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
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.