- Are the stated reasons Pelosi is providing now, after the apparent change in tune, consistent with the previous written comments she or staff counsel have provided internally?

- Is there something about asking the President and AG for documentation about discussions on US Attorney firings that should prompt the Speaker to say, "You know, we ought to show the AG, by example, that we in Congress are willing to disclose internal deliberative documents on impeachment decisions."

This question (D.) focuses on the time delay:

D. "Why did it take this long for the Speaker to realize that facts, not an agenda, must guide leaders and their fulfillment of their duties?"

The above question focuses on

(1) Whether or not the "new" information was or was not really new; or whether she's making up a reason to explain away her inaction;

(2) Whether there was no reasonable delay; or whether the delay has been retroactively justified using non-sense;

(3) Whether the reason for the change was or wasn't based on new information; or whether the "new" information was retroactively fabricated to support a mythology which collapses under scrutiny;

(4) What change in Pelosi's mind to shift from whether or not a challenge of the President was or wasn't required; to whether or not the Congress, independent of the Senate vote to convict, must gather facts;

(5) Did Pelosi arrive at her conclusion using some other reasons; and did her thinking make sense; or are there other questions we need to explore to understand whether there are problems with what Pelosi did or didn't do.

Why We Should Challenge Pelosi To Discuss Publicly Her Thinking On This Important Change

Each of the above questions focuses on:

- Encouraging Pelosi to adequately define her terms; - Permit Pelosi leeway to define how she views her agenda, and how this agenda does or doesn't relate to how the public views the legal issues; and - Leaves open Pelosi the option to describe her change in position as something that may or may not be related to non-obvious factors.

How each of the above issues is addressed will guide US citizens to discuss and make conclusions:

- Is the leadership serious and responsive to their legal obligations as elected officials;

- Are other options required to conduct more effective oversight of the US government, the House, the President, and the Congress;

- Is this a delaying tactic by Pelosi to appear to support something that she has no intention of supporting to its logical conclusion;

- Until we get answers to the above, what should the public reasonably conclude and spend time now discussing and planning?

- Based on what appears to be true, what are the responsibilities of the public when conducting oversight of the US government, not just the President, but also Members of Congress, judicial officers, and Congressional staffers and staff counsel?

Until we get more information from Pelosi, and discuss the above issues, it's unclear why some are reluctant to consider asking questions about these issues from slightly different angles. The leadership isn't going to tell us which questions we should be asking. It's our job to independently conduct oversight, not accept their assertions on face value.

- Is someone afraid that the answers might produce new information which isn't consistent with pre-determined conclusions?

Once Pelosi responds at length to the above questions, the public will be able to decide whether:

(a) Her explanations are consistent; or (b) She's avoiding issues; or (c) We need to more closely examine what she's claiming she's supporting, but not (apparently) doing.

Examining Those Who Dismiss Questions, Inquiry

Perhaps others may wish to discuss why they are not interested in engaging in a discussion with Pelosi for her to put her cards on the table, and explain what her thinking is; or whether there are some other factors the public needs to consider. Just because Pelosi might win the election and may retain the Speakers position does not mean the public is barred from discussing their concerns, and working with their elected officials to challenge Pelosi, or declare the Speaker's position vacant.

We're supposed to be making informed decisions about civil society, governance, and governance. One person can make a different. It would be irresponsible to argue for ignorance, but not disclose the justification for that appeal to ignorance.

Arguing that we shouldn't ask questions prompts the following discussion:

- Who says that we should not ask, nor demand answers to questions when the leadership changes their position, contracts their agenda, and reverses themselves; what is their motivation for thwarting dialog between the leadership and the voting public on governance issues?

- What lessons are to be gleaned from the efforts to prompt this change: Did the efforts to push for an investigation succeed; if not, what must we learn from this change to more effectively conduct oversight going forward?

- What is the basis for someone to say, "We shouldn't ask these questions"?

- What information does the person have that would justify a conclusion, "We do not need to ask questions"? Why not ask, and see what happens by way of a waffling response, no reaction, or a convoluted, inconsistent explanation?

- Is the person -- making the claim, "We don't need to ask questions," -- disclosing information related to other claims they have or haven't made; or is that information not provided, yet we're asked to believe, "There must be good reasons not to ask these question, but we're not sophisticated enough to understand that secret information to justify inaction." That is an appeal to sophistry.

- What is the plan of the person saying, "We don't need to ask questions," to justify why they have the answers, or know what Pelosi is thinking, despite Pelosi not yet answering the questions people do not want to dare disclose to Pelosi?

- Is the request to "not ask questions," based on a pattern of asserting, "We don't know the answers, but since nothing will happen, we shouldn't bother asking": How does someone, not knowing the answers, have the information to know the outcome, yet, byt their admission they have no information?

Sound Governance Is Based on Reality, Not Blind Deference

It defies reason to appeal to ignorance. It is folly to ask that we avoid information, but support a conclusion about Pelosi's answers on the basis of ignorance. That is not a supportable decision, nor is it credible leadership worthy of emulation. That was the basis for the invasion of Iraq in re WMD: "Trust me."

No, and that is why we have checks and balances. Our job is to check, and ensure Pelosi remains balanced.