Obama's 13 impeachable offenses

[C_Clayton_Jones]

It was off the table because they never had any grounds for it.

Obama should be charged.

He won't, but he should.

With what, exactly?

`​

With nothing, exactly.

None of the ‘offenses’ in the OP are ‘criminal acts’ subject to prosecution by the House with a ‘trial’ in the Senate.

For example, how the president interprets and executes his Article II powers and responsibilities is not subject to ‘impeachment’ because the partisan right disagrees with the interpretation or implementation of those powers and responsibilities. Nor is the subjective perception by conservatives that the president’s policies and actions are ‘un-Constitutional’ ‘grounds’ for ‘impeachment.’

Indeed, even if the Supreme Court were to rule that a given presidential policy was un-Constitutional, that too would not be an ‘impeachable offensive,’ as was the case in Hamdan v. Rumsfeld (2006), when the Supreme Court struck down as un-Constitutional GWB’s plan to create military commissions to try detainees suspected of terrorism absent Congressional approval. When the Court invalidated Bush’s military commissions no one sought to ‘impeach’ him as a consequence of his un-Constitutional actions, as the Bush Administration believed at the time, in good faith, that the commissions were lawful, as is the case with the Obama Administration today.

Consequently and again, the premise of the OP is ignorant partisan idiocy, as a president can’t be ‘impeached’ simply because he belongs to the ‘wrong’ political party and because he implements policies the partisan right is subjectively opposed to because it conflicts with their errant political dogma.

 

[koshergrl]

Again.

You don't have to prove criminal acts to impeach a president. All it takes is a majority vote by the house of reps that the president is derelict in his duties.

Keep saying it until it sinks in.

 

[Nutz]

My sister's a judge. This is the sort of thing we talk about over dinner.

I was hired as a journalist based on the fact that I was the only applicant who actually understood and could explain to the editor the three different branches of government.

But you loons don't believe anything unless it's filtered through a statist filter..which is why I'm always handy with links and quotes.

It was obvious to me, based on the number of times the retards of this thread said that I didn't understand impeachment, that you guys don't understand the impeachment process.

Which is why I came through for you.

You're welcome, and I am happy that now you're just a little better educated about the way our system works. Perhaps you will make less of a fool of yourself in future threads. Though I doubt it.

LOL...you are pathetic...truly pathetic.

(Go ahead and complain about me again...PATHETIC)

 

[koshergrl]

I'm sorry you feel threatened by my superior intellect and understanding of the subject matter.

 

[Nutz]

I'm sorry you feel threatened by my superior intellect and understanding of the subject matter.

No, I don't feel threatened by you in anyway. You are a joke. Absolutely pathetic and a joke. We all know you had to google the information to save face. We all know you have ZERO original thought.

But, as I said. You were right. It is very rare and I doubt I will ever have to defend you again.

How is that revolution going, dumbass?

 

[rightwinger]

Again.

You don't have to prove criminal acts to impeach a president. All it takes is a majority vote by the house of reps that the president is derelict in his duties.

Keep saying it until it sinks in.

So you admit that Republicans will impeach for any stupid ass reason they want

 

[TooTall]

news flash .. Republican legislators vote to impeach Obama 55 times !!!!!

nothing yet, same result, just like when the Republicans voted 55 times to defund Obamacare

55 times ... LMAO

Impeachment only requires a simple majority of the House, so the GOP has the numbers. They're just not that stupid. Then we'd have to have a trial in the Senate where the President would be acquitted. End of Story.

That ^

 

[koshergrl]

Not acquitted. The Senate can't "acquit". All they can do is vote to not remove him from office. Clinton remained impeached...even though he wasn't removed from office.

 

[Siete]

Wow, nutz, you were paying attention! Awesome!

I know there is a difference. You can know I know there's a difference because I'm the one who delineated it for you bozos.

so you want to impeach Obama and KEEP him in office , is that correct?

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

Again.

You don't have to prove criminal acts to impeach a president. All it takes is a majority vote by the house of reps that the president is derelict in his duties.

Keep saying it until it sinks in.

Confirming the fact that you and others on the partisan right are indeed reprehensible.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

Wow, nutz, you were paying attention! Awesome!

I know there is a difference. You can know I know there's a difference because I'm the one who delineated it for you bozos.

so you want to impeach Obama and KEEP him in office , is that correct?

Likely so.

It’s an aspect of the derangement of the partisan right where they seek to ‘destroy’ the president’s legacy.

 

[Nutz]

Wow, nutz, you were paying attention! Awesome!

I know there is a difference. You can know I know there's a difference because I'm the one who delineated it for you bozos.

so you want to impeach Obama and KEEP him in office , is that correct?

Likely so.

It’s an aspect of the derangement of the partisan right where they seek to ‘destroy’ the president’s legacy.

As opposed to the partisan left that continues to seek to destroy Bush's legacy.

 

[koshergrl]

Again.

You don't have to prove criminal acts to impeach a president. All it takes is a majority vote by the house of reps that the president is derelict in his duties.

Keep saying it until it sinks in.

Confirming the fact that you and others on the partisan right are indeed reprehensible.

What utter tripe. It has nothing to do with the right. It's the way it is. That's why slick willy didn't end up on his ass in the alley, after his impeachment..for what actually WAS a criminal offense.

 

[Mustang]

Again.

You don't have to prove criminal acts to impeach a president. All it takes is a majority vote by the house of reps that the president is derelict in his duties.

Keep saying it until it sinks in.

Confirming the fact that you and others on the partisan right are indeed reprehensible.

What's even worse is that they're intellectually inconsistent in their claim of loving the Constitution and protecting it from abuse since they would be willing to defend any conservative president from impeachment regardless of how clear the evidence was that he committed high crimes and misdemeanors.

 

[koshergrl]

Again.

You don't have to prove criminal acts to impeach a president. All it takes is a majority vote by the house of reps that the president is derelict in his duties.

Keep saying it until it sinks in.

Confirming the fact that you and others on the partisan right are indeed reprehensible.

What's even worse is that they're intellectually inconsistent in their claim of loving the Constitution and protecting it from abuse since they would be willing to defend any conservative president from impeachment regardless of how clear the evidence was that he committed high crimes and misdemeanors.

This ^^ is what ignorant yahoos do when they can't address the topic.

They make stuff up.

 

[Siete]

Confirming the fact that you and others on the partisan right are indeed reprehensible.

What's even worse is that they're intellectually inconsistent in their claim of loving the Constitution and protecting it from abuse since they would be willing to defend any conservative president from impeachment regardless of how clear the evidence was that he committed high crimes and misdemeanors.

This ^^ is what ignorant yahoos do when they can't address the topic.

They make stuff up.

so make something up and answer the question


so you want to impeach Obama and KEEP him in office , is that correct?

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

Again.

You don't have to prove criminal acts to impeach a president. All it takes is a majority vote by the house of reps that the president is derelict in his duties.

Keep saying it until it sinks in.

Confirming the fact that you and others on the partisan right are indeed reprehensible.

What's even worse is that they're intellectually inconsistent in their claim of loving the Constitution and protecting it from abuse since they would be willing to defend any conservative president from impeachment regardless of how clear the evidence was that he committed high crimes and misdemeanors.

It should come as no surprise that conservatives would waste the people’s time and money pursuing impeachment and a trial in the Senate where the partisan right had no intention of securing a conviction.

 

[koshergrl]

I'm not going to argue points I never made.

But I have to commend you, siete, on ALMOST not butchering the English language, and ALMOST getting a coherent thought conveyed.

 

[Siete]

I'm not going to argue points I never made.

But I have to commend you, siete, on ALMOST not butchering the English language, and ALMOST getting a coherent thought conveyed.

good answer ... have dinner with Sis and discuss how you've managed to step on your dress.. superior intellect and understanding notwithstanding

 

[rightwinger]

So the point of this thread is that much like a corrupt cop who can arrest you for any reason knowing full well that they have no chance at conviction, Republicans feel they can impeach on any charges they can drum up