Is There a Serious Discussion about Impeachment?

[nodoginnafight]

What's the likelihood that a Democrat-controlled Senate would vote to convict?

On what charge?
Are you asking for a conviction without a criminal charge?
If so, I would hope NO ONE would vote to convict.

There doesn't have to be a criminal charge. The House simply has to find him unworthy of office due to high crimes and misdemeanors. We're not talking about criminal court here.

It isn't a crime for you to lie to the American people. It should certainly be grounds for removal from high office, shouldn't it?

To impeach a president - you have to alleged a crime. To convict, you have to prove that crime.

 

[TemplarKormac]

"Did the President" is a question, not a charge.

Once you can prove the President "DID" do those things, get back to us.

When you can answer those questions, when you can prove that he "DIDN'T" do those things, get back to us.

Guilty until proven innocent?
Move to China - you'd like it better there.

Move to North Korea, you'd love it there.

 

[PratchettFan]

In the entire list you provided there is not one impeachable act.

Are you suggesting that unless an event emerges with 100% of the facts known and showing the President committed an impeachable offense, it should just be dropped?

Nothing is an impeachable offense until the person facing impeachment is attached to the offense. Typically, officials subject to impeachment do their damnedest to conceal their involvement in impeachable offenses until an investigation makes it clear they, in fact, did commit such a high crime or misdemeanor.

For you to declare "there is not one impeachable act," ignores the fact that many of the events mentioned are still open questions being investigated so, your declaration of Obama's innocence is a bit premature, wouldn't you agree?

Would you at least allow it's possible Obama has committed an impeachable offense.

Of course it is possible. It is possible you have commited a felony, should you be arrested on that possibility or would you prefer there is some evidence developed that you actually did it first?

I don't know if the president has committed an impeachable act. If he has, he should be impeached and, if guilty, convicted. But so far it is all unsupported accusation and inuendo by people who have a clear agenda. They don't want the man impeached because of what he has done, they want him impeached because they don't like him. For them, whether he sits or stands when he pees is sufficient cause for impeachment.

 

[Missourian]

On what charge?
Are you asking for a conviction without a criminal charge?
If so, I would hope NO ONE would vote to convict.

The same charge that was against Richard Nixon. Abuse of Power.

Nixon was charged with obstruction of justice for failing to turn over White House tape recordings that were subpoenaed

Well, this was on Drudge this morning...White House's Benghazi email dump shows gap, CIA objection | The Daily Caller

The Benghazi-related emails released by the White House late May 15 exclude the critical emails between administration officials that were sent during the crucial first two days after the deadly jihadi attack that killed four Americans last September.

Read more: White House's Benghazi email dump shows gap, CIA objection | The Daily Caller
​

 

[Crackerjaxon]

On what charge?
Are you asking for a conviction without a criminal charge?
If so, I would hope NO ONE would vote to convict.

There doesn't have to be a criminal charge. The House simply has to find him unworthy of office due to high crimes and misdemeanors. We're not talking about criminal court here.

It isn't a crime for you to lie to the American people. It should certainly be grounds for removal from high office, shouldn't it?

To impeach a president - you have to alleged a crime. To convict, you have to prove that crime.

Are you bereft of anything resembling common seense?

Here, read and learn:

The Constitution, Article II, Section 4:
The President, Vice President and all civil Officers of the United States, shall be removed from Office on Impeachment for, and Conviction of, Treason, Bribery, or other high Crimes and Misdemeanors.

The Constitution and and Impeachment

The site goes over grounds for impeachment.

Get a grip. You're trying to equivocate on something that doesn't exist. The president can be impeached for imcompetence should the House and Senate decide to do so.

Your argument is bullshit, probably based on watching lawyers on TV.

 

[nodoginnafight]

Or you can Google them like I did.

Simple enough, right?

So you are asking ME to make your case for you?

For example - please provide evidence that Obama has illegally granted amnesty to 11 million illegal immigrants as you charge.

Well you refuse to make your own.

Immigration bill grants amnesty to employers of illegals; no prosecution for bogus IDs - Washington Times

Let me just demonstrate how easy it is to debunk your claims. Remember THIS is why you didn't get a blow by blow on all of your equally absurd claims.

You claim Obama has violated the Constitution by illegally granting amnesty to 11 million illegal immigrants.

The problem comes in the story you linked to support your claim.

"The crux of the Senate bill, negotiated by four Republican senators and four Democrats, would legalize most of the estimated 11 million illegal immigrants"

Number one: The bill that has been negotiated in the Senate is STILL BEING NEGOTIATED. It hasn't been passed so your "crime" (even if I agreed it was one) hasn't even occured yet.

Number two: (as if number one wasn't enough to completely sink your little dinghy) You appear to be claiming that by passing legislation, Congress has commited a crime on behalf of the president.

If you make idiotic claims like these - don't expect an extensive answer. You haven't EARNED one!

 

[nodoginnafight]

What's the likelihood that a Democrat-controlled Senate would vote to convict?

On what charge?
Are you asking for a conviction without a criminal charge?
If so, I would hope NO ONE would vote to convict.

There doesn't have to be a criminal charge. The House simply has to find him unworthy of office due to high crimes and misdemeanors. We're not talking about criminal court here.

It isn't a crime for you to lie to the American people. It should certainly be grounds for removal from high office, shouldn't it?

REALLY?
"high crimes and misdemeanors" - that means a crime.
You do know that don't you?

 

[PratchettFan]

So you can't refute it. Merely calling it "rubbish" is not a refutatory argument.

No. It's just a statement of fact. It's rubbish. In the entire list you provided there is not one impeachable act.

Let me give you an example of just how nonsensical, and one sided, your position is. You claim "Who does the Federal Government report to? Yes, the President. "

Scooter Libby, the COS of VP Cheney was convicted of a felony. Not just accused, convicted. Now, he was part of the Bush Administration and clearly came in direct contact with the President. He wasn't just a low level employee who would never see, let alone consult with, the President. So why, if what you say is true and not one sided, why did you not call for the conviction of Bush and Cheney? Were they not equally guilty since Libby reported to them? Why aren't you calling for it now? The statute of limitations has not run out.

As the old saying goes: "You are entitled to your own opinions, not your own facts."

Yes. I believe that point has been made to you more than once. I'm glad you got it.

 

[Liberaservative]

In the entire list you provided there is not one impeachable act.

Are you suggesting that unless an event emerges with 100% of the facts known and showing the President committed an impeachable offense, it should just be dropped?

Nothing is an impeachable offense until the person facing impeachment is attached to the offense. Typically, officials subject to impeachment do their damnedest to conceal their involvement in impeachable offenses until an investigation makes it clear they, in fact, did commit such a high crime or misdemeanor.

For you to declare "there is not one impeachable act," ignores the fact that many of the events mentioned are still open questions being investigated so, your declaration of Obama's innocence is a bit premature, wouldn't you agree?

Would you at least allow it's possible Obama has committed an impeachable offense.

Of course it is possible. It is possible you have commited a felony, should you be arrested on that possibility or would you prefer there is some evidence developed that you actually did it first?

So, allow the investigative body develop the evidence instead of stonewalling.

I don't know if the president has committed an impeachable act. If he has, he should be impeached and, if guilty, convicted. But so far it is all unsupported accusation and inuendo by people who have a clear agenda. They don't want the man impeached because of what he has done, they want him impeached because they don't like him. For them, whether he sits or stands when he pees is sufficient cause for impeachment.

That's not true. Every person directly involved in Benghazi were Democrats. So far, the whistle blowers have been Democrats. What is Hicks' agenda?

On the IRS scandal, the person benefiting from the improper activity was Barack Obama. Over 500 organizations were scrutinized and harassed through the 2012 election; chilling potential donors who didn't want their names handed over to an administration that seemed to pick sides and punish its opponents and diverting the 500 organizations from their principal purpose to fighting with the IRS. I would think you, as I, would want to get to the bottom of how this was allowed to happen.

As for the AP scandal; meh, I'm not sure there's a scandal there. But, he sure pissed off the press and they're making a big deal of it. Also, there was some Republican congressman on a Conservative webcast claiming the administration's phone records grab extended to the House Cloak Room. If that turns out to be true -- and I'm not saying it is -- Obama is screwed and whether or not he is impeached will be less important than whether or not one iota of his second-term agenda gets implemented. Sometimes, it's not about the crimes but the people you piss off.

I particularly love that Charles Rangel, no piker when it comes to IRS scandals, has suggested the White House isn't being hones and should "come clean."

 

[Liberaservative]

On what charge?
Are you asking for a conviction without a criminal charge?
If so, I would hope NO ONE would vote to convict.

There doesn't have to be a criminal charge. The House simply has to find him unworthy of office due to high crimes and misdemeanors. We're not talking about criminal court here.

It isn't a crime for you to lie to the American people. It should certainly be grounds for removal from high office, shouldn't it?

REALLY?
"high crimes and misdemeanors" - that means a crime.
You do know that don't you?

I agree with nodoginnafight but, the threshold is rather low. Perjury, Obstructing Justice, and Suborning Perjury are usually the first laws broken by any impeachable office holder trying to hide some misdeed...even when the original misdeed isn't illegal.

 

[nodoginnafight]

Also, there was some Republican congressman on a Conservative webcast claiming the administration's phone records grab extended to the House Cloak Room.

Because he called one of the reporters that was being tapped from the cloak room?

 

[PratchettFan]

There doesn't have to be a criminal charge. The House simply has to find him unworthy of office due to high crimes and misdemeanors. We're not talking about criminal court here.

It isn't a crime for you to lie to the American people. It should certainly be grounds for removal from high office, shouldn't it?

To impeach a president - you have to alleged a crime. To convict, you have to prove that crime.

Are you bereft of anything resembling common seense?

Here, read and learn:

The Constitution, Article II, Section 4:
The President, Vice President and all civil Officers of the United States, shall be removed from Office on Impeachment for, and Conviction of, Treason, Bribery, or other high Crimes and Misdemeanors.

The Constitution and and Impeachment

The site goes over grounds for impeachment.

Get a grip. You're trying to equivocate on something that doesn't exist. The president can be impeached for imcompetence should the House and Senate decide to do so.

Your argument is bullshit, probably based on watching lawyers on TV.

I'm sorry. I seem to have missed something. Where exactly in the Constitution does it mention "incompetence" as a cause for impeachment?

 

[nodoginnafight]

There doesn't have to be a criminal charge. The House simply has to find him unworthy of office due to high crimes and misdemeanors. We're not talking about criminal court here.

It isn't a crime for you to lie to the American people. It should certainly be grounds for removal from high office, shouldn't it?

REALLY?
"high crimes and misdemeanors" - that means a crime.
You do know that don't you?

I agree with nodoginnafight but, the threshold is rather low. Perjury, Obstructing Justice, and Suborning Perjury are usually the first laws broken by any impeachable office holder trying to hide some misdeed...even when the original misdeed isn't illegal.

I agree - it's not an extremely high bar - but it has to be a crime. Not just because you really REALLY don't like him.

Removing someone from office because you think they are screwing up royally is called a recall. And I don't believe that is an option with a POTUS

 

[PratchettFan]

In the entire list you provided there is not one impeachable act.

Are you suggesting that unless an event emerges with 100% of the facts known and showing the President committed an impeachable offense, it should just be dropped?

Nothing is an impeachable offense until the person facing impeachment is attached to the offense. Typically, officials subject to impeachment do their damnedest to conceal their involvement in impeachable offenses until an investigation makes it clear they, in fact, did commit such a high crime or misdemeanor.

For you to declare "there is not one impeachable act," ignores the fact that many of the events mentioned are still open questions being investigated so, your declaration of Obama's innocence is a bit premature, wouldn't you agree?

Would you at least allow it's possible Obama has committed an impeachable offense.

Not directed at me, but I would like to weigh in with my position on the questions you raise if that's Ok.

My position is that I agree that you have to investigate to determine the facts BEFORE you can form an informed opinion about whether or not the president has commited illegal acts. But right now, those who are beating the impeachment drum are handicapped by a "boy who cried wolf" reaction.

Non-stop accusations, non-stop investigations, and a litany of one claim after another engenders an understandable "oh please, not again," reaction.

For example, no amount of evidence to the contrary seemed to phase the birthers. I believe it is a very legitimate question to ask - is this just an extension of that kind of harassment?

My personal opinion is that it is a poor way to correct an election that you disagree with to just continually make unsupported accusations and demand an wide, unfocused investigation in the hopes that it will turn up something. It is becoming a standard operating procedure for many on both sides of the aisle and I believe it is to the detriment of the people who elect those who serve.

Bottom line: If a real crime has been commited by any elected official, then I believe we should enforce our laws even-handedly and without regard to political ideology. I'm just sick to death of opposition by accusation and investigation - by EVERYONE who does it.

A comment well worth repeating.

 

[TemplarKormac]

So you are asking ME to make your case for you?

For example - please provide evidence that Obama has illegally granted amnesty to 11 million illegal immigrants as you charge.

Well you refuse to make your own.

Immigration bill grants amnesty to employers of illegals; no prosecution for bogus IDs - Washington Times

Let me just demonstrate how easy it is to debunk your claims. Remember THIS is why you didn't get a blow by blow on all of your equally absurd claims.

You claim Obama has violated the Constitution by illegally granting amnesty to 11 million illegal immigrants.

The problem comes in the story you linked to support your claim.

"The crux of the Senate bill, negotiated by four Republican senators and four Democrats, would legalize most of the estimated 11 million illegal immigrants"

Number one: The bill that has been negotiated in the Senate is STILL BEING NEGOTIATED. It hasn't been passed so your "crime" (even if I agreed it was one) hasn't even occured yet.

Number two: (as if number one wasn't enough to completely sink your little dinghy) You appear to be claiming that by passing legislation, Congress has commited a crime on behalf of the president.

If you make idiotic claims like these - don't expect an extensive answer. You haven't EARNED one!

Now that I have you high up in the clouds (I love when I can play an overzealous liberal with random GOP propaganda like a Game Boy Game), the actual grant of
amnesty came here:

He issued an executive order to grant some 800,000 illegal immigrants amnesty, and bypassed congress in doing so. Not so confident now, are you?

Obama bypasses Congress to grant amnesty to 800,000 illegal immigrants - The Mercury

Obama suspends deportation for thousands of illegals, tells GOP to pass DREAM Act | Fox News

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/06/16/u...e-illegal-immigrants.html?pagewanted=all&_r=0

Obama Administration To Stop Deporting Younger Undocumented Immigrants And Grant Work Permits

Obama administration to stop deporting some young illegal immigrants - CNN.com

U.S. will stop deporting some illegal immigrants who came here as children - Washington Post



That is a crime buddy. I suggest you learn to be more conscientious.

 

[nodoginnafight]

Now that I have you high up in the clouds (I love when I can play an overzealous liberal with random GOP propaganda like a Game Boy Game), the actual grant of
amnesty came here:

BWAAAAA HAAAAAAA

what a lame retreat.

I will give you credit for being smart enough to know when you've been trashed.

But your rebound attempt isn't any better.

#1 - no 11 million illegal immigrants
#2 - a delay in deportation ain't amnesty.

A fly is easier to swat away than your lame "cases." Come back when you up your game.

 

[Liberaservative]

REALLY?
"high crimes and misdemeanors" - that means a crime.
You do know that don't you?

I agree with nodoginnafight but, the threshold is rather low. Perjury, Obstructing Justice, and Suborning Perjury are usually the first laws broken by any impeachable office holder trying to hide some misdeed...even when the original misdeed isn't illegal.

I agree - it's not an extremely high bar - but it has to be a crime. Not just because you really REALLY don't like him.

Removing someone from office because you think they are screwing up royally is called a recall.

Only where recalls are permitted...no such provision exists in the Constitution for the President, that I recall. We must simply wait for the next election.

Does anyone know if violating the Oath of Office is an impeachable offense or considered a "high crime or misdemeanor?" If so, that may be an instance where a President can be impeached for something other than a statutorily defined criminal act.

I want to say this debate was hashed out when the Bush administration and, again, when the Obama administration started using signing statements and, most recently, when the Obama administration stated it would not be enforcing certain provision of immigration law. I don't recall the outcome.

 

[nodoginnafight]

Only where recalls are permitted...no such provision exists in the Constitution for the President, that I recall

I just edited my previous comment to add that. I don't believe a recall is an option for a POTUS either.

 

[TemplarKormac]

Are you suggesting that unless an event emerges with 100% of the facts known and showing the President committed an impeachable offense, it should just be dropped?

Nothing is an impeachable offense until the person facing impeachment is attached to the offense. Typically, officials subject to impeachment do their damnedest to conceal their involvement in impeachable offenses until an investigation makes it clear they, in fact, did commit such a high crime or misdemeanor.

For you to declare "there is not one impeachable act," ignores the fact that many of the events mentioned are still open questions being investigated so, your declaration of Obama's innocence is a bit premature, wouldn't you agree?

Would you at least allow it's possible Obama has committed an impeachable offense.

Not directed at me, but I would like to weigh in with my position on the questions you raise if that's Ok.

My position is that I agree that you have to investigate to determine the facts BEFORE you can form an informed opinion about whether or not the president has commited illegal acts. But right now, those who are beating the impeachment drum are handicapped by a "boy who cried wolf" reaction.

Non-stop accusations, non-stop investigations, and a litany of one claim after another engenders an understandable "oh please, not again," reaction.

For example, no amount of evidence to the contrary seemed to phase the birthers. I believe it is a very legitimate question to ask - is this just an extension of that kind of harassment?

My personal opinion is that it is a poor way to correct an election that you disagree with to just continually make unsupported accusations and demand an wide, unfocused investigation in the hopes that it will turn up something. It is becoming a standard operating procedure for many on both sides of the aisle and I believe it is to the detriment of the people who elect those who serve.

Bottom line: If a real crime has been commited by any elected official, then I believe we should enforce our laws even-handedly and without regard to political ideology. I'm just sick to death of opposition by accusation and investigation - by EVERYONE who does it.

A comment well worth repeating.

What all of you fail to recognize is that there have been three hearings in the past week. All of which provided damning testimonies by witnesses who claim no specific political ideology, and damning lack of responses by others such as AG Holder. These are not accusations. ABC came out with a report the showed the Admin willfully redacted talking points 12 times in order to sell a lie. When a president lies, we call that perjury. When AG Holder was grilled by the Oversight Committee, he insisted he "didn't know" or "couldn't answer the question." The Inspector General completely contradicted the claim that there were two "rogue agents" that targeted nearly 500 right-leaning tax exempt applicants for aggressive audits and purposeful delays.

Here are the disturbing parallels:

Nixon was targeted for impeachment for using the IRS to attack political opponents, and was tried for destroying evidence. Nixon went after a guy for releasing the Pentagon Papers to the press, was rebuffed for launching a military campaign into Cambodia without congressional approval. Amongst a slew of other things he did wrong.

Today, Obama presides over a Justice Department who forcefully seized phone records from the Associated Press after it reported on a story that made the Government uneasy, an IRS who willfully targets Conservative/Religious 501 (c) (4) tax exempt applicants. And over a State Department and White House who attempted to lie to the American people over a lack of response that killed Ambassador Chris Stevens and three others.

These aren't accusations. These are crimes against America.

 

[TemplarKormac]

Now that I have you high up in the clouds (I love when I can play an overzealous liberal with random GOP propaganda like a Game Boy Game), the actual grant of
amnesty came here:

BWAAAAA HAAAAAAA

what a lame retreat.

I will give you credit for being smart enough to know when you've been trashed.

But your rebound attempt isn't any better.

#1 - no 11 million illegal immigrants
#2 - a delay in deportation ain't amnesty.

A fly is easier to swat away than your lame "cases." Come back when you up your game.

The fun thing is that I do a ton of research on my arguments. I know for a fact Obama advocates giving illegals (all 11 million of them) amnesty. He could only settle for 800k. But then again, what part of "will stop deporting illegals" did you not read?

So, you still have your head in the clouds, defending a man who has now had his second term crippled by three distinct scandals. I have played on a few distinct weaknesses of yours.

1. That you are willing to believe everything you hear. Preparing a swift rebuttal without even considering the ramifications.
2. That you are also willing to spin an issue to claim the high ground
3. That you will blindly defend a man you voted for, regardless of what he has done.
4. That you will obfuscate, deny, and deflect serious debate away from the actual subject.
5. That you want the law to be applied fairly, when it is, you somehow suggest such an application is partisan in nature.
6. That you are a Liberal.

You didn't win anything. One of my hobbies is political science. I know the Liberal psyche all too well, and it reminds me too much of how a child behaves when he is caught in a situation beyond his control and comprehension.