Is There a Serious Discussion about Impeachment?

[nodoginnafight]

Templar: If you had just admited that you were wrong about the amnesty claim, I'd accept your points with much less skepticism. When you make up a wild story about planting one of your 22 charges just to have it destroyed so you could then produce the REAL charge, you present yourself as someone who makes up cock and bull stories to pursue your agenda.

And if you are a person who has demonstrated a prediliction for cock and bull stories, then why should I pay any attention to you at all?

Everyone makes mistakes. That's nothing to be ashamed of. It is how someone responds when confronted with their mistake that determines credibility. I will give you props in that subsequent posts have been more reasonable. But forgive me if I still have a bit of a memory that causes me to hesitate.

Actually, I was playing on your irrationality. Then again I was having fun throwing stupid GOP claims at you which I myself have no inkling of taking seriously.

They weren't destroyed. In fact I spent three hours researching each of them. What I want you do do is refute each and every one of them. You have a predilection for dismissing my claims but not doing any research or fact checking of your own. I love how you pulled you dismissals right out of your backside.

Refute all 22 charges. If you refuse, then you lose this argument, and such a refusal will speak to your credibility, not mine. Plainly put.

Just digging deeper templar. You posted false claims in order to play on MY irrationality????

The reason the dismissal didn't take long is because it was so easy. Your claims are so easily debunked, they crumble like a cheap cookie under the most cursory of glances. I've tried to treat you with respect in the hopes that you would eventually earn it.

But it's not looking too good.

 

[Liberaservative]

Liberservative:
I won't bog things down by repeating your entire post. But I will say that in my previous post I zeroed in on what I believe the legitimate questions are. You add some questions about Benghazi - but as I understand the situation, I can't find a basis to claim criminal activity.

I believe some of the misinformation was testified to, under oath, before Congress.

I acknowledge the existence of legitimate questions. I think you have to acknowledge just how understandable an "oh please, not AGAIN!" reaction is. The Boy Who Cried Wolf syndrome - is completely understandable given the non-stop litany of attacks and accusations that have been hurled (non-stop) at this POTUS from day one.

The goal for many is not to enforce law - it is to cripple a POTUS they disagree with. That is undeniable and if Now, they pay the price by having legitimate concerns ignored, they can only blame themselves imho.

I will admit no one would be happier than I if this President's agenda were stopped dead in its tracks but, that's just a happy coincidence to holding him accountable for the misdeeds of his administration.

And, the "non-stop litany of attacks," for the most part, were all instigated by actions by the President or his subordinates.

Fast and Furious? Remember when President Obama and Janet Napolitano stood on the border, in El Paso, and blamed the violence in Mexico on guns smuggled across from the United States? Well, not only was that an extreme exaggeration (most weapons used by the drug cartels are smuggled from Central and South America) but, we subsequently found out the Obama administration was facilitation the smuggling of weapons from the United States to Mexico. C'mon, even you have to say WTF on that one.

We could itemize every incidence where you would claim witch hunt and I would claim legitimate investigation but, can we concentrate on the scandals at hand? And, in those, it is apparent to me the administration is trying to hide something. Otherwise, why would they lie?

You raise some good points. But to just brush off the constant barage of wild and unsupported claims and insist "no this time there really IS something"...

But, I thought there "really [WAS] something" on many of the other occasions, as well.

...and expect it to be accepted on its face, is unrealistic to the point of .... well, I will just say it demands an assumption of credibility that has not been earned.

In the case of Benghazi, all the accusers are Democrat and members of this administration; so, if you're suggesting their credibility is questionable, I see your point.

Given the dishonesty and extreme exaggeration that you ask we forget about in order to seriously consider new accusations, it is hard to accept that a desire to hold this POTUS harshly accountable for dishonesty and extreme exaggeration is not politically motivated. It would be easier to accept the sincerity of the accusations if so many of the accusers had not engaged in the same type of behavior that is now being called into question.

So you're willing to ignore the dishonesty we both agree occurred on Benghazi and the IRS scandal because, arguably, you say Obama has been the victim of dishonest and extremely exaggerated accusations in the pass? Well, if I were to stipulate that were true -- which I don't because, I'm not aware of any dishonesty or extreme exaggeration that must be forgotten in order to take the current allegations seriously. They're serious on their face and should be apparent to any reasonable person.

That being said, if laws have been broken then prove it and I'll be on board with justice being administered.

It's interesting you put the burden of proof on opponents. Why not join the demand for justice? Do you believe this administration is hiding something with respect to Benghazi? Do you believe this administration is hiding something with respect to the IRS scandal?

If so, join the demand for accountability. If not, defend them instead of taking the position of a bystander until I prove to you there's been criminality before you'll be "on board."

Your persistence in this vein suggests you believe the President has done nothing wrong in either of the scandals. If that's the case, say so. But, I would then ask you why the President's official spokesperson stood before a room full of journalists and lied about the extent and motivation behind the changes to the talking points on Benghazi. I would ask you why the President sent his Ambassador to the United Nations on the Sunday Morning talk-fest to advance a narrative he knew wasn't true and, in fact, wasn't even one of the scenarios contemplated by the anyone with direct knowledge of the attacks.

Those are legitimate questions to which any American should demand answers ... regardless of how maligned you believe this President to have been in the past.

Same goes for the IRS scandal. There are questions the President should answer but, specifically, about why the public and media are having to pull teeth to find out that what happened was directed at a federal level and not the acts of rogue employees in Ohio.

That the administration knowingly misled or allowed misinformation about the scope of the scandal to persist until it was disproved by the media is inexcusable.

Let me know when you're on board or when you have a counter argument to the allegations.

Cheers.

 

[TemplarKormac]

The response was delayed, and no e-mails were deleted that I know of.

If that proves true then I don't believe there is anything impeachable that has come out about Benghazi. Something about witness tampering kind of charges MAY crop up at some point, but it doesn't look very likely right now.

As for the letters, I don't doubt it. However it's quite telling when a Liberal 501 (c) (4) tax exempt is expedited over a Conservative one. It doesn't matter what was sent to who in this regard.

Oh I believe it does matter what was sent to who. A blanket review of all politically active organizations and their compliance with code is a very different thing than using the IRS to target political opponents.

Again, as far as I can see, there is going to have to be something new in order to justify impeachment.

I personally don't believe he will be impeached. I think there is an outside possibility, but it's remote at best. This was no blanket review when it flat out admitted to targeting Conservative c4s last week. If it had been doing it to both sides we probably wouldn't have heard a peep. And such behavior was inconsistent with code.

"Under no circumstances will the Internal Revenue Service tolerate discrimination by its employees, grantees, contractors, and/or subcontractors. NO ONE shall be excluded from participating in, be denied the benefits of, or be subject to discrimination because of: race, color, sex, national origin, disability, reprisal, or age in programs or activities funded by the Department of Treasury"

Taxpayer Rights

IRS 501 (c)
Protection of non public personal information.
Sec. 6801
(b)
(3)
(3) to protect against unauthorized access to or use of such records or information which could result in substantial harm or inconvenience to any customer.

 

[TemplarKormac]

Templar: If you had just admited that you were wrong about the amnesty claim, I'd accept your points with much less skepticism. When you make up a wild story about planting one of your 22 charges just to have it destroyed so you could then produce the REAL charge, you present yourself as someone who makes up cock and bull stories to pursue your agenda.

And if you are a person who has demonstrated a prediliction for cock and bull stories, then why should I pay any attention to you at all?

Everyone makes mistakes. That's nothing to be ashamed of. It is how someone responds when confronted with their mistake that determines credibility. I will give you props in that subsequent posts have been more reasonable. But forgive me if I still have a bit of a memory that causes me to hesitate.

Actually, I was playing on your irrationality. Then again I was having fun throwing stupid GOP claims at you which I myself have no inkling of taking seriously.

They weren't destroyed. In fact I spent three hours researching each of them. What I want you do do is refute each and every one of them. You have a predilection for dismissing my claims but not doing any research or fact checking of your own. I love how you pulled you dismissals right out of your backside.

Refute all 22 charges. If you refuse, then you lose this argument, and such a refusal will speak to your credibility, not mine. Plainly put.

Just digging deeper templar. You posted false claims in order to play on MY irrationality????

The reason the dismissal didn't take long is because it was so easy. Your claims are so easily debunked, they crumble like a cheap cookie under the most cursory of glances. I've tried to treat you with respect in the hopes that you would eventually earn it.

But it's not looking too good.

Fact is, you didn't refute any of the 22 charges I listed earlier. So what exactly were you trying to dismiss? Yes, your irrationality. Not mine. You are assaulting me with words, not facts. So lets go tough guy. Refute me, in depth, or be silent.

 

[Liberaservative]

There's another couple of characteristics to President Obama, and the left in general, that makes them so unlikable as to motivate opponents to raise every possible misdeed as needing investigation and punishment.

Their arrogance and hubris.

From his taunt in 2009, "I won," when Republicans balked at his stimulus agenda to his tweet today, "It's.the.law." under the hashtag #ObamacareInThreeWords.

Yesterday, Attorney General Holder whined to Committee Chair, Darrell Issa, his was being disrespectful and that his behavior was shameful somehow forgetting it was him that was held in contempt of Congress and, when asked about it, said he didn't respect the Congressman that found him in contempt so it was no big deal.

I am hard pressed to find one positive thing this administration has accomplished in 5 years. They've spent a king's fortune vacationing and campaigning on my dime and they've increased our debt and deficit to ridiculous levels while continuing to claim they're deficit hawks.

It's like we live in some bizzaro reverse land since 2009.

Obamacare was supposed to reduce the deficit, lower health care costs, and provide insurance to everyone. It's done none of that. And, let's not forget he had to bribe members of his own party in order to get that POS legislation through the Senate.

I can't believe he's not ridiculed by the press and his own party for proposing budgets that are either soundly defeated or unanimously voted down in both chambers.

I can't believe he's not ridiculed by the press and his own party for a lot of crap he's pulled. But, he's not. So, his opposition must take every opportunity to retard his destructive agenda. Fortunately, he's provided plenty of fodder.

I can't believe he's not ridiculed by the entire planet for accepting the Nobel Peace Prize for doing absolutely nothing to advance peace.

I can't believe he's not ridiculed by the press and his own party for making the ridiculous promise (and his first official act) of closing Guantanamo Bay.

 

[regent]

Impeachment does not need charges.

It only requires the will of Congress.

What?

Then what are the Articles of Impeachment for?

Impeachment is political process not legal one. As ex-President Ford once said, an "impeachable offense is whatever the House with the concurrance of the Senate consider it to be." I disagree, an impeachable offense is whatever the House considers it to be. The Senate judges the guilt or non-guilt. No president has ever been removed from office by the impeachment process, and only two presidents have been impeached.
Many consider impeachment to be a legal process but it is not, it is a political process made to look legal with a trial, charges and a verdict. The word "high crimes" also confuses the issue; America has no "high crimes." One of the eleven impeachment charges against Johnson was that he spoke badly about Congress.
While no president has been removed by impeachment, a number have been threatened with impeachment starting with Jackson. Others threatened were Truman Nixon and Reagan.
The threat of impeachment is great politics.

 

[mamooth]

No one is impeaching the president. The Republicans don't want a repeat of the electoral disaster that happened after they did it with Clinton. Americans aren't fond of that kind of near-sedition. So they'll make some noise to fire up the base, and then do absolutely nothing.

Everything going on now is solely about getting donations, and grabbing the Tea Party vote. If a candidate doesn't sputter out barking kookery against the president, that's going to be used against him in the Republican primary. That's the problem the Republicans face now, having a base of crazy people who demand such bad behavior.

 

[Ernie S.]

If Mad Magazine is jumping ship....

 

[JakeStarkey]

If anyone can engage in a serious discussion about impeachment, I'm certainly willing to listen. What are the charges?

There are no charges.

 

[nodoginnafight]

which I don't because, I'm not aware of any dishonesty or extreme exaggeration that must be forgotten

Then you either haven't been paying attention, or you just view things through a very slanted perspective.

So you're willing to ignore the dishonesty we both agree occurred on Benghazi and the IRS scandal because, arguably, you say Obama has been the victim of dishonest and extremely exaggerated accusations in the pass?

No. I'm saying it is very difficult to accept these charges as legitimate, because those bringing the charges have been so reckless in making absurd accusations in the past.

How many times have we heard "THIS is the scandal that will put an end to this uppity and arrogant POTUS."

And how many times have those "serious charges" evaporated under scrutiny? Repeatedly. Just like so many of the allegations presented here have melted away into B.S. with even the slightest bit of review.

It doesn't matter what your hatred prompts you to believe. Unfortunately it's the facts and not your hatred that will determine the issues. That is especially true because you are in the minority. Like it or not a majority of American voters elected this president and he won't be cast aside just because the minority really REALLY hates him.

Right wingers really hate him and will use any excuse to rid themselves of him. Left wingers will defend him for anything including murder. This issue - like most - will be decided by those in the middle. And if you want them to back an impeachment, your gonna have to come with more than just the promise of evidence or the assumption of guilt - your gonna have to bring the evidence.

Now I realize that the posters on these boards are not the ones who are going to be prosecuting impeachment. And if you want the president impeached, you'll breathe a sigh of relief over that - because so far they have done a very poor job of selling the middle on impeachment. But then again, those pounding that drum in the real world aren't doing a whole lot better.

But I will continue watching and listening to see if something of any real substance emerges from this sea of vitrolic hyperbole.

 

[Liberaservative]

Okay, can I get a show of hands; How many believe if the media did a thorough journalistic investigation of one Sarah Hall Ingram, we'd find that, prior to her stint at the Tax Exempt Office in the IRS (during the time when conservative groups were being targeted), she had some dealings with Barack Hussein Obama, his campaign, or some other common enterprise where it is reasonable to assume they had a professional, if not personal, relationship?

IRS Official in Charge During Tea Party Targeting Now Runs Health Care Office​

For those keeping score at home, Ms. Ingram ran the office responsible for the scandal, when the scandalous behavior was occurring yet, she's been promoted to oversee the IRS office charged with enforcing President Obama's signature piece of legislation, his greatest presidential achievement, the presidential action that will probably highlight his legacy...while, her successor, who had nothing to do with the scandal, is forced into early retirement (The administration is calling it "fired") a mere 8 days after being appointed to the job and the Acting Commissioner is, well, we were told "fired" only to find out his term was up and he was rolling out of the job anyway.

A curious press might be interested in her background and why she's so insulated from the fallout.

Will any of the Obama sycophants at least admit this is enough smoke to warrant a closer look at the IRS scandal and how high it may reach?

Probably not.

 

[Liberaservative]

But I will continue watching and listening to see if something of any real substance emerges from this sea of vitrolic hyperbole.

So, what do you think of the overnight revelations about Ms. Ingram?

 

[PratchettFan]

Okay, can I get a show of hands; How many believe if the media did a thorough journalistic investigation of one Sarah Hall Ingram, we'd find that, prior to her stint at the Tax Exempt Office in the IRS (during the time when conservative groups were being targeted), she had some dealings with Barack Hussein Obama, his campaign, or some other common enterprise where it is reasonable to assume they had a professional, if not personal, relationship?

IRS Official in Charge During Tea Party Targeting Now Runs Health Care Office​

For those keeping score at home, Ms. Ingram ran the office responsible for the scandal, when the scandalous behavior was occurring yet, she's been promoted to oversee the IRS office charged with enforcing President Obama's signature piece of legislation, his greatest presidential achievement, the presidential action that will probably highlight his legacy...while, her successor, who had nothing to do with the scandal, is forced into early retirement (The administration is calling it "fired") a mere 8 days after being appointed to the job and the Acting Commissioner is, well, we were told "fired" only to find out his term was up and he was rolling out of the job anyway.

A curious press might be interested in her background and why she's so insulated from the fallout.

Will any of the Obama sycophants at least admit this is enough smoke to warrant a closer look at the IRS scandal and how high it may reach?

Probably not.

It really sems that people just can't help themselves. They have to proclaim their agenda. "Obama sycophants", meaning anyone who does not hate the president. You referred earlier to "justice", by which you apparently mean joining in with unsupported allegations and assumptions.

If you have some evidence to present I would be happy to look at it. But this is just another example of your claiming he is guilty because no one has proven him innocent. Justice doesn't work that way.

 

[Liberaservative]

It really sems that people just can't help themselves. They have to proclaim their agenda. "Obama sycophants", meaning anyone who does not hate the president. You referred earlier to "justice", by which you apparently mean joining in with unsupported allegations and assumptions.

If you have some evidence to present I would be happy to look at it. But this is just another example of your claiming he is guilty because no one has proven him innocent. Justice doesn't work that way.

If you're not a sycophant, I didn't mean you so, why so defensive. Are you denying there are Obama sycophants?

As for having evidence, I'm not in a position to collect evidence in this case but, I'm in a position to demand evidence be developed and that's what I'm doing.

Do you not find it the least bit suspicious that our "outraged" President who promised to "get to the bottom of it" and "hold accountable" those responsible would allow Ms. Ingram to be promoted to such an important position at the IRS while allowing those with little or not connection to the scandal to be thrown under the bus?

Just the least bit suspicious?

 

[JakeStarkey]

The fauxrage of Liberaservative is so transparent. If a far righty were in office, he would be Mr. Sycophant to the bone.

 

[Liberaservative]

The fauxrage of Liberaservative is so transparent. If a far righty were in office, he would be Mr. Sycophant to the bone.

That doesn't even make sense.

I'd ask where I've exhibited rage, faux or otherwise, anywhere in this forum?

 

[PratchettFan]

It really sems that people just can't help themselves. They have to proclaim their agenda. "Obama sycophants", meaning anyone who does not hate the president. You referred earlier to "justice", by which you apparently mean joining in with unsupported allegations and assumptions.

If you have some evidence to present I would be happy to look at it. But this is just another example of your claiming he is guilty because no one has proven him innocent. Justice doesn't work that way.

If you're not a sycophant, I didn't mean you so, why so defensive. Are you denying there are Obama sycophants?

As for having evidence, I'm not in a position to collect evidence in this case but, I'm in a position to demand evidence be developed and that's what I'm doing.

Do you not find it the least bit suspicious that our "outraged" President who promised to "get to the bottom of it" and "hold accountable" those responsible would allow Ms. Ingram to be promoted to such an important position at the IRS while allowing those with little or not connection to the scandal to be thrown under the bus?

Just the least bit suspicious?

Suspicious of what?

 

[PratchettFan]

It really sems that people just can't help themselves. They have to proclaim their agenda. "Obama sycophants", meaning anyone who does not hate the president. You referred earlier to "justice", by which you apparently mean joining in with unsupported allegations and assumptions.

If you have some evidence to present I would be happy to look at it. But this is just another example of your claiming he is guilty because no one has proven him innocent. Justice doesn't work that way.

If you're not a sycophant, I didn't mean you so, why so defensive. Are you denying there are Obama sycophants?

As for having evidence, I'm not in a position to collect evidence in this case but, I'm in a position to demand evidence be developed and that's what I'm doing.

Do you not find it the least bit suspicious that our "outraged" President who promised to "get to the bottom of it" and "hold accountable" those responsible would allow Ms. Ingram to be promoted to such an important position at the IRS while allowing those with little or not connection to the scandal to be thrown under the bus?

Just the least bit suspicious?

To deal with the other subject seperately, if you did not mean me then exactly who on this thread did you mean when you said "sycophants"?

 

[Liberaservative]

It really sems that people just can't help themselves. They have to proclaim their agenda. "Obama sycophants", meaning anyone who does not hate the president. You referred earlier to "justice", by which you apparently mean joining in with unsupported allegations and assumptions.

If you have some evidence to present I would be happy to look at it. But this is just another example of your claiming he is guilty because no one has proven him innocent. Justice doesn't work that way.

If you're not a sycophant, I didn't mean you so, why so defensive. Are you denying there are Obama sycophants?

As for having evidence, I'm not in a position to collect evidence in this case but, I'm in a position to demand evidence be developed and that's what I'm doing.

Do you not find it the least bit suspicious that our "outraged" President who promised to "get to the bottom of it" and "hold accountable" those responsible would allow Ms. Ingram to be promoted to such an important position at the IRS while allowing those with little or not connection to the scandal to be thrown under the bus?

Just the least bit suspicious?

To deal with the other subject seperately, if you did not mean me then exactly who on this thread did you mean when you said "sycophants"?

I'll look back but, when I used the term "sycophant," I'm not sure I was referring to anyone in this thread. Although, I'm sure they exist here, as they do out in the real world.

Do you deny this?

And, why is it even important to the conversation? Either there is a scandal or there isn't.

I believe evidence continues to mount there is. You may not. That doesn't necessarily make you an Obama sycophant...but, that's not my call. I was merely using the term generically to suggest that such people would deny the scandal and defend Obama no matter what surfaces.

 

[Liberaservative]

It really sems that people just can't help themselves. They have to proclaim their agenda. "Obama sycophants", meaning anyone who does not hate the president. You referred earlier to "justice", by which you apparently mean joining in with unsupported allegations and assumptions.

If you have some evidence to present I would be happy to look at it. But this is just another example of your claiming he is guilty because no one has proven him innocent. Justice doesn't work that way.

If you're not a sycophant, I didn't mean you so, why so defensive. Are you denying there are Obama sycophants?

As for having evidence, I'm not in a position to collect evidence in this case but, I'm in a position to demand evidence be developed and that's what I'm doing.

Do you not find it the least bit suspicious that our "outraged" President who promised to "get to the bottom of it" and "hold accountable" those responsible would allow Ms. Ingram to be promoted to such an important position at the IRS while allowing those with little or not connection to the scandal to be thrown under the bus?

Just the least bit suspicious?

Suspicious of what?

Okay, I'll repeat the paragraph that preceded my question.

Do you not find it the least bit suspicious that our "outraged" President who promised to "get to the bottom of it" and "hold accountable" those responsible would allow Ms. Ingram to be promoted to such an important position at the IRS while allowing those with little or not connection to the scandal to be thrown under the bus?

That's of what I'm asking if you're suspicious. If you like the term curious better, I'll ask it that way.

Just the least bit curious?