Rep. Diane Watson's Statement, RE: Conyers' Impeachment Resolution

[babylonsister]

So she's still behind Conyers' impeachment resolution, but he's not advocating impeachment anymore? :crazy:

http://www.michaelmoore.com/mustread/index.php?id=791

Thursday, December 14th, 2006
Congresswoman Diane Watson's Statement on Signing John Conyers' Impeachment Resolution

The following statement was issued this afternoon to MichaelMoore.com:

I believe that the President must be held accountable for his actions. This past November, the American people affirmed through the ballot their dissatisfaction with the Administration and, in particular, its policies in Iraq.

I have been a steadfast opponent of the President’s Iraq policy. His administration has not been forthcoming with the American people and Congress has failed to conduct effective oversight of the executive branch. That’s why I am a cosponsor of Congressman Conyers' legislation, H. Res. 635, to create a select Congressional committee to examine the Administration’s conduct in prosecuting the Iraq war.

In the New Year, Democrats will gain control of the House of Representatives. Mr. Conyers is slated to chair the Judiciary Committee. I am ready to follow his lead on the issue.

-- Congresswoman Diane E. Watson

[AndyA]

1. Perhaps Watson knows something we don't?

I find it hard to believe that Conyers would just drop the thought of impeachment completely, especially at this point in time. No one knows enough to make that statement right now.

Let the investigations begin. Once Congress starts performing checks and balances again, we'll see where that leads.

[ClassWarrior]

2. Someone else here recently published a letter received from...

...another Dem Rep who mentioned the possibility of IMPEACHMENT. Hmmmmm... Methinks it's not exactly off the table - it's probably just hiding under the tablecloth.

NGU.

[Vidar]

11. I fervently hope you're right.

[napi21]

3. I think Conyers has decided to hold hearing FIRST!

That's the right thing to do! After all, you don't sentence a murderer to prison BEFORE his trial, now do you?

Hold the hearings, and ifinformation comes out that proves what most of us suspect, THEN you call present a Bill of Impeachment.

[ClassWarrior]

5. No, but you put him on trial for murder.

Investigations are part of the IMPEACHMENT process.

:shrug:

NGU.

[napi21]

6. Yes, AFTER an investigation that enables you to prove it.

I realize everyone's anxious to get rid of Shrub, and so am I. But you can't put the cart before the horse. Investigations (as in hearings), provable information is uncovered, THEN the punishment.

[ClassWarrior]

7. Of course. That's how the IMPEACHMENT process works.

IMPEACHMENT isn't punishment. It's indictment.

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/impeachment">American Heritage Dictionary

im·peach (ĭm-pēch')
tr.v. im·peached, im·peach·ing, im·peach·es

1.
  1. To make an accusation against.
  2. To charge (a public official) with improper conduct in office before a proper tribunal.

NGU.

[ClassWarrior]

10. .

[Gregorian]

4. I think the House wants to hear from the American people.

It's not like we haven't made it clear what we want. But I believe they want us to specifically speak up on impeachment before they actually get the ball rolling.

It won't take long. Investigations will lead to such damning conclusions, impeachment will follow.

[ClassWarrior]

8. That's why we need to clamor for IMPEACHMENT...

They can't bring it up - so WE have to!

NGU.

[calimary]

9. But it's quite true - they do need fortifications.

After all, backbones can still get flabby.

Remember - if they think we don't care, THEY WON'T, EITHER!!!