Obama Impeachment

[BooHoo]

If Obama wins what do you think his chances are of getting impeached over Benghazi?

[Captain Obvious]

Less than zero.

It will make great forum fodder, tho.

[WalterSobchak]

Less than zero.

It will make great forum fodder, tho.


Agreed. I have a better chance banging Scarlett Johansson and my wife allowing it.

[BooHoo]

agreed. I have a better chance banging scarlett johansson and my wife allowing it.

haha!!

[Calypso Jones]

never happen. The media will protect him and republicans are freakin' wimps.

[GrassrootsConservative]

He would deserve impeachment if people knew what he has done.

[oceanloverOH]

He would deserve impeachment if people knew what he has done.

For the most part, they've been told, GRC. They either don't want to hear it or don't believe it. No, he won't be impeached. He'll be rewarded for his shenanigans with re-election (and at least partly just because he's black). He'll continue to spend money like it's spouting out of a garden hose, continue to foist Obamacare on hard-working people who will now have to work twice as hard, continue bowing to any shitpot nation's leader, continue ignoring and/or denigrating our most precious traditions, put the U.N. in charge of way too many things, cut the military budget down to bare bones and totally screw the retirees who kept us safe and free by fighting in every war since before this clown was born, and just in general work his ass off to turn our beloved America into a socialist, third-world nation. We thought we were a world laughingstock over the last 4 years? Just wait......

[JohnAdams]

Less than zero.

It will make great forum fodder, tho. I agree given we have a do nothing Congress willing to throw away it's sole authority to take this nation off to war, if THE OBAMA says for them to do so.

[patrickt]

About the same as Sen. Kennedy's chances of being held accountable for killing Mary Jo Kopechne. None. If the House voted to impeach President Obama for anything, no matter how heinous, he would be tried by Sen. Harry Reid and the Senate. Now, what do you imagine would happen.

That, and President Obama now gets to pursue his dream of ruling without a congress.

[truthmatters]

I doubt Bengazi will impeach Obama.


There is NO chance he will be impeached by our system.

the republicans will likely waste the American people time and money trying though

[shaarona]

He would deserve impeachment if people knew what he has done.

Over a mistake?

You seem to think the State Dept error was calculated and deliberate.

That sort of BS is what cost the GOP the election.

[JohnAdams]

About the same as Sen. Kennedy's chances of being held accountable for killing Mary Jo Kopechne. None. If the House voted to impeach President Obama for anything, no matter how heinous, he would be tried by Sen. Harry Reid and the Senate. Now, what do you imagine would happen.

That, and President Obama now gets to pursue his dream of ruling without a congress.

OMG see this ^^^^^ is why this asshat and those like him get elected to high office in the first place.

Have you ever even read our Constitution?



He would be tried in the HOUSE with Chief the Justice presiding. IF convicted in the house, it would then be sent to the Senate for the penalty phase. NOT the trial.

[JohnAdams]

Over a mistake?

You seem to think the State Dept error was calculated and deliberate.

That sort of BS is what cost the GOP the election.

Taking this nation off to war, without so much as notification of the Congress, let alone a declaration of war, is not a "mistake".

Sitting and watching, and allowing an American ambassador to be murdered is not a "mistake".

Thats called gross negligence and high crimes and misdemeanors.

What "cost" the RNC the election as you put it, was jackasses being allowed to vote, who have not one clue what Constitutional government is, and think socialism is a good idea.

[patlape]

I think Obama should be charged with treason for his handling of Benghazi. At the very least he should be impeached, if we tried to take down a Pres for lying about an affair in the oval office then this should be on the top of the to do list. If this is the first time you are saying Obama should be impeached you should check out the Heritage foundation website who has forty examples of where Obama has committed impeachable offenses.

Now with that being said here is the flip side of the coin...

The problem is not with the congress but the senate. Congress could start the process but the senate would try him. The Dems own the Senate, it would end up in a failure and look even worse on the GOP. This close to loosing the election it would look desperate and hurt the party and divide the country further. It is sad to say, especially on the graves of four Americans, the time to impeach Obama has passed. The GOP made a whimper instead of a roar about the issue and one media agency even tried to report any of it and even that was half ass. Had Obama been a white republican this would have been a done issue two months ago.

PL

[truthmatters]

I think many republicans should be tried for treason for trying to keep Americns from voting

[patrickt]

OMG see this ^^^^^ is why this asshat and those like him get elected to high office in the first place.

Have you ever even read our Constitution?



He would be tried in the HOUSE with Chief the Justice presiding. IF convicted in the house, it would then be sent to the Senate for the penalty phase. NOT the trial.

"In the House of Representatives

The House Judiciary Committee (http://www.house.gov/judiciary/) decides whether or not to proceed with impeachment. If they do...


The Chairman of the Judiciary Committee will propose a Resolution calling for the Judiciary Committee to begin a formal inquiry into the issue of impeachment.


Based on their inquiry, the Judiciary Committee will send another Resolution to the full House stating that impeachment is warranted and why (the Articles of Impeachment (http://usgovinfo.about.com/blimpar1.htm)), or that impeachment is not called for.


The Full House (probably operating under special floor rules set by the House Rules Committee (http://www.house.gov/rules/)) will debate and vote on each Article of Impeachment.


Should any one of the Articles of Impeachment be approved by a simple majority vote, the President will be "impeached." However, being impeached is sort of like being indicted of a crime. There still has to be a trial, which is where the US Senate comes in.
In the Senate

The Articles of Impeachment are received from the House.


The Senate formulates rules and procedures for holding a trial.


A trial will be held. The President will be represented by his lawyers. A select group of House members will serve as "prosecutors." The Chief Justice of the Supreme Court (http://usgovinfo.about.com/od/uscourtsystem/a/chiefduties.htm) (currently John G. Roberts (http://usgovinfo.about.com/od/uscourtsystem/a/bioroberts.htm)) will preside with all 100 Senators acting as the jury.


The Senate will meet in private session to debate a verdict.


The Senate, in open session, will vote on a verdict. A 2/3 vote of the Senate will result in a conviction.


The Senate will vote to remove the President from office.


The Senate may also vote (by a simple majority) to prohibit the President from holding any public office in the future."

http://usgovinfo.about.com/od/thepresidentandcabinet/a/impeachment.htm

The problem isn't with what we don't know but rather with what nitwits know that's wrong. You are a pompous little nitwit, JohnAdams.

[truthmatters]

If they do it they will surely lose thier next elections

[patrickt]

I think many republicans should be tried for treason for trying to keep Americns from voting

Ah, Truthdoesn'tmatter strikes again. Do you mean the Republican effort to keep the military from voting election after election? I will agree, the liberals are much more eager to have the dead vote, mentally ill, the elderly with demnetia, foreign nationals, and people who, as in this election, who get two ballots while some of us only get one.

If you'd just quit lying you might be able to pursue arguments. And, don't go for wit. You're not even half capable.

[truthmatters]

there were 600 lawyers in Ohio.

your party will be in court for some time to come

[patlape]

I think many republicans should be tried for treason for trying to keep Americns from voting

care to back that up with evidence?

[patrickt]

Over a mistake?

You seem to think the State Dept error was calculated and deliberate.

That sort of BS is what cost the GOP the election.

I'll finally agree with you. Lying is a mistake but it's not an innocent mistake, is it? Was it a State Department "error" to not send relief to the "bumps in the road"? Seven hours the attack was watched and nothing was done, except to get their story ready. It wasn't the State Department that decided that no military assets would be sent to Libya, this time. It wasn't the State Department who decided no effort would be made to save the "bumps in the road". When the King wished to send US forces to Libya he didn't have to deal with Congress or the State Department, did he? No, kings can do as they please.

[coolwalker]

Evidence gathering will now begin! The fight to take back America is not over.

[Trinnity]

care to back that up with evidence?Ha!
She's always demanding proof from others, but she doesn't back her claims with any.

She's an idiot.

[shaarona]

Evidence gathering will now begin! The fight to take back America is not over.

The logistics of a military response have all been investigated and the findings were clear.

The problem was in pulling out the MSD in August.

[Cigar]

If Obama wins what do you think his chances are of getting impeached over Benghazi?



Here's a better idea ... just pout, stick your finger in your mouth and blow really hard!

[Cigar]

Ha!
She's always demanding proof from others, but she doesn't back her claims with any.

She's an idiot.

Just like you ...

Oh and BTW ... you may want to update your signature. :)

[truthmatters]

Ha!
She's always demanding proof from others, but she doesn't back her claims with any.

She's an idiot.


go get the postes to prove your claim

[Calypso Jones]

Evidence gathering will now begin! The fight to take back America is not over.

shut up extremist. YOU are the minority. BOW YOUR KNEE to the victor.

[truthmatters]

you will end up with nothing but bullshit to back an impeachment.

then the Americans people will clean your clocks

[patrickt]

you will end up with nothing but bullshit to back an impeachment.

then the Americans people will clean your clocks

The Queen of Bullshit has spoken.

[patrickt]

JohnAdams:, it's been a little over three hours since your snotty and inaccurate message about impeachment. I'm still waiting for a rebuttal or some evidence you have to present to back up your idiocy.

But, don't despair. I'm not holding my breath.

[truthmatters]

did the American people just tell you they wanted Obama impeached?


you people are blind

[JohnAdams]

"In the House of Representatives

The House Judiciary Committee (http://www.house.gov/judiciary/) decides whether or not to proceed with impeachment. If they do...


The Chairman of the Judiciary Committee will propose a Resolution calling for the Judiciary Committee to begin a formal inquiry into the issue of impeachment.


Based on their inquiry, the Judiciary Committee will send another Resolution to the full House stating that impeachment is warranted and why (the Articles of Impeachment (http://usgovinfo.about.com/blimpar1.htm)), or that impeachment is not called for.


The Full House (probably operating under special floor rules set by the House Rules Committee (http://www.house.gov/rules/)) will debate and vote on each Article of Impeachment.


Should any one of the Articles of Impeachment be approved by a simple majority vote, the President will be "impeached." However, being impeached is sort of like being indicted of a crime. There still has to be a trial, which is where the US Senate comes in.
In the Senate

The Articles of Impeachment are received from the House.


The Senate formulates rules and procedures for holding a trial.


A trial will be held. The President will be represented by his lawyers. A select group of House members will serve as "prosecutors." The Chief Justice of the Supreme Court (http://usgovinfo.about.com/od/uscourtsystem/a/chiefduties.htm) (currently John G. Roberts (http://usgovinfo.about.com/od/uscourtsystem/a/bioroberts.htm)) will preside with all 100 Senators acting as the jury.


The Senate will meet in private session to debate a verdict.


The Senate, in open session, will vote on a verdict. A 2/3 vote of the Senate will result in a conviction.


The Senate will vote to remove the President from office.


The Senate may also vote (by a simple majority) to prohibit the President from holding any public office in the future."
http://usgovinfo.about.com/od/thepresidentandcabinet/a/impeachment.htm

The problem isn't with what we don't know but rather with what nitwits know that's wrong. You are a pompous little nitwit, JohnAdams.



Yes I may be pompous, in fact I know I can at times be downright so.

But at least I unlike you and your fellow liberals, knew better than to cast my vote for this assclown in the first place nitwit.

In fact had the liberal nitwits of your caliber done the same, four Americans wouldn't be dead in Benghazi, innocent Americans would not be sitting imprisoned for no other crime than that of criticizing islam in the United States, this Nation wouldn't have been taken to war unconstitutionally, and oh yeah, we wouldn't have a defense secretary who thinks it's the U.N. and not the Congress of the United States which has the power to delcare war.

Had nitwits of your caliber been pompous enough to see THE OBAMA for what THE OBAMA really is, we would not today be spending our great great great grandkids over the cliff.

Rushing to destroy, the longest lived, greatest, free Republic to ever exist in human history.

Pompous enough for ya there liberal jackass?

[JohnAdams]

did the American people just tell you they wanted Obama impeached?


you people are blind

Why should that matter?

Did what the people want matter in 2008 when the American people through their vote, as evidenced by the fact that it's no longer speaker Pelosi but rather speaker Boehner, rejected Obammycare?

No.

Furthermore, whether the people "like" this President or not, is irrelevant.

Whether he was just re-elected or not is irrelevant too.

He has broken our laws, and violated our Constitution. Note the period. (and note ladies and gents, these libbers do not even dispute that fact on the facts. As evidenced by the fact that they instead are making what are purely emotionally driven arguments as to why THE OBAMA should not be impeached.)

Why is it again he should be any different than any other citizen who breaks our laws?

Oh, thats right, because he's The Obama, and walks on water right libbers?

[patrickt]

Once the charges are proffered by the HOUSE, to the Senate, contrary to your little liberal diatribe asshat, it's gone from the trial phase to the penalty phase. At that point the Senate must either censure him, or remove the President from office. Oh and while I may very well be pompous, at least I can comprehend what I read jackass.

Sorry, JohnAdams, but I diidn't realize you're a developmentally disabled Obamabot. Good-bye.

[shaarona]

If you slash funding for Embassy Security, you can hrdly blame the State Dept or Obama.

the cuts sought by Congress have been steep since the new House sat in 2011.The Worldwide Security Protection program (WSP), which the government says provides "core funding for the protection of life, property, and information of the Department of State," and a separate embassy security and construction budget, which in part improves fortifications, have both been under fire.
"In 2011 they came in and passed a continuing resolution for the remainder of that fiscal year. The House proposed $70 million cut in the WSP and they proposed a $204 million cut in Embassy security," says Mr. Lilly. "Then the next year, fiscal 2012, they cut worldwide security by $145 million and embassy security by $376 million. This year's bill is the same thing all over again. The House has cut the worldwide security budget $149 million below the request."
Roughly 260 installationsThat's not the actual budget – simply the negotiating position of Congress. The Senate and the President have sought more money than the House for embassy security, but the horse-trading means that the State Department ends up with less than it requested. For instance, in the fiscal 2012 budget, the cuts over the State Departments' request were "whittled back by the Senate," he says, to $109 million for WSP and $131 million for embassy security.
"We've got something like 260 embassies and consulates around the world, and there's a remarkable number of them that aren't anywhere close to Inman standards and are still particularly dangerous," says Lilly. "Inman standards" refers to the report written by Admiral Bobby Ray Inman on US building security abroad after the 1983 Marine barracks bombing in Beirut (http://thepoliticalforums.com/tags/topic/Beirut) that left 241 US troops and 58 French soldiers dead.
Nearly 30 years later, many US missions abroad don't meet the code.

http://www.csmonitor.com/World/Backchannels/2012/1005/Libya-attack-Congressmen-casting-blame-voted-to-cut-diplomatic-security-budget/(page)/2

[coolwalker]

If you slash funding for Embassy Security, you can hrdly blame the State Dept or Obama.

the cuts sought by Congress have been steep since the new House sat in 2011.The Worldwide Security Protection program (WSP), which the government says provides "core funding for the protection of life, property, and information of the Department of State," and a separate embassy security and construction budget, which in part improves fortifications, have both been under fire.
"In 2011 they came in and passed a continuing resolution for the remainder of that fiscal year. The House proposed $70 million cut in the WSP and they proposed a $204 million cut in Embassy security," says Mr. Lilly. "Then the next year, fiscal 2012, they cut worldwide security by $145 million and embassy security by $376 million. This year's bill is the same thing all over again. The House has cut the worldwide security budget $149 million below the request."
Roughly 260 installations

That's not the actual budget – simply the negotiating position of Congress. The Senate and the President have sought more money than the House for embassy security, but the horse-trading means that the State Department ends up with less than it requested. For instance, in the fiscal 2012 budget, the cuts over the State Departments' request were "whittled back by the Senate," he says, to $109 million for WSP and $131 million for embassy security.
"We've got something like 260 embassies and consulates around the world, and there's a remarkable number of them that aren't anywhere close to Inman standards and are still particularly dangerous," says Lilly. "Inman standards" refers to the report written by Admiral Bobby Ray Inman on US building security abroad after the 1983 Marine barracks bombing in Beirut (http://thepoliticalforums.com/tags/topic/Beirut) that left 241 US troops and 58 French soldiers dead.
Nearly 30 years later, many US missions abroad don't meet the code.

http://www.csmonitor.com/World/Backchannels/2012/1005/Libya-attack-Congressmen-casting-blame-voted-to-cut-diplomatic-security-budget/(page)/2

When people are dying you don't look at a budget, you respond. There were men and weapons available to do the job...the job itself was ignored and hidden under a thin viel called budget.

[patrickt]

Shaarona, we are well aware that for some people you can never, ever, dare blame President Obama for anything.

[Mainecoons]

Not going to happen, John. Too many remember how Clinton turned that on them.

[Peter1469]

Obama may well be impeached over Benghazi- and he certainly should be. But the Senate would never convict him since the Senate is corrupt.

[patlape]

Just like you ...

Oh and BTW ... you may want to update your signature. :)

Cigar, I have been paying attention to your post since I joined. Enlighten me because I have yet to see a constructive comment from you. You seem to capeable of coming forth with intelligent replies that do not involve one liners and snappy comments. Let's have an intellectual conversation.

If I am in error please direct me to the proper post and I will humbly retract my criticism.

PL