Good Enough For Nixon?

[MACAULAY]

Nixon's articles of impeachment contain 3 clauses. All of them charge Nixon with violating his oath of office, specifially failing to see that laws were faithfully executed.
Every one of those articles is equally applicable to Obama. Even more so. What Nixon did in secret, Obama does openly. What Nixon attempted, Obama achieved.
Why was Nixon nearly impeached and survived only by resignation but Obama continues on with impunity?
Watergate Articles Of Impeachment

In his conduct of the office of President of the United States, Richard M. Nixon, in violation of his constitutional oath faithfully to execute the office of President of the United States and, to the best of his ability, preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution of the United States, and in violation of his consitutional duty to take care that the laws be faithfully executed, has prevented, obstructed, and impeded the administration of justice, in that:

more at thte source.

Weird how various groups, like militias and , gun-toting Tea-Party racists who demand veto power over all the rest of the federal government, over the law, over the Constitution that they profess to love but in fact know little about. They are unified in their hatred of the President Barack Obama, their love of firearms, their deep racist animus, and their contempt for the rule of law.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

There is a lot of hate in the above pasquinade. Maybe as many as 10 derisive epitaphs in just two sentences. The Race Card is prominent of course.

All in all, it pretty much epitomizes every argument that has been made on this board in defense of this perfectly awful President...who we are regrettably stuck with for 2 more years. Every time someones complains about a policy decision by Obama, which, if past is informative, will be an act of malpractice...let them just use this 2 sentence post...its all they ever have anyway...in defense of gross misgovernance.

 

[KNB]

The far left knows the GOP will not impeach him and Obama knows that his own party along with 80% of the press will not call him out. So Obama will literally get away with murder and you far left Obama drone will cheer as he does it.

Is this all that you know how to say? "The far left! The far left! Ooooh! The far left!"

Who is cheering for Obama? Where are all of these people that you claim keep praying to Obama? Everyone is angry at Obama, but the simple fact is that We the People know that as much as Obama sucks, Republicans are far worse.

 

[Peach]

Weird how various groups, like militias and , gun-toting Tea-Party racists who demand veto power over all the rest of the federal government, over the law, over the Constitution that they profess to love but in fact know little about. They are unified in their hatred of the President Barack Obama, their love of firearms, their deep racist animus, and their contempt for the rule of law.



Do you SERIOUSLY think the GOP is afraid to impeach if they had ANYTHING? lol

Of course not, and yes, the most rabid anti-Obama crowd knows little to -0- about US history, or so it appears.

Says the far left Obama drone that thinks the history of Iraq started in 2003.

Wrong again, you are batting 1000%! I know the history of Mesopotamia, Assyria, and how Iraq was carved out after WWI, plus the Ba'athist-Peshmerga struggle. Reagan MADE Saddam by throwing US money, arms, and prestige his way during the 1980-1988 Iran-Iraq war.

 

[Peach]

The far left knows the GOP will not impeach him and Obama knows that his own party along with 80% of the press will not call him out. So Obama will literally get away with murder and you far left Obama drone will cheer as he does it.

Is this all that you know how to say? "The far left! The far left! Ooooh! The far left!"

Who is cheering for Obama? Where are all of these people that you claim keep praying to Obama? Everyone is angry at Obama, but the simple fact is that We the People know that as much as Obama sucks, Republicans are far worse.

Worse or not, impeachment requires GROUNDS, Boehner, in between bottles, denies the "lawsuit" is about impeachment. Rabids jumped when they heard lawsuit because, they are RABIDS.

 

[MACAULAY]

The far left knows the GOP will not impeach him and Obama knows that his own party along with 80% of the press will not call him out. So Obama will literally get away with murder and you far left Obama drone will cheer as he does it.

Is this all that you know how to say? "The far left! The far left! Ooooh! The far left!"

Who is cheering for Obama? Where are all of these people that you claim keep praying to Obama? Everyone is angry at Obama, but the simple fact is that We the People know that as much as Obama sucks, Republicans are far worse.

------------------------------------------------------------------

Hello: I sure am glad to see Loons having to retreat back to "...as much as Obama sucks...."

It's called a Last Ditch Defense. Welcome back to Reality.

 

[Howey]

Nixon's articles of impeachment contain 3 clauses. All of them charge Nixon with violating his oath of office, specifially failing to see that laws were faithfully executed.
Every one of those articles is equally applicable to Obama. Even more so. What Nixon did in secret, Obama does openly. What Nixon attempted, Obama achieved.
Why was Nixon nearly impeached and survived only by resignation but Obama continues on with impunity?
Watergate Articles Of Impeachment

In his conduct of the office of President of the United States, Richard M. Nixon, in violation of his constitutional oath faithfully to execute the office of President of the United States and, to the best of his ability, preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution of the United States, and in violation of his consitutional duty to take care that the laws be faithfully executed, has prevented, obstructed, and impeded the administration of justice, in that:

more at thte source.

Keep dreaming.

 

[Kosh]

Perjury is always a problem, but Clinton's lie was not perjury. To be perjury the lie must be "material to the case at Bar"; sexual harassment & consensual sex are different. (Yes, one's license can be removed by the State Bar for less than a crime.) When did Bush II or Obama commit perjury?

More far left Obama drone propaganda!

WOW these far left Obama drones really do not understand anything beyond their programming.

Kosh, it seems you do not understand the subject in question, have someone read about it, and explain it to you tonight.

And once again the far left Obama drone can not own up to the fact that they are far left. Yes I know many on the far left it is a hard admission to make since it proves you are a radical extremists on the left, but you will feel better about yourself when you come out of the far left closet.

 

[Kosh]

The far left knows the GOP will not impeach him and Obama knows that his own party along with 80% of the press will not call him out. So Obama will literally get away with murder and you far left Obama drone will cheer as he does it.

Is this all that you know how to say? "The far left! The far left! Ooooh! The far left!"

Who is cheering for Obama? Where are all of these people that you claim keep praying to Obama? Everyone is angry at Obama, but the simple fact is that We the People know that as much as Obama sucks, Republicans are far worse.

This from a rabid far left Obama drone.

 

[Kosh]

Of course not, and yes, the most rabid anti-Obama crowd knows little to -0- about US history, or so it appears.

Says the far left Obama drone that thinks the history of Iraq started in 2003.

Wrong again, you are batting 1000%! I know the history of Mesopotamia, Assyria, and how Iraq was carved out after WWI, plus the Ba'athist-Peshmerga struggle. Reagan MADE Saddam by throwing US money, arms, and prestige his way during the 1980-1988 Iran-Iraq war.

Really? WOW! Yet none of your posts prove these comments when you spout the far left Obama drone mantra.

 

[Peach]

More far left Obama drone propaganda!

WOW these far left Obama drones really do not understand anything beyond their programming.

Kosh, it seems you do not understand the subject in question, have someone read about it, and explain it to you tonight.

And once again the far left Obama drone can not own up to the fact that they are far left. Yes I know many on the far left it is a hard admission to make since it proves you are a radical extremists on the left, but you will feel better about yourself when you come out of the far left closet.

Dipping into the Cheney/Boehner juice a bit early, aren't you?

 

[Kosh]

The far left knows the GOP will not impeach him and Obama knows that his own party along with 80% of the press will not call him out. So Obama will literally get away with murder and you far left Obama drone will cheer as he does it.

Is this all that you know how to say? "The far left! The far left! Ooooh! The far left!"

Who is cheering for Obama? Where are all of these people that you claim keep praying to Obama? Everyone is angry at Obama, but the simple fact is that We the People know that as much as Obama sucks, Republicans are far worse.

Worse or not, impeachment requires GROUNDS, Boehner, in between bottles, denies the "lawsuit" is about impeachment. Rabids jumped when they heard lawsuit because, they are RABIDS.

It is hard for the far left to admit that they support someone worse than Bush considering the 8 years of propaganda they pushed.

If you do not see grounds to impeach Obama then you are a far left Obama drone, plain and simple. Now the question is will this far left Obama drone own up to it or they continue to lie that they "know" the constitution like their hero Obama does.

Anyone can read the constitution, but the far left shows they do not understand what they read.

 

[Peach]

Yes, you're right. Marijuana was legal right up until 2000 and George Wmd Bush outlawed it. That's why I hate him.

It doesn't have anything to do with allowing 9/11 to happen so that the PNAC could shit on the US Constitution, lying to the world, invading Afghanistan and Iraq against all military strategy and basic sense, torturing POWs, creating more terrorists, adding trillions to the national debt to try to win his daddy's love and respect.........

I draw the line at anyone accusing Bush II of "allowing" 9/11, had he been on top of the situation, had national security on al Qaeda as advised, instead of "Saddam, Saddam, he threatened Poppy!".............we will never know. His reaction, to USE the attack as an excuse to "take out" Saddam, is fair game.

It is entirely too coincidental that everything that the PNAC said in September 2000 that they wanted to happen, happened when Bush was in office, including "a new Pearl Harbor" that could be used as an excuse to ramp up the military/police state and make rich people even richer. It all played out exactly as written. No, it wasn't a coincidence. 9/11 was allowed to happen. That's why all of the warnings about bin Laden were ignored.

Osama bin Laden and US weapons contractors want America to be in an endless war against whoever for whatever reason. It sure as shit wasn't about 9/11. bin Laden's dead, Hussein is dead, how many more times do we have to kill al-Qaeda's number 3 in command? How many more years will the US be funneling money from tax payers to weapons contractors over Bush's lies?

Obama is the same corporate shit as Bush and Nixon, continuing both Bush's and Nixon's lies.

And Ford, Carter, Reagan, and GHWB were saints? Actually, with the exception of Bonzo, I'd take any of those back. Ford, Carter, GHWB, in that order.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

Nixon's articles of impeachment contain 3 clauses. All of them charge Nixon with violating his oath of office, specifially failing to see that laws were faithfully executed.
Every one of those articles is equally applicable to Obama. Even more so. What Nixon did in secret, Obama does openly. What Nixon attempted, Obama achieved.
Why was Nixon nearly impeached and survived only by resignation but Obama continues on with impunity?
Watergate Articles Of Impeachment

In his conduct of the office of President of the United States, Richard M. Nixon, in violation of his constitutional oath faithfully to execute the office of President of the United States and, to the best of his ability, preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution of the United States, and in violation of his consitutional duty to take care that the laws be faithfully executed, has prevented, obstructed, and impeded the administration of justice, in that:

more at thte source.

Incorrect.

You clearly don't understand the law and what constitutes crimes committed by a president.

In the case of Nixon, there was clear and specific evidence of his criminal acts:

On June 17, 1972, and prior thereto, agents of the Committee for the Re-election of the President:

Committed unlawful entry of the headquarters of the Democratic National Committee in Washington, District of Columbia, for the purpose of securing political intelligence. Subsequent thereto, Richard M. Nixon, using the powers of his high office, engaged personally and through his subordinates and agents in a course of conduct or plan designed to delay, impede, and obstruct the investigation of such unlawful entry; to cover up, conceal and protect those responsible; and to conceal the existence and scope of other unlawful covert activities. …

[President Nixon] has failed without lawful cause or excuse to produce papers and things as directed by duly authorized subpoenas issued by the Committee on the Judiciary of the House of Representatives on April 11, 1974, May 15, 1974, May 30, 1974, and June 24, 1974, and willfully disobeyed such subpoenas. ...
Nixon impeachment articles

Do you have any objective, documented evidence, with specific times, places, dates, and names, indicating that President Obama violated any laws.

Absent such evidence, therefore, there are no legitimate grounds to impeach the president that will result in conviction in the Senate.

True, those on the partisan right in the House are at liberty to 'impeach' President Obama because the sky is blue, but they'd never win conviction in the Senate given the fact there's no evidence of the president violating the law.

Nixon understood that there was actual, objective, documented evidence of his criminal acts, and he resigned according knowing he would be convicted in the Senate and forced from office in any event.

That those on the partisan right 'think' or 'believe' the president violated any laws does not constitute 'evidence.'

That those on the partisan right 'think' or 'believe' the president is not faithfully executing the duties of the office of president is not legitimate grounds for 'impeachment.'

And that those on the partisan right merely disagree with the president's policies or how he's pursuing those policies is also not legitimate grounds for 'impeachment.'

 

[The Rabbi]

Nixon's articles of impeachment contain 3 clauses. All of them charge Nixon with violating his oath of office, specifially failing to see that laws were faithfully executed.
Every one of those articles is equally applicable to Obama. Even more so. What Nixon did in secret, Obama does openly. What Nixon attempted, Obama achieved.
Why was Nixon nearly impeached and survived only by resignation but Obama continues on with impunity?
Watergate Articles Of Impeachment

In his conduct of the office of President of the United States, Richard M. Nixon, in violation of his constitutional oath faithfully to execute the office of President of the United States and, to the best of his ability, preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution of the United States, and in violation of his consitutional duty to take care that the laws be faithfully executed, has prevented, obstructed, and impeded the administration of justice, in that:

more at thte source.

Incorrect.

You clearly don't understand the law and what constitutes crimes committed by a president.

In the case of Nixon, there was clear and specific evidence of his criminal acts:

On June 17, 1972, and prior thereto, agents of the Committee for the Re-election of the President:

Committed unlawful entry of the headquarters of the Democratic National Committee in Washington, District of Columbia, for the purpose of securing political intelligence. Subsequent thereto, Richard M. Nixon, using the powers of his high office, engaged personally and through his subordinates and agents in a course of conduct or plan designed to delay, impede, and obstruct the investigation of such unlawful entry; to cover up, conceal and protect those responsible; and to conceal the existence and scope of other unlawful covert activities. …

[President Nixon] has failed without lawful cause or excuse to produce papers and things as directed by duly authorized subpoenas issued by the Committee on the Judiciary of the House of Representatives on April 11, 1974, May 15, 1974, May 30, 1974, and June 24, 1974, and willfully disobeyed such subpoenas. ...
Nixon impeachment articles

Do you have any objective, documented evidence, with specific times, places, dates, and names, indicating that President Obama violated any laws.

Absent such evidence, therefore, there are no legitimate grounds to impeach the president that will result in conviction in the Senate.

True, those on the partisan right in the House are at liberty to 'impeach' President Obama because the sky is blue, but they'd never win conviction in the Senate given the fact there's no evidence of the president violating the law.

Nixon understood that there was actual, objective, documented evidence of his criminal acts, and he resigned according knowing he would be convicted in the Senate and forced from office in any event.

That those on the partisan right 'think' or 'believe' the president violated any laws does not constitute 'evidence.'

That those on the partisan right 'think' or 'believe' the president is not faithfully executing the duties of the office of president is not legitimate grounds for 'impeachment.'

And that those on the partisan right merely disagree with the president's policies or how he's pursuing those policies is also not legitimate grounds for 'impeachment.'

The president failed to carry out the oath of office, faithfully discharging the laws of the United States. He failed to enforce DOMA. He failed to enforce immigration law. He failed to implement Obamacare. On numerous occasions he indicated he would not enforce some provision of other.
He obstructed justice in the IRS scandal. He violated the law in the Bowe Bergdahl scandal.
That is not his purview. That is a violation of separation of powers. That is a high crime and misdemeanor exactly equivalent to what Nixon did.

 

[Peach]

Nixon's articles of impeachment contain 3 clauses. All of them charge Nixon with violating his oath of office, specifially failing to see that laws were faithfully executed.
Every one of those articles is equally applicable to Obama. Even more so. What Nixon did in secret, Obama does openly. What Nixon attempted, Obama achieved.
Why was Nixon nearly impeached and survived only by resignation but Obama continues on with impunity?
Watergate Articles Of Impeachment

more at thte source.

Incorrect.

You clearly don't understand the law and what constitutes crimes committed by a president.

In the case of Nixon, there was clear and specific evidence of his criminal acts:

On June 17, 1972, and prior thereto, agents of the Committee for the Re-election of the President:

Committed unlawful entry of the headquarters of the Democratic National Committee in Washington, District of Columbia, for the purpose of securing political intelligence. Subsequent thereto, Richard M. Nixon, using the powers of his high office, engaged personally and through his subordinates and agents in a course of conduct or plan designed to delay, impede, and obstruct the investigation of such unlawful entry; to cover up, conceal and protect those responsible; and to conceal the existence and scope of other unlawful covert activities. …

[President Nixon] has failed without lawful cause or excuse to produce papers and things as directed by duly authorized subpoenas issued by the Committee on the Judiciary of the House of Representatives on April 11, 1974, May 15, 1974, May 30, 1974, and June 24, 1974, and willfully disobeyed such subpoenas. ...
Nixon impeachment articles

Do you have any objective, documented evidence, with specific times, places, dates, and names, indicating that President Obama violated any laws.

Absent such evidence, therefore, there are no legitimate grounds to impeach the president that will result in conviction in the Senate.

True, those on the partisan right in the House are at liberty to 'impeach' President Obama because the sky is blue, but they'd never win conviction in the Senate given the fact there's no evidence of the president violating the law.

Nixon understood that there was actual, objective, documented evidence of his criminal acts, and he resigned according knowing he would be convicted in the Senate and forced from office in any event.

That those on the partisan right 'think' or 'believe' the president violated any laws does not constitute 'evidence.'

That those on the partisan right 'think' or 'believe' the president is not faithfully executing the duties of the office of president is not legitimate grounds for 'impeachment.'

And that those on the partisan right merely disagree with the president's policies or how he's pursuing those policies is also not legitimate grounds for 'impeachment.'

The president failed to carry out the oath of office, faithfully discharging the laws of the United States. He failed to enforce DOMA. He failed to enforce immigration law. He failed to implement Obamacare. On numerous occasions he indicated he would not enforce some provision of other.
He obstructed justice in the IRS scandal. He violated the law in the Bowe Bergdahl scandal.
That is not his purview. That is a violation of separation of powers. That is a high crime and misdemeanor exactly equivalent to what Nixon did.

The President does not personally enforce laws, should his appointees fail to do so, there is a remedy for that, it is not impeachment.

 

[The Rabbi]

Incorrect.

You clearly don't understand the law and what constitutes crimes committed by a president.

In the case of Nixon, there was clear and specific evidence of his criminal acts:



Do you have any objective, documented evidence, with specific times, places, dates, and names, indicating that President Obama violated any laws.

Absent such evidence, therefore, there are no legitimate grounds to impeach the president that will result in conviction in the Senate.

True, those on the partisan right in the House are at liberty to 'impeach' President Obama because the sky is blue, but they'd never win conviction in the Senate given the fact there's no evidence of the president violating the law.

Nixon understood that there was actual, objective, documented evidence of his criminal acts, and he resigned according knowing he would be convicted in the Senate and forced from office in any event.

That those on the partisan right 'think' or 'believe' the president violated any laws does not constitute 'evidence.'

That those on the partisan right 'think' or 'believe' the president is not faithfully executing the duties of the office of president is not legitimate grounds for 'impeachment.'

And that those on the partisan right merely disagree with the president's policies or how he's pursuing those policies is also not legitimate grounds for 'impeachment.'

The president failed to carry out the oath of office, faithfully discharging the laws of the United States. He failed to enforce DOMA. He failed to enforce immigration law. He failed to implement Obamacare. On numerous occasions he indicated he would not enforce some provision of other.
He obstructed justice in the IRS scandal. He violated the law in the Bowe Bergdahl scandal.
That is not his purview. That is a violation of separation of powers. That is a high crime and misdemeanor exactly equivalent to what Nixon did.

The President does not personally enforce laws, should his appointees fail to do so, there is a remedy for that, it is not impeachment.

He is the chief executive. He is responsible for enforcing laws. Period.

 

[Kosh]

Incorrect.

You clearly don't understand the law and what constitutes crimes committed by a president.

In the case of Nixon, there was clear and specific evidence of his criminal acts:



Do you have any objective, documented evidence, with specific times, places, dates, and names, indicating that President Obama violated any laws.

Absent such evidence, therefore, there are no legitimate grounds to impeach the president that will result in conviction in the Senate.

True, those on the partisan right in the House are at liberty to 'impeach' President Obama because the sky is blue, but they'd never win conviction in the Senate given the fact there's no evidence of the president violating the law.

Nixon understood that there was actual, objective, documented evidence of his criminal acts, and he resigned according knowing he would be convicted in the Senate and forced from office in any event.

That those on the partisan right 'think' or 'believe' the president violated any laws does not constitute 'evidence.'

That those on the partisan right 'think' or 'believe' the president is not faithfully executing the duties of the office of president is not legitimate grounds for 'impeachment.'

And that those on the partisan right merely disagree with the president's policies or how he's pursuing those policies is also not legitimate grounds for 'impeachment.'

The president failed to carry out the oath of office, faithfully discharging the laws of the United States. He failed to enforce DOMA. He failed to enforce immigration law. He failed to implement Obamacare. On numerous occasions he indicated he would not enforce some provision of other.
He obstructed justice in the IRS scandal. He violated the law in the Bowe Bergdahl scandal.
That is not his purview. That is a violation of separation of powers. That is a high crime and misdemeanor exactly equivalent to what Nixon did.

The President does not personally enforce laws, should his appointees fail to do so, there is a remedy for that, it is not impeachment.

Wow going to defend Obama like a good far left soldier..

 

[Kosh]

Well for the far left members of the board I guess this needs to be posted:

The Constitution for Kids (Kindergarten - 3rd Grade) - The U.S. Constitution Online - USConstitution.net

 

[Peach]

The president failed to carry out the oath of office, faithfully discharging the laws of the United States. He failed to enforce DOMA. He failed to enforce immigration law. He failed to implement Obamacare. On numerous occasions he indicated he would not enforce some provision of other.
He obstructed justice in the IRS scandal. He violated the law in the Bowe Bergdahl scandal.
That is not his purview. That is a violation of separation of powers. That is a high crime and misdemeanor exactly equivalent to what Nixon did.

The President does not personally enforce laws, should his appointees fail to do so, there is a remedy for that, it is not impeachment.

He is the chief executive. He is responsible for enforcing laws. Period.

Actually, the executive has enumerated powers, but also the authority to delegate.
See Pierce V. United States, 74 US 666 (1869)

 

[The Rabbi]

The President does not personally enforce laws, should his appointees fail to do so, there is a remedy for that, it is not impeachment.

He is the chief executive. He is responsible for enforcing laws. Period.

Actually, the executive has enumerated powers, but also the authority to delegate.
See Pierce V. United States, 74 US 666 (1869)

That does not negate my argument.
Thanks.