Is There a Serious Discussion about Impeachment?

[TemplarKormac]

Templar - Your list is simply a list of decisions that you disagree with. Disagreeing with you is not a crime (or I'd be on death row). POTUS is legally empowered to make those calls. 2 & 10 - might have some legs, IF you can nail it all down with evidence and actual violations.

IMHO

And your retort is simply nothing but a lack of an argument. A simple disagreement and opinion.

Please come at me when you can rebut the list.

 

[Oldguy]

"Did the President" is a question, not a charge.

Once you can prove the President "DID" do those things, get back to us.

How do you expect the question, "Did the President..." to get answered if those with the authority to ask are prevented from doing so?

Prevented from doing so? What on earth prevents Congress or the DOJ or anybody else from investigating anything?

For the sake of your enlightenment (which you appear to desperately need) an article of impeachment is a CHARGE laid against the President. It is NOT investigatory in nature and, in fact, should flow FROM an investigation. It is NOT a list of unanswered questions.

 

[nodoginnafight]

Templar - Your list is simply a list of decisions that you disagree with. Disagreeing with you is not a crime (or I'd be on death row). POTUS is legally empowered to make those calls. 2 & 10 - might have some legs, IF you can nail it all down with evidence and actual violations.

IMHO

And your retort is simply nothing but a lack of an argument. A simple disagreement and opinion. A simple disagreement.

Please come at me when you can rebut the list.

You are obviuously under the delusion that it takes more than a few words to dismiss your silly list.

Who's next?

 

[nodoginnafight]

The same charge that was against Richard Nixon. Abuse of Power.

Nixon was charged with obstruction of justice for failing to turn over White House tape recordings that were subpoenaed

As with the monumental misrepresentation of why President Clinton was impeached (hint: it wasn't just because he cheated on Hillary with an intern and lied about it), the Left likes to overgeneralize that Nixon was impeached (or was headed for impeachment) just over his cover up of a third rate burglary.

There was an Article 2 and Article 3 contained in the Articles of Impeachment drawn up against Nixon. Two dealt with his use of the IRS to attack his political opponents and three dealt with his obstruction of justice -- specifically by failing to produce requested documents.

Well, if the IRS scandal is ever tied back to the White House, I think it just might be an identical "high crime or misdemeanor" for which Nixon faced impeachment. And, considering the foot-dragging in which this administration has engaged on just about every controversy emerging since he took office, he may be competing with Nixon over a similar Article 3.

Nixon Articles of Impeachment

OK, when you have some evidence of a crime, let's talk.

Your idea that a crime "MAY" have been commited just isn't gonna cut it. (btw: if you've read my posts - you've seen that I do not oversell the Nixon impeachment proceeding and justifications nor do I undersell the Clinton impeachment.

Clinton commited a crime. It doesn't matter that he commited a crime in response to non-stop harassment and lied in response to a question that there was no legal justification for asking.

He had other options at his disposal and he picked the illegal one. And there is no argument about that imho.

 

[TemplarKormac]

Not a single impeachable charge in the lot.

Oh, did you read it? Or are you going to sit there and tell me what isn't impeachable under the law?

Who does the Federal Government report to? Yes, the President. Violating the Constitution is an impeachable offense in and of itself! Arbitrarily breaking Federal Law is a cause for Impeachment. Going to war without prior approval from Congress is impeachable. Lying to Congress is actually covered under Federal Law, and is an impeachable offense. Performing the regulatory actions of Congress on commerce is also an impeachable offense.

You can't deny it. It's all there.

Of ccourse I can deny it. It's rubbish. I read everything you listed and not a single one of them is an impeachable act. Your argument is silly. Basically, you are saying that if you don't agree with a policy or you think something is against the law, then we should remove the President of the United States. Beyond silly.

This is why the Constitution places it in the hands of the Congress. It is hoped that they will place the good of the country over petty differences.

So you can't refute it. Merely calling it "rubbish" is not a refutatory argument.

 

[PratchettFan]

"Did the President" is a question, not a charge.

Once you can prove the President "DID" do those things, get back to us.

How do you expect the question, "Did the President..." to get answered if those with the authority to ask are prevented from doing so?

How exactly is the Congress prevented from asking questions?

 

[TemplarKormac]

Templar - Your list is simply a list of decisions that you disagree with. Disagreeing with you is not a crime (or I'd be on death row). POTUS is legally empowered to make those calls. 2 & 10 - might have some legs, IF you can nail it all down with evidence and actual violations.

IMHO

And your retort is simply nothing but a lack of an argument. A simple disagreement and opinion. A simple disagreement.

Please come at me when you can rebut the list.

You are obviuously under the delusion that it takes more than a few words to dismiss your silly list.

Who's next?

Look at you. Doing nothing to dismiss my argument. Lets see some empirical refutation of my argument. Let's go hot shot!

 

[nodoginnafight]

Oh, did you read it? Or are you going to sit there and tell me what isn't impeachable under the law?

Who does the Federal Government report to? Yes, the President. Violating the Constitution is an impeachable offense in and of itself! Arbitrarily breaking Federal Law is a cause for Impeachment. Going to war without prior approval from Congress is impeachable. Lying to Congress is actually covered under Federal Law, and is an impeachable offense. Performing the regulatory actions of Congress on commerce is also an impeachable offense.

You can't deny it. It's all there.

Of ccourse I can deny it. It's rubbish. I read everything you listed and not a single one of them is an impeachable act. Your argument is silly. Basically, you are saying that if you don't agree with a policy or you think something is against the law, then we should remove the President of the United States. Beyond silly.

This is why the Constitution places it in the hands of the Congress. It is hoped that they will place the good of the country over petty differences.

So you can't refute it. Merely calling it "rubbish" is not a refutatory argument.

There are no accusations in your list. You simply list an article of the constitution and then claim Obama violated it. You provide nothing at all to support any of your claims.

Do you seriously expect a serious discussion when you don't provide anything to discuss?

I'll come back later and check to see if you managed to come up with something to discuss.

 

[Liberaservative]

"Did the President" is a question, not a charge.

Once you can prove the President "DID" do those things, get back to us.

How do you expect the question, "Did the President..." to get answered if those with the authority to ask are prevented from doing so?

How exactly is the Congress prevented from asking questions?

The administration has been less than accommodating when approached by Congress on any of the three principal controversies but, going back to Fast and Furious -- they refused to make the involved ATFE employees available for testimony and invoked executive privilege -- on up to the Benghazi attack where they've sequestered for months many of the survivors of that attack, and, as Gregory Hicks testified, tried to control his discussions with Congress. And, Now, AG Holder is refusing to appoint a Special Prosecutor for the IRS debacle.

Stonewalling is the same as preventing Congress from doing conducting its oversight responsibilities.

 

[TemplarKormac]

Of ccourse I can deny it. It's rubbish. I read everything you listed and not a single one of them is an impeachable act. Your argument is silly. Basically, you are saying that if you don't agree with a policy or you think something is against the law, then we should remove the President of the United States. Beyond silly.

This is why the Constitution places it in the hands of the Congress. It is hoped that they will place the good of the country over petty differences.

So you can't refute it. Merely calling it "rubbish" is not a refutatory argument.

There are no accusations in your list. You simply list an article of the constitution and then claim Obama violated it. You provide nothing at all to support any of your claims.

Do you seriously expect a serious discussion when you don't provide anything to discuss?

I'll come back later and check to see if you managed to come up with something to discuss.

Or you can Google them like I did.

Simple enough, right?

 

[PratchettFan]

Oh, did you read it? Or are you going to sit there and tell me what isn't impeachable under the law?

Who does the Federal Government report to? Yes, the President. Violating the Constitution is an impeachable offense in and of itself! Arbitrarily breaking Federal Law is a cause for Impeachment. Going to war without prior approval from Congress is impeachable. Lying to Congress is actually covered under Federal Law, and is an impeachable offense. Performing the regulatory actions of Congress on commerce is also an impeachable offense.

You can't deny it. It's all there.

Of ccourse I can deny it. It's rubbish. I read everything you listed and not a single one of them is an impeachable act. Your argument is silly. Basically, you are saying that if you don't agree with a policy or you think something is against the law, then we should remove the President of the United States. Beyond silly.

This is why the Constitution places it in the hands of the Congress. It is hoped that they will place the good of the country over petty differences.

So you can't refute it. Merely calling it "rubbish" is not a refutatory argument.

No. It's just a statement of fact. It's rubbish. In the entire list you provided there is not one impeachable act.

Let me give you an example of just how nonsensical, and one sided, your position is. You claim "Who does the Federal Government report to? Yes, the President. "

Scooter Libby, the COS of VP Cheney was convicted of a felony. Not just accused, convicted. Now, he was part of the Bush Administration and clearly came in direct contact with the President. He wasn't just a low level employee who would never see, let alone consult with, the President. So why, if what you say is true and not one sided, why did you not call for the conviction of Bush and Cheney? Were they not equally guilty since Libby reported to them? Why aren't you calling for it now? The statute of limitations has not run out.

 

[nodoginnafight]

So you can't refute it. Merely calling it "rubbish" is not a refutatory argument.

There are no accusations in your list. You simply list an article of the constitution and then claim Obama violated it. You provide nothing at all to support any of your claims.

Do you seriously expect a serious discussion when you don't provide anything to discuss?

I'll come back later and check to see if you managed to come up with something to discuss.

Or you can Google them like I did.

Simple enough, right?

So you are asking ME to make your case for you?

For example - please provide evidence that Obama has illegally granted amnesty to 11 million illegal immigrants as you charge.

 

[Liberaservative]

In the entire list you provided there is not one impeachable act.

Are you suggesting that unless an event emerges with 100% of the facts known and showing the President committed an impeachable offense, it should just be dropped?

Nothing is an impeachable offense until the person facing impeachment is attached to the offense. Typically, officials subject to impeachment do their damnedest to conceal their involvement in impeachable offenses until an investigation makes it clear they, in fact, did commit such a high crime or misdemeanor.

For you to declare "there is not one impeachable act," ignores the fact that many of the events mentioned are still open questions being investigated so, your declaration of Obama's innocence is a bit premature, wouldn't you agree?

Would you at least allow it's possible Obama has committed an impeachable offense.

 

[nodoginnafight]

How do you expect the question, "Did the President..." to get answered if those with the authority to ask are prevented from doing so?

How exactly is the Congress prevented from asking questions?

The administration has been less than accommodating when approached by Congress on any of the three principal controversies but, going back to Fast and Furious -- they refused to make the involved ATFE employees available for testimony and invoked executive privilege -- on up to the Benghazi attack where they've sequestered for months many of the survivors of that attack, and, as Gregory Hicks testified, tried to control his discussions with Congress. And, Now, AG Holder is refusing to appoint a Special Prosecutor for the IRS debacle.

Stonewalling is the same as preventing Congress from doing conducting its oversight responsibilities.

I can understand and appreciate your position. If "stonewalling" reaches the point where it meets the legal definition of obstruction of justice, then yes, as in the Nixon case, I believe it is impeachable.

So if and when you can establish that threshold, you may have an actual case. I'll be watching and listening.

 

[Liberaservative]

How exactly is the Congress prevented from asking questions?

The administration has been less than accommodating when approached by Congress on any of the three principal controversies but, going back to Fast and Furious -- they refused to make the involved ATFE employees available for testimony and invoked executive privilege -- on up to the Benghazi attack where they've sequestered for months many of the survivors of that attack, and, as Gregory Hicks testified, tried to control his discussions with Congress. And, Now, AG Holder is refusing to appoint a Special Prosecutor for the IRS debacle.

Stonewalling is the same as preventing Congress from doing conducting its oversight responsibilities.

I can understand and appreciate your position. If "stonewalling" reaches the point where it meets the legal definition of obstruction of justice, then yes, as in the Nixon case, I believe it is impeachable.

So if and when you can establish that threshold, you may have an actual case. I'll be watching and listening.

As will I.

 

[TemplarKormac]

Of ccourse I can deny it. It's rubbish. I read everything you listed and not a single one of them is an impeachable act. Your argument is silly. Basically, you are saying that if you don't agree with a policy or you think something is against the law, then we should remove the President of the United States. Beyond silly.

This is why the Constitution places it in the hands of the Congress. It is hoped that they will place the good of the country over petty differences.

So you can't refute it. Merely calling it "rubbish" is not a refutatory argument.

No. It's just a statement of fact. It's rubbish. In the entire list you provided there is not one impeachable act.

Let me give you an example of just how nonsensical, and one sided, your position is. You claim "Who does the Federal Government report to? Yes, the President. "

Scooter Libby, the COS of VP Cheney was convicted of a felony. Not just accused, convicted. Now, he was part of the Bush Administration and clearly came in direct contact with the President. He wasn't just a low level employee who would never see, let alone consult with, the President. So why, if what you say is true and not one sided, why did you not call for the conviction of Bush and Cheney? Were they not equally guilty since Libby reported to them? Why aren't you calling for it now? The statute of limitations has not run out.

As the old saying goes: "You are entitled to your own opinions, not your own facts."

 

[nodoginnafight]

In the entire list you provided there is not one impeachable act.

Are you suggesting that unless an event emerges with 100% of the facts known and showing the President committed an impeachable offense, it should just be dropped?

Nothing is an impeachable offense until the person facing impeachment is attached to the offense. Typically, officials subject to impeachment do their damnedest to conceal their involvement in impeachable offenses until an investigation makes it clear they, in fact, did commit such a high crime or misdemeanor.

For you to declare "there is not one impeachable act," ignores the fact that many of the events mentioned are still open questions being investigated so, your declaration of Obama's innocence is a bit premature, wouldn't you agree?

Would you at least allow it's possible Obama has committed an impeachable offense.

Not directed at me, but I would like to weigh in with my position on the questions you raise if that's Ok.

My position is that I agree that you have to investigate to determine the facts BEFORE you can form an informed opinion about whether or not the president has commited illegal acts. But right now, those who are beating the impeachment drum are handicapped by a "boy who cried wolf" reaction.

Non-stop accusations, non-stop investigations, and a litany of one claim after another engenders an understandable "oh please, not again," reaction.

For example, no amount of evidence to the contrary seemed to phase the birthers. I believe it is a very legitimate question to ask - is this just an extension of that kind of harassment?

My personal opinion is that it is a poor way to correct an election that you disagree with to just continually make unsupported accusations and demand an wide, unfocused investigation in the hopes that it will turn up something. It is becoming a standard operating procedure for many on both sides of the aisle and I believe it is to the detriment of the people who elect those who serve.

Bottom line: If a real crime has been commited by any elected official, then I believe we should enforce our laws even-handedly and without regard to political ideology. I'm just sick to death of opposition by accusation and investigation - by EVERYONE who does it.

 

[Crackerjaxon]

What's the likelihood that a Democrat-controlled Senate would vote to convict?

On what charge?
Are you asking for a conviction without a criminal charge?
If so, I would hope NO ONE would vote to convict.

There doesn't have to be a criminal charge. The House simply has to find him unworthy of office due to high crimes and misdemeanors. We're not talking about criminal court here.

It isn't a crime for you to lie to the American people. It should certainly be grounds for removal from high office, shouldn't it?

 

[nodoginnafight]

Source: ImpeachObamaCampaign.com & World Net Daily News

Has Obama committed “high crimes and misdemeanors” that warrant impeachment and removal? There is much evidence that says, yes, he has.

Impeachment of the president is justified on constitutional grounds if any of the following 12 questions is answered in the affirmative:

■Did President Obama have personal knowledge of the illegal “Fast and Furious” project run by ATF and approved by top officials in the Department of Justice, a plan to sell over 2,000 guns to Mexican drug cartels, weapons now linked to numerous crimes on both sides of the border including the murder of Border Patrol Agent Brian Terry?


■Did the president have knowledge of the ongoing effort by Attorney General Eric Holder and other Justice Department officials to cover up the true purpose and scope of that ill-conceived, illegal project?


■Did the president direct his appointees on the National Labor Relations Board to bring a lawsuit against Boeing as a political payoff to organized labor?


■Did the president act contrary to the advice and pleas of his own CIA director, four previous intelligence agency heads of both parties and numerous experts on covert operations when, on April 16, 2009, he made public four internal Justice Department memos on terrorist interrogation techniques, thereby deliberately emasculating our anti-terrorist intelligence operations and endangering the lives of many intelligence agents?


■Did the president have knowledge of a plan by the Department of Homeland Security, ordered by Homeland Security chief Janet Napolitano and the deputy commissioner of U.S. Customs and Border Patrol, David Aguilar, to distort and falsify the Border Patrol’s southwest border illegal-alien apprehension numbers by means of a deliberate, planned undercount – for the purpose of misleading the public and Congress about the true (abysmal) state of border security?


■By choosing not to secure the border against unlawful entry, has the president willfully disregarded his clear duty under Article IV, Section 4, of the Constitution to protect the states from foreign invasion? Did the president admit this in a candid exchange with Sen. Jon Kyl, telling him the reason he was not stopping the cross-border human trafficking was to force Republicans in Congress to strike a deal for amnesty legislation?


■Is the president showing contempt for the Constitution, the separation of powers and the rule of law by ordering an “administrative amnesty” for millions of illegal aliens through the implementation of the John Morton memo of June 2011?


■Has the president demonstrated contempt for the Constitution and violated the separation of powers by issuing numerous executive orders and agency rules that have no basis in statute and often contradict congressional votes against such actions?


■Did the president authorize Labor Secretary Hilda Solis to violate current federal laws against aiding and abetting illegal aliens by signing agreements with foreign countries and pledging to protect and fund educational efforts to inform illegal aliens of their workplace “rights”? Also did these “agreements” she signed with foreign countries violate Article II, Section 2, of the Constitution which clearly establishes the manner in which treaties are to be undertaken and ratified?


■Did the president violate his oath of office when he instructed the Department of Justice not to defend the Defense of Marriage Act in federal courts? Does the Constitution permit the person designated by Article II, Section 1, as holding the “executive power” of government to decide unilaterally to not enforce a law he disagrees with?


■Did the president authorize or approve the offer of a federal job to Rep. Joe Sestek if he would withdraw from the 2010 Democratic primary race for U.S. senator in Pennsylvania?


■Did the president violate the War Powers Act by conducting military operations in Libya beyond the 60-day limitation?

Impeach Obama Campaign ? To Save America

"Did the President" is a question, not a charge.

Once you can prove the President "DID" do those things, get back to us.

When you can answer those questions, when you can prove that he "DIDN'T" do those things, get back to us.

Guilty until proven innocent?
Move to China - you'd like it better there.

 

[TemplarKormac]

There are no accusations in your list. You simply list an article of the constitution and then claim Obama violated it. You provide nothing at all to support any of your claims.

Do you seriously expect a serious discussion when you don't provide anything to discuss?

I'll come back later and check to see if you managed to come up with something to discuss.

Or you can Google them like I did.

Simple enough, right?

So you are asking ME to make your case for you?

For example - please provide evidence that Obama has illegally granted amnesty to 11 million illegal immigrants as you charge.

Well you refuse to make your own.

Immigration bill grants amnesty to employers of illegals; no prosecution for bogus IDs - Washington Times