PDA

View Full Version : Will Republicans Try to Impeach President Obama? Without Looking Crazy



Cigar
05-08-2014, 12:30 PM
They expect a Senate majority and the wind at their back. The trick is doing it without looking crazy.


On Saturday night, as Washington’s press corps was distracted by a surge of celebrity selfie opportunities, it was missing a kind of milestone. Jeanine Pirro, a former New York Republican star who tumbled out of politics and onto Fox News, was calling for the impeachment (http://nation.foxnews.com/2014/05/05/judge-jeanine-pres-obama-your-dereliction-duty-commander-chief-demands-your-impeachment) of President Obama over “a story no one wants to talk about.”

The story was the 2012 attack on the American consulate in Benghazi. Referring to that, on Fox, as “a story no one wants to talk about” sounded a bit like CNN (http://www.slate.com/topics/m/malaysia_flight_370.html) asking where all the Flight 370 coverage had been. Not Pirro’s point—she was saying that the media failed to see where the Benghazi story was going to lead. Hint: Impeachment.

“We have impeached a president for lying about sex with an intern,” she said. “A president resigned in the face of certain impeachment for covering up a burglary. Why wouldn't we impeach this president for not protecting and defending Americans in the bloodbath known as Benghazi?” Pirro then addressed the president directly—though at this point in the evening he was giving a sardonic dinner speech—with a warning that “your dereliction of duty as commander-in-chief demands your impeachment.”

Just one segment on a slow news night, but there was a sense of inevitability about it, of the Overton Window (http://thinkprogress.org/yglesias/2011/04/10/200534/the-overton-window/) being shifted by hand. Ever since the aftermath of the Benghazi attacks, Republicans and conservatives have compared the Obama administration’s on-the-ground failure and intra-office spin job to Watergate (http://www.nationalreview.com/corner/377069/krauthammers-take-new-benghazi-e-mail-akin-discovery-nixon-tapes-nro-staff). Politicos compare contemporary scandals to Watergate for one of two reasons: Laziness, or to gently raise the specter of impeachment.


http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/politics/2014/05/republicans_want_to_impeach_president_obama_for_be nghazi_gop_fears_they.html#return

momsapplepie
05-08-2014, 12:40 PM
We can only hope they do. Of course it will come after midterms. obumbles knows it's coming. He's already got a defense att.

Green Arrow
05-08-2014, 12:43 PM
They won't.

momsapplepie
05-08-2014, 12:48 PM
Not too sure about that. Americans are getting more upset by the day with the lies and machinations of the obumbles administration. The more that comes out, the more mad people are getting.

Libhater
05-08-2014, 12:49 PM
Impeachment is just the first step. Obummer and the Hilabeast (among others) should be
prosecuted for derelict of duty, covering up the initial cover-up of their ineptness and
criminal intent in not securing an American overseas compound holding some of our highest
officials that in the end led to their deaths. To top it off, obummer promised to bring the
murderers to justice--which as we all know was just another lie similar to that of OJ Simpson
promising that he would find the murderer of his wife and friend. Obummer's MOS now as
always has been to CHBA (Cover His Black Ass).

Green Arrow
05-08-2014, 12:51 PM
Not too sure about that. Americans are getting more upset by the day with the lies and machinations of the obumbles administration. The more that comes out, the more mad people are getting.

The firestorm it would cause would not be worth it. Trust me, it's not going to happen. They'll just make him a lame duck and that will be the end of it.

Common Sense
05-08-2014, 12:53 PM
Not too sure about that. Americans are getting more upset by the day with the lies and machinations of the obumbles administration. The more that comes out, the more mad people are getting.

The Average American or about 10% of Americans who's TV is solidly tuned to Fox?


I think the vast majority of Americans are either apathetic or see this hoopla for what it is...politicization of a tragedy in order to defeat Hillary.

momsapplepie
05-08-2014, 12:56 PM
We need the firestorm to rid ourselves of this mess caused by democrat top officials. Hell, even Nixon's administration , or even LBJ's was as corrupt as this one is.

Libhater
05-08-2014, 12:57 PM
The firestorm it would cause would not be worth it. Trust me, it's not going to happen. They'll just make him a lame duck and that will be the end of it.

Look, if the worst thing that would come out of this is that this jerk becomes a lame duck president, then that would
insure he doesn't get to screw the American people any more and might insure that the people start to enjoy some of
the personal freedoms that this jerk has taken from them. This so-called firestorm would be a lot more benign in nature
then an all out revolution, don't ya think?

Green Arrow
05-08-2014, 01:00 PM
We need the firestorm to rid ourselves of this mess caused by democrat top officials. Hell, even Nixon's administration , or even LBJ's was as corrupt as this one is.

By firestorm, I'm talking about riots and partisan division that will quite literally tear this country apart.

nathanbforrest45
05-08-2014, 01:00 PM
I would hope they do not impeach Obama. While I certainly have no respect for his "accomplishments" this constant talk of impeachment of a sitting president can only mean a decline in security in our country. What are we going to do? Impeach every president who does not do what 50% or less want to have done. In the 200 plus years this country has existed we have had two presidents impeached, neither of whom should have been impeached. Now we see a constant cry for impeachment. He has two years left of his presidency. For the good of the country this constant braying about impeachment must stop.

Green Arrow
05-08-2014, 01:03 PM
I would hope they do not impeach Obama. While I certainly have no respect for his "accomplishments" this constant talk of impeachment of a sitting president can only mean a decline in security in our country. What are we going to do? Impeach every president who does not do what 50% or less want to have done. In the 200 plus years this country has existed we have had two presidents impeached, neither of whom should have been impeached. Now we see a constant cry for impeachment. He has two years left of his presidency. For the good of the country this constant braying about impeachment must stop.

I agree about Clinton, but why shouldn't Nixon have been shitcanned?

Libhater
05-08-2014, 01:05 PM
I would hope they do not impeach Obama. While I certainly have no respect for his "accomplishments" this constant talk of impeachment of a sitting president can only mean a decline in security in our country. What are we going to do? Impeach every president who does not do what 50% or less want to have done. In the 200 plus years this country has existed we have had two presidents impeached, neither of whom should have been impeached. Now we see a constant cry for impeachment. He has two years left of his presidency. For the good of the country this constant braying about impeachment must stop.

You couldn't be more wrong on this. Impeaching him would mean a decline in our security? You got to be kidding. The reason(s)
why this guy should be impeached is because he failed to uphold his pledge to protect America in the first place. This jerk is
currently Commander-in-Chief of all of our military. Do you have faith that he's living up to that role? And if so, tell us what
exactly makes you feel comfortable in his having this much power to screw over our nation.

nathanbforrest45
05-08-2014, 01:22 PM
Never said I was comfortable with him having power. Impeachment is for "high crimes and misdemeanors" not for being incompetent. I believe this constant call for impeachment is not in the country's best interest. Every president since Nixon has been threatened with impeachment or had calls of impeachment and of course Clinton was. I just don't think impeachment should be the first action we take against a president we don't like.

Peter1469
05-08-2014, 03:27 PM
It would be a waste of political capital.

Kalkin
05-08-2014, 03:31 PM
Impeachment would promote biden. They'll just lame duck his incompetent ass until 2016, then they'll repeal his horrible healthcare fiasco.

Green Arrow
05-08-2014, 03:33 PM
Impeachment would promote biden. They'll just lame duck his incompetent ass until 2016, then they'll repeal his horrible healthcare fiasco.

No, they won't. They'll do what they are doing now and keep passing legislation to "fix" it.

birddog
05-08-2014, 03:49 PM
Obama deserves impeachment and conviction, but he won't get it.

1751_Texan
05-08-2014, 04:47 PM
We can only hope they do. Of course it will come after midterms. obumbles knows it's coming. He's already got a defense att.

On what charge?

1751_Texan
05-08-2014, 04:51 PM
Impeachment would promote biden. They'll just lame duck his incompetent ass until 2016, then they'll repeal his horrible healthcare fiasco.

Impeachment does not equate removal from office. President Clinton 1 was impeaced by the House.

texan
05-08-2014, 05:00 PM
The impeachment term is being thrown around too much like the word Racist.

Polecat
05-08-2014, 05:12 PM
I have been keeping my fingers crossed that the Secret Service would get a belly full of this guy and take him out.

Kalkin
05-08-2014, 05:16 PM
No, they won't. They'll do what they are doing now and keep passing legislation to "fix" it.
When I say "repeal", I really just mean the mandates (individual and min coverage). I don't really care about any of the rest of the POS as long as people are free to choose what they want covered and whether or not to participate.

nathanbforrest45
05-08-2014, 06:12 PM
Impeachment does not equate removal from office. President Clinton 1 was impeaced by the House.

Impeached is just an indictment. He would have to be found guilty of the charges outlined in the impeachment in order to be removed. No president has ever been convicted at an impeachment. The impeachment against Johnson by the way was for exactly the same thing the Congress is applauding Obama for today, ignoring their authority and usurping power. Impeachment is all about politics and has nothing to do with justice

Polecat
05-08-2014, 06:13 PM
I am still holding out for a hanging on the White House lawn.

nathanbforrest45
05-08-2014, 06:14 PM
I have been keeping my fingers crossed that the Secret Service would get a belly full of this guy and take him out.

That would be the absolute worst thing that could possibly happen in this country. A coup by rival political operatives? Are you really suggesting the president should be assassinated? I would not want to live in a country where that was an acceptable alternative.

Polecat
05-08-2014, 06:18 PM
Its happened more than once before.

Matty
05-08-2014, 06:23 PM
We can only hope they do. Of course it will come after midterms. obumbles knows it's coming. He's already got a defense att.
I think it would depend solely on their findings of the Benghazi and IRS investigations.

Kabuki Joe
05-08-2014, 07:22 PM
They expect a Senate majority and the wind at their back. The trick is doing it without looking crazy.


On Saturday night, as Washington’s press corps was distracted by a surge of celebrity selfie opportunities, it was missing a kind of milestone. Jeanine Pirro, a former New York Republican star who tumbled out of politics and onto Fox News, was calling for the impeachment (http://nation.foxnews.com/2014/05/05/judge-jeanine-pres-obama-your-dereliction-duty-commander-chief-demands-your-impeachment) of President Obama over “a story no one wants to talk about.”

The story was the 2012 attack on the American consulate in Benghazi. Referring to that, on Fox, as “a story no one wants to talk about” sounded a bit like CNN (http://www.slate.com/topics/m/malaysia_flight_370.html) asking where all the Flight 370 coverage had been. Not Pirro’s point—she was saying that the media failed to see where the Benghazi story was going to lead. Hint: Impeachment.

“We have impeached a president for lying about sex with an intern,” she said. “A president resigned in the face of certain impeachment for covering up a burglary. Why wouldn't we impeach this president for not protecting and defending Americans in the bloodbath known as Benghazi?” Pirro then addressed the president directly—though at this point in the evening he was giving a sardonic dinner speech—with a warning that “your dereliction of duty as commander-in-chief demands your impeachment.”

Just one segment on a slow news night, but there was a sense of inevitability about it, of the Overton Window (http://thinkprogress.org/yglesias/2011/04/10/200534/the-overton-window/) being shifted by hand. Ever since the aftermath of the Benghazi attacks, Republicans and conservatives have compared the Obama administration’s on-the-ground failure and intra-office spin job to Watergate (http://www.nationalreview.com/corner/377069/krauthammers-take-new-benghazi-e-mail-akin-discovery-nixon-tapes-nro-staff). Politicos compare contemporary scandals to Watergate for one of two reasons: Laziness, or to gently raise the specter of impeachment.


http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/politics/2014/05/republicans_want_to_impeach_president_obama_for_be nghazi_gop_fears_they.html#return

...I had to view this...just had to even though ceeeeegar is on ignore for a good reason...my question to you ceeeeeegar, if you know what rush is telling his minions, then you'd know rush keeps telling them impeaching Obama is out of the question...so, either you lie about how informed you are or you just like posting stuff to rile people up...me, I agree with rush, Obama will make it through this term and then into retirement on everyone's dollar...most likely he will be avoided by both sides when he's out of office...

Refugee
05-08-2014, 07:37 PM
We do things differently in the UK, not that its part of the debate, but perhaps more civilised? It's called 'Men in dark suits', or similar. When enough politicians get fed up with a Prime Minister, they receive a visit from these gentlemen and are told to resign. That saves face on both sides. The usual excuses are on health grounds, other outside interests or family commitments. The worry now is not Obama, but who replaces him and whether they also want to "fundamentally change society".

nathanbforrest45
05-09-2014, 06:24 AM
Its happened more than once before.

Links if you would

Ravi
05-09-2014, 07:11 AM
They expect a Senate majority and the wind at their back. The trick is doing it without looking crazy.


On Saturday night, as Washington’s press corps was distracted by a surge of celebrity selfie opportunities, it was missing a kind of milestone. Jeanine Pirro, a former New York Republican star who tumbled out of politics and onto Fox News, was calling for the impeachment (http://nation.foxnews.com/2014/05/05/judge-jeanine-pres-obama-your-dereliction-duty-commander-chief-demands-your-impeachment) of President Obama over “a story no one wants to talk about.”

The story was the 2012 attack on the American consulate in Benghazi. Referring to that, on Fox, as “a story no one wants to talk about” sounded a bit like CNN (http://www.slate.com/topics/m/malaysia_flight_370.html) asking where all the Flight 370 coverage had been. Not Pirro’s point—she was saying that the media failed to see where the Benghazi story was going to lead. Hint: Impeachment.

“We have impeached a president for lying about sex with an intern,” she said. “A president resigned in the face of certain impeachment for covering up a burglary. Why wouldn't we impeach this president for not protecting and defending Americans in the bloodbath known as Benghazi?” Pirro then addressed the president directly—though at this point in the evening he was giving a sardonic dinner speech—with a warning that “your dereliction of duty as commander-in-chief demands your impeachment.”

Just one segment on a slow news night, but there was a sense of inevitability about it, of the Overton Window (http://thinkprogress.org/yglesias/2011/04/10/200534/the-overton-window/) being shifted by hand. Ever since the aftermath of the Benghazi attacks, Republicans and conservatives have compared the Obama administration’s on-the-ground failure and intra-office spin job to Watergate (http://www.nationalreview.com/corner/377069/krauthammers-take-new-benghazi-e-mail-akin-discovery-nixon-tapes-nro-staff). Politicos compare contemporary scandals to Watergate for one of two reasons: Laziness, or to gently raise the specter of impeachment.


http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/politics/2014/05/republicans_want_to_impeach_president_obama_for_be nghazi_gop_fears_they.html#return
I bet she was real quite about the bloodbath known as Iraq. Did she call for Dubya to be impeached?

keymanjim
05-09-2014, 07:18 AM
I bet she was real quite about the bloodbath known as Iraq. Did she call for Dubya to be impeached?
You question ceased to be relevant 5 years ago. Not that it was relevant then.

Peter1469
05-09-2014, 07:20 AM
I bet she was real quite about the bloodbath known as Iraq. Did she call for Dubya to be impeached?

:geez:How could Congress impeach Bush over Iraq (http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/PLAW-107publ243/html/PLAW-107publ243.htm)? See the link it is too much to reformat.

Ravi
05-09-2014, 07:20 AM
You question ceased to be relevant 5 years ago. Not that it was relevant then.

It is relevant because it shows her hypocrisy and false agenda.

zelmo1234
05-09-2014, 07:24 AM
It is relevant because it shows her hypocrisy and false agenda.

OR? It could be that they all had the some evidence that Bush had and they voted to use force in Iraq? Twice, just so the Democrats could go on the record as supporting it?

But trying to rewrite history suits you! :(

Ravi
05-09-2014, 07:28 AM
OR? It could be that they all had the some evidence that Bush had and they voted to use force in Iraq? Twice, just so the Democrats could go on the record as supporting it?

But trying to rewrite history suits you! :(
They voted to allow him to decide. And he decided. But this woman didn't call for any of them to be impeached, let alone Bush.

Codename Section
05-09-2014, 07:28 AM
It is relevant because it shows her hypocrisy and false agenda.

((spews orange juice))

keymanjim
05-09-2014, 07:38 AM
They voted to allow him to decide. And he decided. But this woman didn't call for any of them to be impeached, let alone Bush.
Then why beat that dead horse?
I swear, you people will never be cured of your Bush Derangement Syndrome.

Ravi
05-09-2014, 07:41 AM
Then why beat that dead horse?
I swear, you people will never be cured of your Bush Derangement Syndrome.It's obvious that this woman, and you, suffer from hypocrisy.

zelmo1234
05-09-2014, 07:42 AM
They voted to allow him to decide. And he decided. But this woman didn't call for any of them to be impeached, let alone Bush.

Because he had 2 votes in congress and 2 UN resolutions? That might be hard to say, Impeach, you see because impeachment is high crimes and misdemeanors.

Now I am in the camp that so far I see nothing in Benghazi that would be impeachable. The IRS? and Fast and Furious?

Could possible have impeachable offenses, and I use the word Possibly because I do not believe that ideas in this administration are initiated by President Obama. I think he is much more of a tool than that!


But IF and let us say a strong IF as it is not proven.


But IF they cam prove that the Administration had a plan to suppress the conservative groups, using the IRS as a weapon, and that plan was made and implemented by President Obama. that would be impeachable

And IF in Fast and Furious it was proven that they were running Guns to increase violence to bring sweeping gun control against the second amendment and that plan was implemented by the President, Then that would be an impeachable offense

Now those are some really big IF's as I have said

Alyosha
05-09-2014, 07:43 AM
Bush should have been impeached for the Patriot Act and Obama for killing a 16 year old American citizen without due process of law.

keymanjim
05-09-2014, 07:43 AM
It's obvious that this woman, and you, suffer from hypocrisy.
Asking you to explain that statement would be feeding your BDS.
The 'blame Bush' bandwagon left 5 years ago. Why weren't you on it?

Ravi
05-09-2014, 07:44 AM
Asking you to explain that statement would be feeding your BDS.
The 'blame Bush' bandwagon left 5 years ago. Why weren't you on it?
Blame Bush? No, blame this woman for being a hypocrite.

Alyosha
05-09-2014, 07:46 AM
Blame Bush? No, blame this woman for being a hypocrite.

Ravi is right, and she should know hypocrisy because she spouts it daily on this forum.

keymanjim
05-09-2014, 07:47 AM
Blame Bush? No, blame this woman for being a hypocrite.
And, what are you? Since you want to invent crimes by Bush to justify the real crimes by obama.

Ravi
05-09-2014, 07:48 AM
And, what are you? Since you want to invent crimes by Bush to justify the real crimes by obama.

Why do you keep deflecting?

Matty
05-09-2014, 07:49 AM
By firestorm, I'm talking about riots and partisan division that will quite literally tear this country apart.
So, who is it that you think will riot?

Codename Section
05-09-2014, 07:51 AM
So, who is it that you think will riot?

Black people and yoga moms.

Matty
05-09-2014, 07:52 AM
Never said I was comfortable with him having power. Impeachment is for "high crimes and misdemeanors" not for being incompetent. I believe this constant call for impeachment is not in the country's best interest. Every president since Nixon has been threatened with impeachment or had calls of impeachment and of course Clinton was. I just don't think impeachment should be the first action we take against a president we don't like.
If you think incompetence is the ONLY problem with Obama you haven't been paying attention.

Matty
05-09-2014, 07:53 AM
Black people and yoga moms.
Why are democrats so violent?

Codename Section
05-09-2014, 07:54 AM
Why are democrats so violent?

They live in cities.

keymanjim
05-09-2014, 08:01 AM
Why do you keep deflecting?
Yo mean bring the thread back on topic?

Matty
05-09-2014, 08:05 AM
Yo mean bring the thread back on topic?
We could try. Impeachment would not be for Benghazi, it would be about the cover up. I think they should throw the IRS book at them too.

Codename Section
05-09-2014, 08:06 AM
yeh, yall should try and guarantee Democrats take the Congress and White House for the next decade.

Independents, which most people are, just want the economy to get better. Any impeachment hearings you have will fuck the economy and make things worse.

zelmo1234
05-09-2014, 08:13 AM
Why do you keep deflecting?

Wait? Wait? Wait?

You did not just accuse someone of deflecting? Did you???

Alyosha
05-09-2014, 08:24 AM
Wait? Wait? Wait?

You did not just accuse someone of deflecting? Did you???

That's how Ravi rolls. You seem angry. :laugh:

Kabuki Joe
05-09-2014, 08:28 AM
It's obvious that this woman, and you, suffer from hypocrisy.


...as do you...

Kabuki Joe
05-09-2014, 08:29 AM
Why do you keep deflecting?


...why do you?...

nathanbforrest45
05-09-2014, 09:22 AM
If you think incompetence is the ONLY problem with Obama you haven't been paying attention.


I never said I thought the only issue was his incompetence either. What is it that unless you spend 40 pages outlining all the wrongs of this administration that must obviously mean you support it?

nathanbforrest45
05-09-2014, 09:22 AM
Why are democrats so violent?

Its all those chitlins and watermelon.