Impeachment

[Remodeling Maidiac]

There is so much talk about this floating around I thought I would throw this out there for opinions.

Unless and until convincing evidence is shown to the people of this country I believe such an action would do terrible damage to our political system. Possibly entrench it in total partisanship for a decade or more. It would cause a rift like never seen in this country imo

Obama's little story about Benghazi is pathetic but certainly not grounds for this action. For me to support it I would need to see CLEAR evidence of intent to neglect his responsibilities. That evidence may in fact exist but I haven't seen it. If Obama did wrong by the constitution then let the chips fall where they may but I don't want to see our system fall to the level of trying to impeach presidents simply because we don't like them.

I am not interested in picking sides but rather just trying to be objective.

 

[jwoodie]

If Obama was a Republican, his impeachment trial would already be underway. His offenses are 1) election fraud by deliberately disseminating false information under color of his official authority and 2) obstruction of an official investigation by concealment of relevant information.

His defense will be "plausible deniability," i.e., he didn't know and wasn't told what was going on. The sad thing is that, in his case, it may be true.

 

[konradv]

If Obama was a Republican, his impeachment trial would already be underway. His offenses are 1) election fraud by deliberately disseminating false information under color of his official authority and 2) obstruction of an official investigation by concealment of relevant information.

His defense will be "plausible deniability," i.e., he didn't know and wasn't told what was going on. The sad thing is that, in his case, it may be true.

B.S. Was Reagan impeached? Was Bush? They both were accused of lying and telling stories that proved later to be not true.

 

[Mr. H.]

No amount of "convincing evidence" can touch this President. He was a lost cause before he set foot into the White House. But he just happens to represent everything near and dear to Liberals and they won't give him up for anything.

 

[WillowTree]

I haven't decided yay or nay yet.

but,,


fast and furious and the cover up including using executive privilege

Benghazi

his wanton pissing away of taxpayers money

his politics of division along racial, economic and class lines




don't put him in a favorable light in my opinion.

 

[healthmyths]

If Obama was a Republican, his impeachment trial would already be underway. His offenses are 1) election fraud by deliberately disseminating false information under color of his official authority and 2) obstruction of an official investigation by concealment of relevant information.

His defense will be "plausible deniability," i.e., he didn't know and wasn't told what was going on. The sad thing is that, in his case, it may be true.

B.S. Was Reagan impeached? Was Bush? They both were accused of lying and telling stories that proved later to be not true.

True. But neither Reagan/Bush did so for personal re-election.
Reagan/Bush did so to protect the USA.
Obama's LIE was to maintain the ruse the War on Terrorism was over thanks to his personal killing of Osama.
By blaming Benghazi on a video deflection of the truth that Obama's ineptitude in protecting Americans kept one aspect of the phony president viable, i.e.
"tough on terrorism"! How many bumper stickers were printed saying "Osama Dead, GM alive" paid by Obama's re-election campaign?

So while Reagan/Bush may have based on underlings /CIA/ official agencies pushing information that was wrong... none of Reagan/Bush's actions were
to advance their political careers! I mean Reagan/Bush were re-elected before their supposed lies occurred. Obama was campaigning hard. Actually
went out the next day for campaign forgetting the serious deadly Benghazi event.. Obama put his re-election above Americans safety.

 

[regent]

If Obama was a Republican, his impeachment trial would already be underway. His offenses are 1) election fraud by deliberately disseminating false information under color of his official authority and 2) obstruction of an official investigation by concealment of relevant information.

His defense will be "plausible deniability," i.e., he didn't know and wasn't told what was going on. The sad thing is that, in his case, it may be true.

B.S. Was Reagan impeached? Was Bush? They both were accused of lying and telling stories that proved later to be not true.

So far only two presidents have been impeached and both impeachments were Republican deeds. Impeachment talk now seems to be the only response Republicans have for Democratic presidents that have been elected twice and seem popular with the American people. I don't even remember Democrats talking impeachment when Reagan lost 241 Marines in Lebanon on a peace keeping mission. To his credit Reagan did pull the marines out and then invaded Grenada.

 

[konradv]

If Obama was a Republican, his impeachment trial would already be underway. His offenses are 1) election fraud by deliberately disseminating false information under color of his official authority and 2) obstruction of an official investigation by concealment of relevant information.

His defense will be "plausible deniability," i.e., he didn't know and wasn't told what was going on. The sad thing is that, in his case, it may be true.

B.S. Was Reagan impeached? Was Bush? They both were accused of lying and telling stories that proved later to be not true.

True. But neither Reagan/Bush did so for personal re-election.
Reagan/Bush did so to protect the USA.

What about "stories that later proved to be untrue" don't you understand? Lying to cover up that you sold weapons to Iran or lying about WMDs to get us into a war, seem a lot worse than anything you're alleging.

 

[BreezeWood]

this is silly .... Republicans might try - WMD 9 year Iraqi war.

 

[Darkwind]

B.S. Was Reagan impeached? Was Bush? They both were accused of lying and telling stories that proved later to be not true.

True. But neither Reagan/Bush did so for personal re-election.
Reagan/Bush did so to protect the USA.

What about "stories that later proved to be untrue" don't you understand? Lying to cover up that you sold weapons to Iran or lying about WMDs to get us into a war, seem a lot worse than anything you're alleging.

Because they are talking points, not truths.

 

[kiwiman127]

If Obama was a Republican, his impeachment trial would already be underway. His offenses are 1) election fraud by deliberately disseminating false information under color of his official authority and 2) obstruction of an official investigation by concealment of relevant information.

His defense will be "plausible deniability," i.e., he didn't know and wasn't told what was going on. The sad thing is that, in his case, it may be true.

Partisan bullshit

 

[FA_Q2]

What has Obama done that calls for impeachment?

Nothing at all. Look, he is a terrible president but lying to the American people is a president’s national pastime, hardly something that is impeachable for. Obama has done nothing that would rate illegal on the scale required to call for impeachment.

 

[konradv]

True. But neither Reagan/Bush did so for personal re-election.
Reagan/Bush did so to protect the USA.

What about "stories that later proved to be untrue" don't you understand? Lying to cover up that you sold weapons to Iran or lying about WMDs to get us into a war, seem a lot worse than anything you're alleging.

Because they are talking points, not truths.

Talking points? People went to jail over Iran-contra and those WMDs would be where?

 

[bendog]

imo today's gop simply misunderstands the notion of impeachment. There's no doubt or meas of denying that the gop in 2000 manipulated the 2000 election, and ended up having to sign a consent decree to let blacks back on voter roles, even while W was potus.

Only those in denial still contend W didn't lie about womd for political purposes.

yet, impeaching a potus for lying in a deposition that involved actions taken that were personnel and not related to official duties is somehow OK.

Impeachment was debated and impossibly ambiguous because the framers were very conscious about creating a monarch, and their view of a potus' power was probably more limited that what emerged. But it has to go to some official act. Possibly it requiers explcitly flouting the will of congress. Probably, it would apply to a situation of a potus got convicted of somehting (like tax fraud) and had to do hard time that prevented him from serving.

What's the worst Obama could have done? Told his minions to play down terrorism and try and hide facts till the storm died down? Mon Dieu. Lincoln suspended habeus. FDR expressly flouted neutrality laws. LBJ lied us into a war.

Reagan expressly endorsed getting around laws (Bowlen amendment) by sending arms to Iran via Israel. There were murmers but nothing really happened ... though Cap Weinberger went through a wringer. Of course some of the more nefarious follks like Ledeen resurfaced for Bushii's debacle.

SNL nailed it. The gop lost an election, so they got together to pretend they won, and it's working for them.

I suspect Obama's popularity may take a hit though. I think the gop's really trying to target Hill.

 

[Avatar4321]

Id like to see all the facts first. I dont believe in impeachment simply because I disagree with someone. Im also not exactly thrilled about the idea of VP Biden having control of any sort of nuclear missles.

 

[jwoodie]

For some on this board, winning reelection is all that matters. Nice.

 

[Uncensored2008]

imo today's gop simply misunderstands the notion of impeachment. There's no doubt or meas of denying that the gop in 2000 manipulated the 2000 election, and ended up having to sign a consent decree to let blacks back on voter roles, even while W was potus.

You just kind of live off in a fantasy world that has no connection at all with reality, doncha?

Only those in denial still contend W didn't lie about womd for political purposes.

So, if Obama turns quickly, he'll snap your neck, won't he? I mean, with your head shoved so far up his ass and all...

yet, impeaching a potus for lying in a deposition that involved actions taken that were personnel and not related to official duties is somehow OK.

Yeah, "personal" like causing the death of a U.S. Ambassador.

Nothing to see here, Obama Akbar.

Impeachment was debated and impossibly ambiguous because the framers were very conscious about creating a monarch, and their view of a potus' power was probably more limited that what emerged. But it has to go to some official act. Possibly it requiers explcitly flouting the will of congress. Probably, it would apply to a situation of a potus got convicted of somehting (like tax fraud) and had to do hard time that prevented him from serving.

Well, not exactly.

{Section. 4.

The President, Vice President and all civil Officers of the United States, shall be removed from Office on Impeachment for, and Conviction of, Treason, Bribery, or other high Crimes and Misdemeanors. }

You know, like falsifying the facts on an operation that leaves the U.S. Ambassador dead.

What's the worst Obama could have done?

Murdered a 16 year old American citizen.

Ah, but you don't worry about that - BOOOOSSSHHHH

 

[boilermaker55]

More right wing hysteria to change the subject and try to convince others of the lies they tell.

If Obama was a Republican, his impeachment trial would already be underway. His offenses are 1) election fraud by deliberately disseminating false information under color of his official authority and 2) obstruction of an official investigation by concealment of relevant information.

His defense will be "plausible deniability," i.e., he didn't know and wasn't told what was going on. The sad thing is that, in his case, it may be true.

B.S. Was Reagan impeached? Was Bush? They both were accused of lying and telling stories that proved later to be not true.

 

[jwoodie]

What is so hard to grasp about malfeasance for personal/political gain? You can bash Reagan and Bush all you want, but they weren't motivated for that reason. You can cite Nixon if you want to, although you probably don't know that the purpose of the Watergate break in was to document illegal campaign contributions from Cuba.

P.S. Enough with the BS about "stealing" the 2000 election or "lying" about WMD's. There is zero credible evidence to support these fantasies.

 

[Sallow]

If Obama was a Republican, his impeachment trial would already be underway. His offenses are 1) election fraud by deliberately disseminating false information under color of his official authority and 2) obstruction of an official investigation by concealment of relevant information.

His defense will be "plausible deniability," i.e., he didn't know and wasn't told what was going on. The sad thing is that, in his case, it may be true.

Bullshit.

No Republican President has ever been impeached.

And "plausible deniability" was a phrase coined by the Treasonous Traitor, Ronald Reagan.