October 17, 2007

BREAKING: Pelosi working on Bush Impeachment? (UPDATED)

Via Richard M, who attended a meeting of anti-war activists in Los Angeles on Sunday:

Congresswoman Diane Watson (D-Culver City) spoke in front of an audience of some 150 activists from various LA antiwar organizations at an Iraq Town Hall meeting in Los Angeles on Sunday, October 14th hosted by California Assembly Majority leader Karen Bass and the ’47th Assembly District People’s Council’ at Hamilton High School.

The audience responded angrily when Watson responded to a call for the impeachment of President Bush by saying, “We simply don’t have the votes.” After groans and boos and at least one cry of “At least do something!”, Watson went on to say, “Right now, Speaker
(Nancy) Pelosi is working very quietly and very effectively, behind the scenes. We need 285 votes to uphold an impeachment, and so far we have 260 members telling us they support impeachment.”

[Watson] went on to say, “Our goal has to be the White House in 2008 and 60 seats, then we can think about an impeachment,” apparently referring to winning a veto-proof [filibuster proof?] majority in the Senate and [raising] the possibility that a Democratic administration might undertake a prosecution of George Bush after he’s left office.

When contacted by LA conservative activist Deborah Leigh, Pelosi’s office repeated the Speaker’s position, [outlined] before the 2006 election, that “impeachment is off the table.” They declined to comment on Congresswoman Watson’s statement and numbers.

If Congresswoman Watson was telling the truth to the assembled activists, this raises the question of House Speaker Nancy Pelosi’s control over her own delegation, and even her awareness of what is going on in her own party; [either that], or that Ms. Pelosi has not been dealing forthrightly with the American people and the Adminstration. [Alternately] Congresswoman Watson was willing to [deceive] a gathering of the Democratic Party’s most
active supporters.

Sadly, each of these explanations seems equally plausible. Which — equally sadly — speaks volumes about today’s Congressional Democrats.

Question for Constitutional experts: would a post-hoc impeachment be merely symbolic? Or would such a thing strip the President of pension, benefits, title, etc? [And shouldn't it more properly be termed a "prosecution"?]

****
YouTube video here.

****
update: One of the most intriguing soundbites from Rep. Watson is her claim that the Dems have evidence of impeachable offenses.

Tellingly, she doesn’t cite any — and I’m not sure “carrying out a war that we were for before we, like, changed our minds and stuff” carries that kind of weight with the American electorate — so I’d be curious to know just what “evidence” the Dems think they have.

Something to do with the NSA program, is my guess — but that’s a loser, both legally and politically.

Still, I do so love when their synapses get to firing like that. Makes the whole room smell like Jiffy-Pop.

Posted by Jeff G. @ 7:58pm
131 comments | Trackback

Comments (131)

  1. Sadly, each of these explanations seems equally plausible. Which — equally sadly — speaks volumes about today’s Congressional Democrats.

    Too true, Jeff.

    For myself, though, I’d put money on San Fran Nan not being in control, let alone aware of what’s happening in the Dhimmicrat ranks. I do not believe that Pelosi has the backbone or forceful personality to be an effective leader. Witness how ineffective this so-called Democratic controlled Congress has been in beating back the imperialistic intrigues of Dubya, or even in passing legislation (in comparison to the previous Republican controlled clown festival, at least).

  2. Impeachment doesn’t really rhyme with anything.

  3. And the crime is what, exactly?

    This just pisses me off.

  4. Yeah, Real_JeffS —

    I just heard from a distinguished fellow via email who doubts Pelosi has the stones, given the FISA surrender.

    Which, if that’s the case, just makes Watson a pander and a liar, I guess.

  5. Actually, it might be possible. An impeachment CAN be performed after the President leaves office. It would strip him of the title, pensions, benefits and perquisites.

  6. It can be unperformed after that though.

  7. #5:
    Holy crap! Are you seeing that we could (theoretically) impeach Jimmy Carter and Bill Clinton even now? Why didn’t anyone think of this when the Republicans still controlled Congress?

  8. I would vote for all of the above choices. To think for a moment that this is not routinely discussed amongst Pelosi and her nutroots would be naive. That a Dem would pander to an audience is not the least bit surprising.

  9. The Dems seem to be quite intent at stealing defeat from the jaws of victory.

  10. ““Our goal has to be the White House in 2008 and 60 seats, then we can think about an impeachment,” apparently referring to winning a veto-proof majority in the Senate and [raising] the possibility that a Democratic administration might undertake a prosecution of George Bush after he’s left office.”

    I think they are probably planning to preemptively impeach any future Republicans who may be elected President. Since being a Republican President seems to now be an impeachable offense, just sayin’.

  11. Hell, while we’re at it, I’ve got a bone to pick with that James Polk fella…

  12. They couldn’t even impeach Armenia.

  13. or Turkey or the Ottomans or whatever.

  14. Maybe I should stick to bunnies.

  15. I’m not so enamored of FDR’s socialist policies, let’s start with him.

  16. Hell, maybe we can build a time machine, go back in time and personally shoot that paper-hangin’ son-of-a-bitch.

  17. I thought I heard a familiar line…

  18. exactly my thoughts, happyfeet. come talk to me after she gets the Turkey thing passed. or the SCHIP veto overturned. or John Murtha into the majority leader spot. or….

  19. Here’s the relevant Constitutionals… “”Judgment in cases of impeachment shall not extend further than to removal from office, the disqualification to hold and enjoy any office of honor, trust or profit under the United States: but the party convicted shall nevertheless be liable and subject to indictment, trial, judgment, and punishment, according to law.” – U.S. Constitution, Article I, Sec. 3″

    with thanks to skr at the Freep…

  20. I don’t see anything in there that prevents them from thinking in terms of post-transition…

  21. Nor about statute of limitations, Billy Boy…

  22. - Bush reads them a list of non-accomplishments this morning…

    – Pelosi whines “Partisan attack”…

    – The Dem gaggle in LosAngelesStan is busiy making paper mache’ drean figures…

    ….and this is the coalition that thinks it has a serious chance in ’08…

    – Looks like Hillery picked the wrong year to stop drinking…..

  23. Well, if the Dhimmicrats do go for Bush 43 after 20 January 2009, they’re opening a can of worms. FDR, Polk, and Carter are just the start.

    Let’s not forget the Mother of All Quagmires, the Vietnam War. Kennedy, who began our involvement, and Johnson, who ramped up our support. Two Democrats (in the old sense of the word) who are viable candidates for impeachment under this doctrine of revenge, given how much the population of aging hippies and their acolytes hate that war, and use it in comparison to Iraq.

    And let’s not forget Truman: hey, he dropped The Bomb™, man. Harry went nuclear!!! Hiroshima and Nagasaki, the start of decades of Heartless American Atomic Imperialism, as we are reminded every August by hordes of anti-nuclear activists. Impeach Harry! Impeach him now!

  24. Which, if that’s the case, just makes Watson a pander and a liar, I guess.

    Well, Watson is a Democrat after all. Both are pre-requisites to join the lodge.

  25. Impeachment doesn’t really rhyme with anything.

    There’s a pissed-off beseechment here who’d like to talk with you — old religious fellow, mostly found in fantasty RPG fanfic and cheesy European still riding hellhounds through the dark enchanted forests of Koknek in my Tarzan undies and a Cher wig after all these years-type metal lyrics.

    But don’t mind him. Any word ending in -ment that Lileks has ever used is so polluted it should be stricken from the language.

    Yes, it annoys me that much — more, even, as it’s obvious he doesn’t know he does that annoying -ment schtick he does so often I have dreams where I carve STABMENT in his chest. These are good dreams.

    What was the question, again?

  26. well, hell, TRJS, if we’re gonna get all impeachy, the President isn’t the only office one could go gunning for.

  27. They’d get nothing more out of trying an impeachment than they already get from stuff like this: keeping people thinking about how impeach-worthy bush is.

  28. The dimwits are drinking too much Jim Jones coolaide. BDS has addled their brain already and now they have a new targer, Rush Limbaugh and he’s made them look like the asses they are. It must be really hard on the ego to be a democrat these days. Being ruled by a congress with an 11% approval rating. I think congress should be worried about their own asses. There is enough anger in the American public to start a public lynching with Peeeeloshi and Dirty Harry Reid standing front and center. I don’t know a single person, democrat or republican that wouldn’t like to pull the rope up real slow. The 11% must be criminal Mexicans.

  29. Do you really suppose that if the Dems had evidence of an impeachable offense by the President, that they could, or would, keep it secret?

    Actually, I hope that Nancy does start an impeachment process. It should complete her proof that she is a moron and a very poor leader.

  30. “so I’d be curious to know just what evidence the Dems think they have.”

    You don’t need evidence. Like the show trials in Stalin’s USSR, if you have the power you just make it up and do it anyway. If Pelosi gets her 285 she will impeach for whatever looks best to the base.

    BTW spell-check wants to change Pelosi to Implosive.

  31. - Implosive denotes to much containment of her BDS. Bella LaPelosi might be more apropos, where she just melts in sunlight over a period of time, eventually flooding the Reid swamp they were both going to drain.

  32. Congress has the “sole power of impeachment.” An “impeachable offense” is whatever Congress says it is. They could impeach GWB because they didn’t like his tits if they wanted to.

    Still, notice Article II section 4 and Article I section 3 give Congress the power to impeach the “The President, Vice President and all civil Officers of the United States,” not some schmuck who used to be President (or Vice President). Considering that the only penalty is removal from office, this would be the logically consistent interpretation.

    yours/
    peter.

  33. - Besides, its the perfect time of year for her to come out of the coffin closet.

  34. Peter — Aside from arguing that it also permits the Congress to strip said ex-President of all pensions, privileges, emoluments, entitlements and courtesies, it might also be argued it removes the restrictions on civil and criminal prosecution of the President (or other said civil officer) for actions performed under color of authority while in office.

    Penumbrae, anyone?

  35. …the President isn’t the only office one could go gunning for.

    Correct, maggie. Perhaps Congress could go after, oh, I don’t know…..the current Speaker of the House, say? For, let us suppose, incompetence.

    Of course, that’s a pipe dream. After all, San Fran Nan is the firstust womyn evah to be Speaker of da House! She’s putting Da Man down, y’hear? Impeach such an impeccable role model for our children? Heresy, pure heresy.

    Nancy? You go, girl!

  36. - Personally, I’ll be content if they stay preoccupied with the paper mache’ figures until after the election. They could definately benefit from the web-weaving therupy.

    – A more interesting development, is the “Wild Turkey” fiasco San Fran Nan finds herself stuck with. Even Murtha, of all people, acts as disloyal opposition to that one, which probably leads back to some important trade conditions with said target country back in his district, which just proves that with the Left it always comes down to who’s Turkey is getting basted.

  37. Yeesh, I bet “the ’47th Assembly District People’s Council’” is a real fun group of people. Why didn’t they just go whole hog and call themselves a “Soviet”?

  38. The word “Soviet” does not test well with focus groups. “The Children” does.

    So these lying pieces of shit use “The Children” to pass of their intellectual excrement, because they know that if they tell the truth, it will NEVER fly. But the truth means nothing when you are selling an intellectually superior idea

    The truth is anathema to the left…

  39. Math moment:

    60 is not veto-proof in the Senate. I ran it through the calculator and everything.

  40. “Still, I do so love when their synapses get to firing like that. Makes the whole room smell like Jiffy-Pop.”

    Reminded me of a cross between patchuli oil and burning insulation.

  41. #

    Comment by peter jackson on 10/17 @ 10:54 pm #

    Congress has the “sole power of impeachment.” An “impeachable offense” is whatever Congress says it is. They could impeach GWB because they didn’t like his tits if they wanted to.

    Still, notice Article II section 4 and Article I section 3 give Congress the power to impeach the “The President, Vice President and all civil Officers of the United States,” not some schmuck who used to be President (or Vice President). Considering that the only penalty is removal from office, this would be the logically consistent interpretation.

    yours/
    peter.

    It’s the dems, man. Ligic’s got nuthin’ to do with it.

  42. “Judgment in Cases of Impeachment shall not extend further than to removal from Office, and disqualification to hold and enjoy any Office of honor, Trust or Profit under the United States: but the Party convicted shall nevertheless be liable and subject to Indictment, Trial, Judgment and Punishment, according to Law.”

    In other words, you can’t impeach an ex-official, as he is already out of office, so Watson’s choice of words is idiocy.

  43. Well, there is the case of William Belknap, Secretary of War in the Grant Administration, who was impeached by the House after leaving office – very thoroughly covered at the link http://frwebgate.access.gpo.gov/cgi-bin/getdoc.cgi?dbname=hinds_prec_vol_iii&docid=f:hinds_lxxvii.pdf. Could this be what Watson and company are looking to for a precedent?

  44. You know, a devious fellow (like me) who would be leading the minority Republicans would conspire with enough Republicans to communicate through back channels to Pelosi that she did have enough Republican votes in support of impeachment (could say that they were really pissed off about non-enforcement of the border). . . in order for her to begin introduction of articles . . . and then to fail for lack of votes.

    She would then be radioactive just in time for ’08.

  45. Pendragon–thanks for pointing out that unconstitutional precedents have a long tradition.

  46. I think that the esteemed Ms Watson, being a Dem, has no idea what she is talking about. I have no clue what she is talking about in the House (a simple majority {218} for impeachment, not ‘285’ for anything) so they would have the votes easily in a straight party line vote. Just that the Dems don’t have the balls to follow their convictions because the time is not right for them to take their masks off yet. I could see guys like Heath Shuler selling impeachment back home.

    Second, and here is where she is clueless- takes 2/3 of a vote to convict the President in the Senate. So my math says 67, not ’60’. GWB’s pensions are secure.

    “The Senate shall have the sole Power to try all Impeachments. When sitting for that Purpose, they shall be on Oath or Affirmation. When the President of the United States is tried, the Chief Justice shall preside: And no Person shall be convicted without the Concurrence of two thirds of the Members present.”

    I think to be a Dem these days you really really really really really really have to be a schmuck. Pardon all the ‘really’s, it’s just getting sickening how stupid these people are. And the scary part is that in Jan ’09 they may well be running the country unfettered, with only 45 or so Republican Senator’s able to do any sort of damage control.

  47. It’s simple, really. Wacko congresswoman spouts off about impeachment, and when more pragmatic (yet disappointed) audience member wackos call her on it, she changes her story; they’re working quietly… under the radar… stealthily…

    …and then Pelosi denies the whole thing. Something for everybody. It works great when your voters are more focused on how they feel than they are on the facts.

    Oh, #7 asked why we didn’t think of impeaching Carter and/or Clinton after-the-fact… we did think of it, but we were always so busy cleaning up their messes that there wasn’t really time to look back. We were, after all, busy running the country rather than “investigating”.

  48. Good grief, could these people be any more politically tone deaf?

    Or haven’t they seen their poll numbers?

  49. Jezuz. Bush may have done much to justify the “incompetence” accusation over the past few years, but if the Dems really want to get Republicans to rally around him then impeachment would be the way to do it. Like many of the Dems with Clinton, they may not have liked him much but no way were they going to sit there and let the other side beat up on one of their guys. And if they think Bush’s “base” is going to stay on the sidelines then they have been too long in the echo chamber.

  50. I think Ms. Pelosi really thought that somehow she had been elected co-president after the election last year. All I know is that not only didn’t I vote for her, I didn’t even have the opportunity to vote for her since she wasn’t on my ballot. She should have kept that in mind, and if she had it would have prevented a lot of her current problems. She’s the leader of a group of independently elected representatives (and really the leader of barely half of those), not the holder of an office with a nationwide mandate, even though she’s acting like she is. Her trip to Syria was a joke but sprang from the hubris she fell victim to. She’s not in charge of foreign policy, was never elected to that role, and the sooner she understands that the better. If she wants to be in charge of foreign policy, she needs to run for president and get the American people’s approval. If she had actually concentrated on her job and not endless posturing about things that aren’t in her purview, Congress might not have an 11% approval rating.

  51. Its all a distraction. They were elected on an “end the war/impeach Bush” wave of sentiment and though they’re failing miserably with that and just about every other part of legislative work, as long as their crazy supporters “feel” like something is being done about bush or at least being “planned”, the dems get some more breathing room.

    In alot of ways, I’m afraid the repubs who went after Clinton paved the way for this mentality though.

  52. “Our goal has to be the White House in 2008 and 60 seats, then we can think about an impeachment,” apparently referring to winning a veto-proof majority in the Senate

    I think she’s referring to a FILLIBUSTER-proof majority, right? A veto-proof majority would be 67 (>2/3 of the Senate), not 60. I mean, if they plan to take the White House, why would they need to worry about a veto?

  53. Brett, the passage you quoted says

    Judgment in Cases of Impeachment shall not extend further than to removal from Office, and disqualification to hold and enjoy any Office of honor, Trust or Profit under the United States…

    The part after “and” is what’s been interpreted to open the door to impeachment after leaving office. If the impeachee is still in office upon conviction, both penalties apply; if not, only the disqualification penalty applies.

    It’s also apparently the case that the judgment clause has been interpreted to mean that an impeachee removed from office need not also be disqualified from future office.

    Which, in my opinion, is a crock — but nobody has ever threatened to appoint me to the Supreme Court, so…

  54. I think she’s referring to a FILLIBUSTER-proof majority, right? A veto-proof majority would be 67 (>2/3 of the Senate), not 60. I mean, if they plan to take the White House, why would they need to worry about a veto?

    You are assuming that she knows the difference. This is not a given.

    Regards,
    Ric

  55. I’d like to vote for impeachment
    In the Twilight Zone, where Stacey Keach went.

  56. I’d like to vote for impeachment
    In the Twilight Zone, where Stacey Keach went.

  57. I’d like to vote for impeachment
    In the Twilight Zone, where Stacey Keach went.

  58. - “I’d like to vote for impeachment
    In the Twilight Zone, where Stacey Keach went.”

    Sorry to repeat myself so much, but my anti-echo thing is bent.

  59. Spooky.

  60. you know peach tea with just a touch of spearmint is quite delicious and can soothe a sour stomach as well

  61. “Comment by Techie on 10/18 @ 7:46 am #

    Spooky.”

    Must be the season of the witch.

  62. Personally, I like the idea of passing some back channel information to Pelosi (what rhymes with that?) so that she brings Articles of Impeachment to the House. I have often felt that this would be the best, if not only, chance for the Republicans to begin to work together again, with a common goal. Couple that with an upcoming election against any of the liberals on the Dem ticket, and maybe the Republicans could get on track again.

  63. Pendragon–thanks for pointing out that unconstitutional precedents have a long tradition.

    That was kinda my point – could the Belknap impeachment be what Watson and the Dems hope to use as a precedent here, and if so, would that really constitute a valid precedent for an impeachment proceeding against a former President? Seems rather iffy to me, but I’m not a lawyer or any sort of Constitutional scholar.

  64. I’m not sure where she got the number 285 from except it is 65% of the House, 2/3 would be 290 according to my handy-dandy Microsoft calculator. I believe that it takes only 218 to Impeach in the House but takes 2/3 of those Senators in attendance to convict in the Senate. That would be 67 if all were attending. 66 would do as it stands because Tim Johnson is still not attending I think. They must be “deconstructing” math now that they have the language throughly messed up.

  65. “Do you really suppose that if the Dems had evidence of an impeachable offense by the President, that they could, or would, keep it secret?”

    Stay tuned for continuing saga of ‘Signing Statements’ compliments of Cheney and Addington.

  66. So they are not going to impeach President Bush, they are going after Cheney and Addington?

  67. Will they retroactively go after Bill Clinton for his signing statements?

  68. Oh – wait a minute. The signing statements were brought up by Cleo, which means that its utterly irrelevant.

    Nevermind my other post; carry on.

  69. Ignore my post as well. And sementicleo as well.

  70. semantic,

    Do you go through life hearing everybody trying to communicate with you filtered through the adult characters in a Charlie Brown special?

  71. “Do you really suppose that if the Dems had evidence of an impeachable offense by the President, that they could, or would, keep it secret?”

    I vote that they could not keep it a secret. When listing the virtues of the modern Democrats, restraint would certainly not be on that list.

  72. Pingback: This ain’t Hell, but you can see it from here » Kokesh needs help

  73. We need 285 votes to uphold an impeachment, and so far we have 260 members telling us they support impeachment.

    This is total BS. That figure 260 would have to include at least 25 or 30 Republicans along with ALL Democrats.

  74. Remember Conyers. Conyers has that big ass notebook full of impeachable evidence in the form of press clipping he like to thump. Scary stuff I’d say.

  75. Here’s something people haven’t jumped on yet:

    … We need 285 votes to uphold an impeachment, and so far we have 260 members telling us they support impeachment.”

    260 members? Reeeeeeaaallly? That means they have about 30 Republicans on board. What parallel universe is this? And if Watson/Pelosi really do have 30 Repubs counted as supporting impeachment, then someone has already implemented the ‘back-channel’ strategy discussed here.

    Heh.

  76. wacki

    wacki ryhmes with pelosi

  77. OMFG, Bush asserted constitutional authority! GET HIM! AAAAGGGGHHH!!!

    ‘Cause we all know the executive has no power, unless they’re a Democrat.

  78. Rush is talking about this very post as we speak.

    How cool is that?

  79. heh, rush just mentioned you.

  80. Rush Limbaugh reading your site right now…Live.

  81. I think Lileks is neat-o, but myself I would feel that working where he does compromises his integrity but that’s kind of hypocritical which is ok.

  82. Man, you guys are fast.

  83. Damn, ya’ll are quick. But you’ve been picked up by Malkin and Rush, Jeff–how’s that for a comeback?

  84. You’re about to find out if that $2076 will hold up me thinks :-)

  85. Strange serendipity, CraigC. I was reading the comments on the this thread with Limbaugh on in the background… and voila!

  86. I figured it must be something like that, Spiny. And you can just call me Craig.

  87. JEFF, JEFF, YOU JUST GOT MENTIONED ON RUSH!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

  88. aw nuts…………….

  89. Pingback: Hot Air » Blog Archive » Rep. Diane Watson (D): Pelosi working quietly behind the scenes for impeachment

  90. I remember Jeff when…

  91. Jeff G – Given the general dislike or apathy to Rush around these here parts, it only goes to show that the Right is not some kind of monolithic echo chamber of thought. You have to admit that it is kind of cool to be quoted on one of the most popular talk shows in the country ;-)

  92. Who was quoted?

    I don’t have a problem with Rush. I find him kind a funny. He’s just not my guru or some such.

    He beats the hell out of Hannity or O’Reilly, though.

  93. You was quoted. “Jeff Goldstein from proteinwisdom.com.” So expect your server to explode, if it hasn’t already.

  94. Nary a visit that I can see.

  95. I am not sure why Watson thinks she needs 260 votes to uphold an impeachment. Bill Clinton was impeached by a 228-208 vote in Congress. I suspect this is a way of kicking the issue down the road. If Hillary gets elected next year as is looking increasingly probable, there is no way she’s going to want her first 100 days taken up with this nonsense.

  96. I, for one, welcome our new Dittohead Overlords…

  97. I didn’t hear Jeff’s name mentioned. Rush said that he had an item from a website called “Protein Wisdom,” and then briefly discussed the post.

  98. Just the fact that Rush mentioned this site should make the Gleeeens, Sadly No, and the rest of the mental midgets go absolutely insane.

  99. If post hoc impeachment is allowed, does that mean “Impeach Earl Warren” is still on the table?

  100. The simplest explanation is that Pelosi is sane and Watson is not.

  101. Maor – That is most certainly not the simplest explanation. Pelosi sane? Are we talking about the same person? She thought it was the job of the Speaker to conduct foreign policy.

  102. I’ll check the Rush transcripts later tonight and report back how much pimping … er … quoting of Jeff was made. no. I’m not a ditto head. A buddy of mine is helping me out.

  103. - But the real question here; is the ‘dillo ready for prime time, tinsel and lights, papparazzi, living a Paris Hilton/Briteny life style?….or the corrolary of course; is the country ready for his unique sort of brash brass…..

  104. Sadly, each of these explanations seems equally plausible. Which — equally sadly — speaks volumes about today’s Congressional Democrats.

    What a bunch of bozos. 60 votes to override a veto LOL Impeachment is done entirely by the House, no veto is possible. It only takes 51 in the Senate to convict.

    Does anybody think the Republicans had 285 or 290 votes in the House when Clinton was impeached ? Well they didn’t.

    The good Congresswoman was either incredibly stupid or just blowing smoke up your ..

    Yeah, its real sad that so many can be suckered so easily.

  105. - Ok…you’ve gotten the reading of your words on the national airwaves, which is even better than the floor of the Senate if the size of audience carries any weight, and it does; now for the book and you’ll have scored two legs of the the triple play that will elevate you to the title of grand pubah and king antipasto to the Gleenwald(s) Secular Proggressive sockpuppetry caba’na boys chior. Way to go Goldfarb!!!!!!!1111one!!1!!!

  106. - SCHIP went down….Dem Senator accuses Bush of assassinating American troops in an illeagle war, saying he won’t help 10 million children with health care, but doesn’t hesitate to spend 200 billion in Iraq…15 minutes later Pelosi offers to sit down and talk to Bush on an SCHIP compromise….Her side just spent millions on TV ads, and two weeks, calling him a baby hater, but that was 15 minutes ago, a lifetime in politics….

  107. Pingback: Mrs. Pelosi planning impeachment, but of whom? | BitsBlog

  108. Big Bang — I find the notion of a pantyless armadillo flashing the moneymaker out a limo door… uh, disturbing. Yeah. That’s the word I wanted…

  109. I suspect that in the event the Ds would not be at all pleased with the material that came to light, and would rue the day they started the process. It could well be that P et al. know this, but don’t dare say so to the nutroots, and so continue this BS ballet.

  110. It only takes 51 in the Senate to convict.

    No, it takes two-thirds to convict. At least 67.

  111. The evil BusHitlerCo’s veto held up. Too bad it only took him 7 years to find the fiscal conservative inside of him. Alright, he is good on taxes too. Spending, not so much.

  112. i think you all are forgetting that the repugs and the dims, as you all cleverly say, both right and left, work for the same oil companies, for the same empire, that surely dont want russia, or china, or europe, or africa, or se asia or anywhere but here to get that oil. and it is willing to kill anything that stands in its way and this talk of impeachment and sports team style politics is going to be the last stuff you all got to say while the ship was a-sinking slowly in the west…

  113. “Pelosi (what rhymes with that?)”

    Hitch?
    Ditch?
    Snitch?

  114. There is a song about tin-foil hats? Who knew.

    malclave – Too funny. I never thought of it that way.

  115. omment by malclave on 10/18 @ 10:09 pm #

    “Pelosi (what rhymes with that?)”

    Hitch?
    Ditch?
    Snitch?

    What’s the difference between nancy Pelosi and the Panama Canal? Well. One’s a busy ditch.

    Sorry. Old Joke.

  116. “i think you all are forgetting that the repugs and the dims, as you all cleverly say, both right and left, work for the same oil companies, for the same empire, that surely dont want russia, or china, or europe, or africa, or se asia or anywhere but here to get that oil.”

    No, we are cool with the Chinese getting some. The need it to run the factories that make the lead painted toys we import and sell to poor little Democrat babies.

    MWAHAHAHAHA!

  117. Oh, BMoe! We also need to get some oil to India as I’m having an issue with my hard drive and need th4e tech support. Oh, and Japan, too, as I really wuv my wii!!

    Kill the rest…

  118. “i think you all are forgetting that the repugs and the dims, as you all cleverly say, both right and left, work for the same oil companies, for the same empire, that surely dont want russia, or china, or europe, or africa, or se asia or anywhere but here to get that oil. and it is willing to kill anything that stands in its way and this talk of impeachment and sports team style politics is going to be the last stuff you all got to say while the ship was a-sinking slowly in the west…”

    So when do you off yourself? Or build your bunker in upper Manitoba?

  119. First off – the (D-Culver City) is misleading. Culver City is a middle class community south of liberal havens like Beverly Hills, West L.A. and Santa Monica. It was gerrymandered into a black majority South-Central LA district as a favor the the Black Congressional Caucus and to prevent it from combining with similar neighboring communities such as Westchester and Playa del Rey who are open minded enough to consider voting for a Republican. As a constituent of Ms. Watson, I’d have to say the most likely explanation here is that she’s lying through her teeth to score points with the radicals among us. Ms. Watson is among the stupidest people ever to hold national office (she kept repeating the Lovenstein Institue hoax long after it had been exposed as bogus). She really only does what Maxine Waters tells her to do. She clearly has never read the Constitution and doesn’t even know what “impeachment” means. You can’t “impeach” somebody who holds no office, since “to impeach” means to challenge somebody’s competence to hold office. She makes me so proud to have such a wonderful representative in the most efficient law-making assembly ever created.

  120. “Judgment in Cases of Impeachment shall not extend further than to removal from Office, and disqualification to hold and enjoy any Office of honor, Trust or Profit under the United States…”

    Somebody explain Alcee Hastings to me, please? Oh, wait, I get it. Congress is most surely an office without honor and nobody trusts them. The profit part I’d quibble with.

  121. I am a lawyer. It is my contention that it is possible to impeach and convict someone after leaving office to prevent the person from holding office in the future. Otherwise, any person impeached could resign before conviction and serve in government again once there was a changing of the guard.

    There are no cases on this and there was one case where impeachment was held to be moot, but I have not read it, and I am not sure why or if it has any precedent. If one congress thought it was moot to impeach someone, another might not and I see no reason that one congress should be bound by the precedent set by another. This is not the judicial branch. But even so, Courts often overrule precedent.

  122. For Kingronjo #47 – an explanation for your question.

    The number of votes needed for impeachment in the House is 218. The number in the Senate is 67. If you add 218 + 67 you get 285. That’s where Congressperson Watson got the 285 number.

  123. good catch

  124. I recall that Democrat Congressman Alcee Hastings was impeached and removed from office by the Senate. Why is he able to be a Congressman now? Did someone give him a pardon?

  125. Pelosi rhymes with Lugosi

    Pelosi’a own visage is scary
    Like Bela Lugosi’s, not merry
    But if scared you must be
    Then you might want to see
    Her counterpart, Senator Harry

  126. IMPEACH PELOSI NOW!! If the Dems have evidence of impeachable offenses, then it is Pelosi’s sworn Constitutional duty to lead the charge to impeach. If not, then SHE should be the target of impeachment. She is a coward and obviously is being bribed, threatened, or both. I also believe that there will be no retro-impeachment because the Dems will lose the majority in the next election due to the lack of leadership (Reid AND Pelosi). What a waste. They can also kiss goodbye the best shot at the Whitehouse in years. IMPEACH PELOSI NOW!!

  127. Since 9/11 is proven to be an inside job, don’t try to impeach, just arrest Bush, Cheney and the slimy neocons prosecute for treasonous crime, lock them up and trough away the key.

  128. JlGqUt comment2 ,

  129. Despite the perception of ‘crimes’ committed by their predecessors, retroactive impeachment was never imagined by succeeding presidents, for the fear their successor might do the same. Bullet proof BHO has no fear of retribution, because he truly believes he is the LAST president.
    awl

  130. I assume the commentaries preceding #156 were written during the late fall of 2007–maybe ’08. The latter was stroked on 26 August 09. After #128, the entries went chaotically tangential to the essay at the top: from allusions of dream interpretations to athletic gear.

    I read the essay and wrote #156 addressing ‘retroactive impeachment’ of GWB by his successor. Duh.

    Does someone maintain this blog? I suggest you dust away the Irish curtains. Achoo! The keeper should edit the silly remarks when they become far afield from the subject. If you retain these comments for over a year, you should state the year they were written.

    Nonetheless, I maintain retroactive impeachment is not yet dead. If someone can ‘win’ a TNT award for something good he may do in the future, how difficult can it be erase the memory of an antecedent president?
    Bonkers!

    awl

Leave a Reply