Pelosi working on Bush Impeachment?

[boston bean]

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.”

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 majority in the Senate and 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



http://proteinwisdom.com/?p=10013

[robinlynne]

1. I don't think so. I went to a meeting this morning with at least 20 people who were

present at the Iraq Town Hall, and they were talking about how to impeach Pelosi. (among other things)
No one mentioned anything positive about the Speaker, and had they heard this from Dianne Watson, it would have been discussed.
(I didn't ask though, I forgot. The FISA bill took over my brain these past few days.)

[MonkeyFunk]

8. Pelosi can't be impeached

I'm surprised how many people don't know that.

[Froward69]

9. I think it depends on the state.

Here the gov can replace the senators at will. or can authorize recall elections. I am fairly certain impeachment of a congress person is impossible???

[MonkeyFunk]

14. No governor can replace a Senator at will.

No state can recall a Senator or a Representative.

[Baby Snooks]

22. Shame she can't be...

At least you know the Republicans would vote for it.

[TreasonousBastard]

23. Shows the sophistication of the anti-Pelosi crowd. n/t

[acmavm]

29. What exactly are you saying? People fed up with Pelosi's enabling

are what?

And you're the epitome of sophistication, class and intellect?

[TreasonousBastard]

32. What I'm saying exactly is...

that most people bitching about Pelosi don't know what they're talking about.

They haven't the slightest idea what the Speaker's job is and don't know anything about past speakers to whom they can compare her performance. Easy question-- who won most of the time when Reagan and O'Neill butted heads? Tougher questions involve Carl Albert, Newt Gingrich and Sam Rayburn.

The complaints primarily center on the lack of an impeachment bill and that we're till in Iraq, with every other little thing going wrong blamed on Pelosi or Reid, which is ignorant and consequentially unfair. None of the legislative accomplishments are credited to either of them.

Can't get a good shot at the enemy, so shoot our own. Gotta shoot somebody or it's a wasted day, eh?

[acmavm]

35. I don't know about a wasted day, but I sure did waste a little bit of time

reading this reply.

[HamdenRice]

27. They used the wrong word, but she can be removed

She serves at the pleasure of the majority in the House. It's rare, but there have been struggles over House leadership that have brought new leadership to power.

Rigid party discipline on House leadership usually makes this impossible, but if the overwhelming majority of Democrats and a significant number of Republicans wanted to get rid of her, they could.

That's how Newt Gingrich, conspiring with the House Democratic caucus brought down Jim Wright, elevating himself to minority whip, and that's how Gingrich himself was overthrown in 1998.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jim_Wright

http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=940CE6DD123EF934A35752C1A96E958260

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Newt_Gingrich#Speaker_of_the_House


Apparently, it's not the anti-Pelosi people who don't know how the system works.

[MonkeyFunk]

28. I don't know how it works?

by pointing out the simple fact that Pelosi can not be impeached (which is what I was replying to)?

I never said there was no way to remove someone from the leadership or from the House itself. I said she can't be impeached. And I was right.

What an idiotic response.

[HamdenRice]

30. So you agree she can be removed?

Because if you do, then the substance of what I am saying obviously is correct and the rest of what you have to say is just semantics, gratuituous insult and snark.

But snark doesn't change the facts: She can be removed.

[MonkeyFunk]

33. Of course she can removed by the House

I never once implied that wasn't the case.

It's not "semantics". Somebody wanted to impeach her. Not expel her. IMPEACH.

I pointed out that she can't be impeached.

And the House isn't going to expel her under any circumstances. That's stupid.

[HamdenRice]

34. Wrong again

You seem to be proving that you really don't know what you are talking about. I'm not talking about expelling her.

I'm talking, as was the post about the meeting of activists, about removing her from her office as Speaker. She would remain in the House as a member.

The Speaker is an elected leadership position in the House of Representatives. She serves at the pleasure of the Representatives.

Usually, the party that is in the majority votes unanimously as a block, so that the majority party determines who the Speaker is.

If party discipline collapses, however, then a bipartisan majority may remove the Speaker, despite the fact that the Speaker's party is the majority party. That's what Gingrich organized to remove Wright, and that's what the repug caucus organized to remove Gingrich in 1998 after the Clinton impeachment fiasco.

The point I was trying to make is that if you read the entire sub-thread, there is a snarky attitude that the activists referred to were "unsophisticated" because they don't realize that Pelosi can't be removed. But she can be removed as Speaker. So that incorrect idea, and now your notion that this is about expelling her from the House, reveal that it is actually not the anti-Pelosi crowd that is "unsophisticated."

Btw, I am not anti-Pelosi and I am against the idea of removing her from the office of Speaker. Who knows what promises would have to be given the repugs to go along with such a vote. But I also find the know it all attitude of those who thought Pelosi's position is unassailable to be amusing.

[MonkeyFunk]

36. sigh

you're being purposely thick and argumentative.

Yes, she can be removed as Leader - I said so above. Yes, she can be expelled.

No, she cannot be impeached.

You're not disagreeing with anything I've said - you're just being rude.

[HamdenRice]

37. Uhhhh, who's being rude?

Don't you recall, or can't you scroll up to read, your writing this:

"What an idiotic response"

when, in fact, I was right? Dude, can't you see that you wrote wrong stuff, were corrected, and then got defensive and insulted me for no reason?

And you now want to engage in the fantasy that I'm "being rude"?

Why don't you just admit your were wrong, apologize for the gratuitous insult, and move on.

[MonkeyFunk]

39. What on Earth was I wrong about?

I said Pelosi can't be impeached. Was I right or wrong? I never once claimed she couldn't be expelled or removed as Speaker.

You haven't said anything that disagrees with anything I said, but you sure are strident about saying it!

This is the stupidest argument I've ever seen here.

[HamdenRice]

41. huh?

Maybe if you didn't go around calling other posters (who just happen to be right) "idiotic" and "stupid" you wouldn't be involved in this "stupidest" argument sub thread.

Why not look at how this subthread started. I simply posted a correction: yes, the Speaker can be removed. You're the one who for inexplicable reasons jumped in calling that correction "idiotic."

But I've looked around and see this is your M.O. everywhere. If you don't want to get involved in "stupidest" arguments, maybe you should change your M.O.

[babylonsister]

2. Here's the video to go with that:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=385x64108

[robinlynne]

3. Just saw the video. What she says is that Pelosi's strategy is a Democratic sweep in the

2008 election. She then says, with 60 seats in the senate and 290 votes in the house we can work on impeachment and override vetos.
There is NO mention of Pelosi working behind the scenes to get 290 congresspeople to sign on to impechmnet.
She clearly says: THE ONLY reason we are not working towards impeachment is Nancy Pelosi and the Democratic leadership.

People are beginning to talk about impeaching Pelosi because it may be illegal for her to take impeachment off the table.

[boston bean]

4. Well, I hope they do. She has been a grave disappointment. nt

[allisonthegreat]

5. just a little more than a mild disappointment n/t

[bellasgrams]

20. How in the world do you expect to Impeach

when there isn't even enough votes to get the schip?

[surfermaw]

40. That is what I would like to know is how they expect miricles

When we have so few votes, barely enough to pass anything, we need to put our energy into bringing home more democratic members for both houses,

[dflprincess]

11. I trust she's not including Liebermann in that 60 Senate seats tally

n/t

[AtomicKitten]

6. Fifth K&R because I wish it to be so.

[man4allcats]

7. Misplaced priorities

“Our goal has to be the White House in 2008 and 60 seats, then we can think about an impeachment”

Bullshit! Pelosi and the rest need to get off their asses and move. The "we don't have the votes" argument is so tired I won't even bother to address it. If you're not up to speed, Google it. The issue is, or should be, upholding the Constitution. Impeachment should at least be attempted NOW! If it fails while Bush is in office, then they can go after him after he leaves, but in the meantime Congress needs to uphold its oath of office to the Constitution. Politics can go to hell. If the last seven years are any indication, that is where it belongs anyway. If Pelosi and company are not willing to act in a moral, ethical and patriotic manner, then they too should be impeached or at least voted out!

[sampsonblk]

10. If she weren't working so 'quietly and effectively' we could have the votes!

This thing needs to be pressed publicly. Only then could we generate enough support to make a strong effort at it.

Why are none of the top Dem leaders even talking about this? This case needs to be taken to the public so they can know what's been going on. Even the general public will cry for impeachment if we quit being weak and go out and make the case.

[bellasgrams]

21. Talking about impeaching Bill and finally doing it

didn't help the Repbs. Maybe the Dems are trying to play it a little smarter.

[sampsonblk]

24. Apples and oranges: All 'high crimes' are not created equal

Its called sunshine. Can't impeach the president without making a case to the public as to why its right and necessary. Didn't work out for the GOP because millions of other people have been involved in oral sex, lying and extra-marital affairs. Big deal.

Now a phony war is another matter. So is torture. So is telling someone to ignore a subpoena. So is illegal surveillance of Americans. Need I go on?

Dems playing it smarter is a joke, I hope. These are the same 'smarter' guys who caved in on the war in May, because that would put the GOP in a huge inescapable bind by September. How did that work out?

[Sarah Ibarruri]

12. She would never do that. nt

[yodermon]

13. "prosecution of George Bush after he’s left office" BWAHAHA.

I predict a full pardon for bushco from HRC, in the name of "bringing the country together" or "moving america forward instead of dwelling on the past" or some such bullshit.

Or at least she'll look the other way as they flee to Poppy's Moonie Paraguayan Paradise.

[eallen]

15. There's no provision for impeaching a former president. Just criminal prosecution.

For that, you don't need House votes.

:hippie:

[HamdenRice]

31. I thought those passages were completely creepy! It's like they're expecting a repug president

You hit the nail on the head. Why do they need enough votes for impeachment AFTER 2008???

That part didn't make sense unless they are once again expecting the Republicans to "count the votes," so that the impeachment they are worrying about is Giuliani, not Bush.

[madfloridian]

16. Damn...they had 341 yes votes to condemn MoveOn.

?By a 341-79 vote, the House passed a resolution praising the patriotism Gen. David Petraeus, the commander of U.S. forces in Iraq, and condemning a MoveOn.org ad that referred to Petraeus as "General Betray Us"

http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/n/a/2007/09/26/national/w095848D93.DTL

So that really tells their priorities...keeping the activists in line.

[mzmolly]

18. Heh

:rofl:

[sampsonblk]

25. Ain't that something? It was quick too.

I wish they had such speed and such unity in actually doing their jobs.

[mzmolly]

17. We don't need the votes to bring impeachment charges.

We need to do it, regardless.

[Lochloosa]

19. 2008? And who are you going to impeach?

Read the fucking Constitution!

[Dewlso]

26. Quit quietly talking about it and DO SOMETHING ALREADY

Pelosi needs to learn to be more vocal. This quietly working bs is not going to stop bush from starting another war. How much more proof to support an impeachment do you need. Pelosi needs to tell the public who is against it so WE THE PEOPLE can put pressure on these elected officials to DO SOMETHING. Are we to sit back while bush starts ANOTHER war? I think 2 in 8 years is more than enough. The worst part is that after these 2 wars the leader of Al Qaeda is still lurking. bush himself claimed "I don't think about him that much." This is the guy who masterminded the attacks against our country. Then there is the whole issue with fraud in Iraq (contractors), and the quagmire he created. Then the debacle known as Katrina. Then the voter fraud in the 2000 and 2004 elections. How much longer do we, as americans, have to put up with this criminal running our country. How much proof do you need to convince these lawmakers? At least tell us who is against it so that WE the VOTERS can put pressure on these reluctant congresspeople.

[LWolf]

38. That "quietly working behind the scenes" is

calculated to dampen the unrest without evidence of ANY action ever taken.

Transparency is a good thing. Walking your talk is good. Backing up your assertions with evidence is good.

Patronizing citizens with lofty "behind closed doors" assurances is not.