5 Myths about impeachment

[Luddly Neddite]

5 myths about impeachment

Some 40 years after Richard Nixon resigned to avoid his likely impeachment by the House of Representatives, Washington is again talking impeachment.

Members of Congress are denouncing the president’s contempt for constitutional law, while the president is raising money to fight the effort to remove him. But this time, the money pouring in would be just as well spent on defense against Bigfoot. Much of the debate has been more mythological than constitutional.

More at the link -

 

[Lakhota]

Good info. Thanks.

 

[Luddly Neddite]

Too bad the Repubs won't be reading it.

They're too busy trying to come up with their next fake scandal and/or phony vote to repeal ObamaCare.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Republicans aren't the ones blathering all over the place about impeachment, are they?

Additionally, I bet you didn't get upset when the Democrats tried to impeach Bush over nothing.

 

[Mad Scientist]

I can see you guys are getting scared and I like it. The "article" completely glossed over:

Accepting Chair of the UN Security Council.

Stopping Deportations.

Fast and Furious.

Selectively Enforcing ObamaCare Law.

Ya' boy is sinking fast. You don't have much time left to destroy the country, better get on it before some General relieves the "Commander in Chief".

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

An impeachable offense is anything Congress says it is.

This is a myth to the extent that the House should not impeach for subjective, partisan reasons, and such 'impeachment' would manifest as an abuse of Congress' powers; but the fact remains that in theory the House can 'impeach' a president for any reason it sees fit – even if it's for the wrong reason.

An impeachable offense must involve a violation of criminal law.

Again, the House is at liberty to draft articles of 'impeachment' for any reason or reasons it perceives appropriate; to win conviction in the Senate, however, objective, documented evidence of a violation of criminal law is more than likely needed.

House republicans won't 'impeach' President Obama solely because they don't see it as politically beneficial for republicans.

 

[Kinte]

Impeaching this drub is one thing, but look what we will have in it's place. It's a bad situation, maybe Joe should start studying for the urine test.

 

[whitehall]

Funny the article didn't include the most important fact that impeachment is just the process. It's not a guilty verdict, it's more like an indictment.

 

[Luddly Neddite]

I can see you guys are getting scared and I like it. The "article" completely glossed over:

Accepting Chair of the UN Security Council.

Stopping Deportations.

Fast and Furious.

Selectively Enforcing ObamaCare Law.

Ya' boy is sinking fast. You don't have much time left to destroy the country, better get on it before some General relieves the "Commander in Chief".

IOW, they got nuthin'.

BTW, what was Obama's crime when he stopped Bush's Fast and furious?

 

[whitehall]

Funny the left uses Nixon as an example when he was never impeached but doesn't talk about the sleaze bag degenerate who was impeached. The "Watergate" affair pales in comparison to the current president making up his own laws and impeding the investigation of his A.G. as well as the criminal negligence of Benghazi, the criminal spying on US citizens and the IRS scandal.

 

[Youch]

Some 40 years after Richard Nixon resigned to avoid his likely impeachment by the House of Representatives, Washington is again talking impeachment.

Members of Congress are denouncing the president’s contempt for constitutional law, while the president is raising money to fight the effort to remove him. But this time, the money pouring in would be just as well spent on defense against Bigfoot. Much of the debate has been more mythological than constitutional.

More at the link -[/QUOTE]

Our President has passed the original intent of 'high crimes and misdemeanors" on several occasions. Impeachment is a difficult political hurdle, especially given that he is the "first black President." That said, after the mid-terms, I suspect there will be a growing momentum to do according to the Constitution.

 

[Sallow]

Republicans aren't the ones blathering all over the place about impeachment, are they?

Additionally, I bet you didn't get upset when the Democrats tried to impeach Bush over nothing.

Yes they are..



And that's from September 2013.

They've been talking about for a long time.

 

[AvgGuyIA]

Skip impeachment and have him arrested instead.

 

[AvgGuyIA]

Republicans aren't the ones blathering all over the place about impeachment, are they?

Additionally, I bet you didn't get upset when the Democrats tried to impeach Bush over nothing.

Yes they are..



And that's from September 2013.

They've been talking about for a long time.

Turk is a fucking idiot.

 

[DigitalDrifter]

It's been all about fundraising. Drop a hint out there that the GOP is about to begin impeachment proceedings any day now, and the Dim money starts flowing in. Funny how Obama just happened to be out on fundraising trips when all of this "talk" began.

 

[regent]

Impeachment is a political process not a legal one. Republicans control the House, and it is the House that impeaches and if the House ever stopped passing "Repeal Obama-care" bills
they could impeach. Republicans usually bring up impeachment as a campaign tactic to make it seem Obama is in big trouble for breaking laws.
The problem with impeachment, as Republicans discovered, is that it can bite the party impeaching.

 

[blackhawk]

The House speaker has said on the record there will be no impeachment you guy's will have to find a new talking point.

 

[percysunshine]

Impeachment is a political process, not a legal process.


For reference;

High Crimes and Misdemeanors - Constitutional Rights Foundation

"The U.S. Constitution provides impeachment as the method for removing the president, vice president, federal judges, and other federal officials from office. The impeachment process begins in the House of Representatives and follows these steps:
1.The House Judiciary Committee holds hearings and, if necessary, prepares articles of impeachment. These are the charges against the official.
2.If a majority of the committee votes to approve the articles, the whole House debates and votes on them.
3.If a majority of the House votes to impeach the official on any article, then the official must then stand trial in the Senate.
4.For the official to be removed from office, two-thirds of the Senate must vote to convict the official. Upon conviction, the official is automatically removed from office and, if the Senate so decides, may be forbidden from holding governmental office again.

The impeachment process is political in nature, not criminal."



and



The Federalist (Dawson)/64 - Wikisource, the free online library


"The subjects of its jurisdiction are those offences which proceed from the misconduct of public men, or, in other words, from the abuse or violation of some public trust. They are of a nature which may with peculiar propriety be denominated political,"

 

[Quantum Windbag]

I can see you guys are getting scared and I like it. The "article" completely glossed over:

Accepting Chair of the UN Security Council.

Stopping Deportations.

Fast and Furious.

Selectively Enforcing ObamaCare Law.

Ya' boy is sinking fast. You don't have much time left to destroy the country, better get on it before some General relieves the "Commander in Chief".

IOW, they got nuthin'.

BTW, what was Obama's crime when he stopped Bush's Fast and furious?

Why do you keep lying?

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Republicans aren't the ones blathering all over the place about impeachment, are they?

Additionally, I bet you didn't get upset when the Democrats tried to impeach Bush over nothing.

Yes they are..



And that's from September 2013.

They've been talking about for a long time.

Sorry, I keep forgetting that half the idiots on here don't comprehend English.

FYI, I did not say that no Republican mentioned impeachment, I said that Democrats are the ones who are making it an issue.

Want to reply to my post based on what I actually said, instead of using your idiotic misunderstanding of English.