CDZ Obama Impeachment

[ogibillm]

I certainly believe his complete refusal to uphold existing immigration laws would qualify as neglect of duty.

According to the definition of those who oppose him, perhaps, but every executive has to decide where to focus enforcement of laws. That fact would open all future executives to impeachment. Also, since Obama has not been guilty of "complete refusal" to uphold immigration laws, your analysis fails on that point. The eternal bugaboo of relying on the absolute torpedoes that notion.

What a load of crock. The man HAS most certainly ordered ICE to stand down, and is talking about unilaterally making these people legal in direct defiance of current law.

If you can't be honest, stay out of the CDZ. I can get lies in the other forums.

really? ordered ice to stand down? any source for that hyperbole?

 

[CrusaderFrank]

President Biden is Obama Impeachment/Assassination insurance

 

[Uncensored2008]

I'm starting this thread in the CDZ because I'd like at least a semi-serious explanation without all the partisan BS about the constitutionality of impeachment of Obama. I'd really like to know.

What is the constitutional argument for impeaching Obama? What has he done that is an impeachable offense?

18 U.S. Code § 872 - Extortion by officers or employees of the United States

18 U.S. Code 872 - Extortion by officers or employees of the United States LII Legal Information Institute

Eric Holder, at the behest of Barack Obama, has engaged in an interstate extortion ring.

{Operation Choke Point, as it has been known, was a DOJ initiative that was intentionally designed to pressure banks and lenders into avoiding certain industry-specific businesses. Ostensibly, Operation Choke Point was designed to fight money laundering and fraud. The secretive initiative was launched with little fanfare in 2013. According to the Justice Department, it was aimed at “choking out” companies the Administration considered high-risk, despite the fact that they were legal businesses that had shown no signs of fraud.

In other words, the program was aimed at punishing businesses for merely existing. One of the primary victims of Operation Chokepoint has been gun manufacturers, and legal firearm dealers.}

Darrell Issa Takes Aim at Eric Holder s Extortion Racket - Michael Schaus - Townhall Finance Conservative Columnists and Financial Commentary - Page full

{
Using fear and intimidation to extort money from legitimate businesses is a tried-and-true mafia tactic. But what happens when the federal government gets into this racket, demanding billions in “settlements” from an ever-expanding array of companies by threatening them with a corporate death sentence if they don’t knuckle under? We’re going to find out. Because this time, maybe they chose the wrong victim.

Tired of closing down state-approved medical marijuana dispensaries and seizing the property of their landlords, U.S. Attorney for the Northern District of California Melinda Haag, an Obama appointee, is hunting for bigger game. Flush from shaking down Walmart, Johnson and Johnson, and UPS for tens of millions, she has indicted the FedEx Corporation on drug trafficking and “conspiracy to launder” money charges. The prize purse this time? $1.6 billion.}

Please FedEx Fight Back Against Federal Extortion - Forbes

Obama is a two-bit Chicago thug, who has turned the Federal Government into a criminal gang. With Rahm Emanuel and Eric Holder at his side, this is no surprise - this is more the makeup of the Mafia than it is a government.

I would like to see Holder arrested the day he leaves the AG position. IF we are a nation of laws, then no man can be held above the law.

Obama belongs in prison - start with his Shock Collar, Eric Holder, then impeach and prosecute Obama.

 

[Ravi]

If he goes through with this rumored legal status for several million people then yes, he should be impeached. He's not a king and he doesn't have the authority to rule by executive fiat.

But what does that mean, though? Presidents have issued executive orders creating laws for at least 100 years. At what level can he or can he not create laws?

And why does he need to be impeached? Why can't those who disagree with his executive orders take those orders to the courts? The courts have overturned executive orders in the past.

FTR, it seems to me that just waving his hand in the air and giving illegals status is an over-reach of power. But is that really impeachable? What crime has he committed?

Didn't Reagan do something similar by de-regulating the economy? Presidents are allowed to follow their own policies.

 

[Syriusly]

If he goes through with this rumored legal status for several million people then yes, he should be impeached. He's not a king and he doesn't have the authority to rule by executive fiat.

But what does that mean, though? Presidents have issued executive orders creating laws for at least 100 years. At what level can he or can he not create laws?

And why does he need to be impeached? Why can't those who disagree with his executive orders take those orders to the courts? The courts have overturned executive orders in the past.

FTR, it seems to me that just waving his hand in the air and giving illegals status is an over-reach of power. But is that really impeachable? What crime has he committed?

Didn't Reagan do something similar by de-regulating the economy? Presidents are allowed to follow their own policies.

Congress can get away with impeaching a President for anything- because Congress answers to no one except the voters when it comes to impeachment.

Congress could impeach Obama for being black in office- and it would be a legal impeachment.

BUT if Congress is seen to be impeaching for something that is not actually spelled out in the Constitution- then the public will view the impeachment as a corruption of the Constitution and the impeachment process.

Worse- it opens the door for subsequent Congress's to impeach Presidents for whatever political reasons that they want. And then we become more like a parliamentary system than our Constitutional system.

IF Congress cannot spell out a specific, enumerated crime- like perjury- for impeachment- and proceeded to impeachment- Congress would be party to corrupting our Constitution.

 

[Uncensored2008]

If he goes through with this rumored legal status for several million people then yes, he should be impeached. He's not a king and he doesn't have the authority to rule by executive fiat.

But what does that mean, though? Presidents have issued executive orders creating laws for at least 100 years. At what level can he or can he not create laws?

And why does he need to be impeached? Why can't those who disagree with his executive orders take those orders to the courts? The courts have overturned executive orders in the past.

FTR, it seems to me that just waving his hand in the air and giving illegals status is an over-reach of power. But is that really impeachable? What crime has he committed?

Didn't Reagan do something similar by de-regulating the economy? Presidents are allowed to follow their own policies.

Congress can get away with impeaching a President for anything- because Congress answers to no one except the voters when it comes to impeachment.

Congress could impeach Obama for being black in office- and it would be a legal impeachment.

BUT if Congress is seen to be impeaching for something that is not actually spelled out in the Constitution- then the public will view the impeachment as a corruption of the Constitution and the impeachment process.

Worse- it opens the door for subsequent Congress's to impeach Presidents for whatever political reasons that they want. And then we become more like a parliamentary system than our Constitutional system.

IF Congress cannot spell out a specific, enumerated crime- like perjury- for impeachment- and proceeded to impeachment- Congress would be party to corrupting our Constitution.

Obama is a criminal, this is irrefutable fact.

Obama has engaged in extortion and belongs in prison - as any commoner would be for the same acts.

Specific, enumerated crime:

18 U.S. Code 872 - Extortion by officers or employees of the United States LII Legal Information Institute

 

[Syriusly]

If he goes through with this rumored legal status for several million people then yes, he should be impeached. He's not a king and he doesn't have the authority to rule by executive fiat.

But what does that mean, though? Presidents have issued executive orders creating laws for at least 100 years. At what level can he or can he not create laws?

And why does he need to be impeached? Why can't those who disagree with his executive orders take those orders to the courts? The courts have overturned executive orders in the past.

FTR, it seems to me that just waving his hand in the air and giving illegals status is an over-reach of power. But is that really impeachable? What crime has he committed?

Didn't Reagan do something similar by de-regulating the economy? Presidents are allowed to follow their own policies.

Congress can get away with impeaching a President for anything- because Congress answers to no one except the voters when it comes to impeachment.

Congress could impeach Obama for being black in office- and it would be a legal impeachment.

BUT if Congress is seen to be impeaching for something that is not actually spelled out in the Constitution- then the public will view the impeachment as a corruption of the Constitution and the impeachment process.

Worse- it opens the door for subsequent Congress's to impeach Presidents for whatever political reasons that they want. And then we become more like a parliamentary system than our Constitutional system.

IF Congress cannot spell out a specific, enumerated crime- like perjury- for impeachment- and proceeded to impeachment- Congress would be party to corrupting our Constitution.

Obama is a criminal, this is irrefutable fact.

Obama has engaged in extortion and belongs in prison - as any commoner would be for the same acts.

Specific, enumerated crime:

18 U.S. Code 872 - Extortion by officers or employees of the United States LII Legal Information Institute

Clearly you don't know what the definition of 'irrefutable' is- your ignorant opinion does not make something 'irrefutable'.

 

[Syriusly]

If he goes through with this rumored legal status for several million people then yes, he should be impeached. He's not a king and he doesn't have the authority to rule by executive fiat.

But what does that mean, though? Presidents have issued executive orders creating laws for at least 100 years. At what level can he or can he not create laws?

And why does he need to be impeached? Why can't those who disagree with his executive orders take those orders to the courts? The courts have overturned executive orders in the past.

FTR, it seems to me that just waving his hand in the air and giving illegals status is an over-reach of power. But is that really impeachable? What crime has he committed?

Didn't Reagan do something similar by de-regulating the economy? Presidents are allowed to follow their own policies.

Congress can get away with impeaching a President for anything- because Congress answers to no one except the voters when it comes to impeachment.

Congress could impeach Obama for being black in office- and it would be a legal impeachment.

BUT if Congress is seen to be impeaching for something that is not actually spelled out in the Constitution- then the public will view the impeachment as a corruption of the Constitution and the impeachment process.

Worse- it opens the door for subsequent Congress's to impeach Presidents for whatever political reasons that they want. And then we become more like a parliamentary system than our Constitutional system.

IF Congress cannot spell out a specific, enumerated crime- like perjury- for impeachment- and proceeded to impeachment- Congress would be party to corrupting our Constitution.

this is irrefutable

 

[Uncensored2008]

Clearly you don't know what the definition of 'irrefutable' is- your ignorant opinion does not make something 'irrefutable'.

Yet, you certainly can't refute it, nor even offer a rational retort.

Obama willfully engaged in extortion. This is a fact. Extortion is a crime, this is a fact, Extortion is listed under the color of authority as follows;

{Whoever, being an officer, or employee of the United States or any department or agency thereof, or representing himself to be or assuming to act as such, under color or pretense of office or employment commits or attempts an act of extortion, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than three years, or both; but if the amount so extorted or demanded does not exceed $1,000, he shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than one year, or both.}

18 U.S. Code 872 - Extortion by officers or employees of the United States LII Legal Information Institute

Explain why Obama should not be impeached, indicted, and incarcerated?

 

[Ravi]

What extortion do you speak of, Eunich?

 

[Luddly Neddite]

Explain why Obama should not be impeached, indicted, and incarcerated?

That's easy.

There are no grounds.

I'm not the Constitutional scholar that some here say they are but, just like the idiotic burfer nonsense, the right is pouring millions into this and getting nowhere.

Because there's nowhere for them to go with it.

Simply put, if they had the grounds, it would have been done the day after his first inauguration. They've been trying ever since and all they've got is talk. Lots and lots of photo-op talk.

And, gawd knows, the right is a hell of a lot better at talking about nothing than they are at actually Doing Something.

 

[Syriusly]

Clearly you don't know what the definition of 'irrefutable' is- your ignorant opinion does not make something 'irrefutable'.

Yet, you certainly can't refute it, nor even offer a rational retort.

Obama willfully engaged in extortion. This is a fact.

 

[Uncensored2008]

What extortion do you speak of, Eunich?

I believe this is the CDZ

CDZ - Obama Impeachment Page 3 US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum

 

[Uncensored2008]

Explain why Obama should not be impeached, indicted, and incarcerated?

That's easy.

There are no grounds.

False.

CDZ - Obama Impeachment Page 3 US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum

I'm not the Constitutional scholar

That is certainly true.

This is not about the constitution though, Barack Obama under the color of office caused to be committed hundreds of acts of extortion against legal businesses engaging in legal activities with other legal business in order to harrass and financially damage political foes.

This is a federal felony.

Because there's nowhere for them to go with it.

Try to reply in a rational manner.

Obama through Operation Choke Point engaged in the systematic extortion of businesses who had dealings with those targeted as enemies of the administration.

This is a federal felony.

Simply put, if they had the grounds, it would have been done the day after his first inauguration. They've been trying ever since and all they've got is talk. Lots and lots of photo-op talk.

The Republicans lacked the clout to remove Obama from office. At this juncture, a full airing of the felonious acts engaged in by Obama are plenty to remove him from office and bring him to justice..

Back in 1974, we were going to impeach Richard Nixon for merely suggesting that the IRS be used against political enemies. We know that Obama has done more than just suggest - he's heavily used the IRS to intimidate and harass enemies.

The IRS abuse is small time compared to this.

And, gawd knows, the right is a hell of a lot better at talking about nothing than they are at actually Doing Something.

Hacks will be hacks. The desire to promote the party and protect party members is higher than any sort of integrity among the left. Obama is a criminal - that is simple and irrefutable fact. democrats will protect him because democrats are without honor or integrity, this too is fact.

 

[Ravi]

What extortion do you speak of, Eunich?

I believe this is the CDZ

CDZ - Obama Impeachment Page 3 US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum

Oh, a conspiracy theory. Good luck with that.

 

[Uncensored2008]

[
Oh, a conspiracy theory. Good luck with that.

I realize that you're nothing but a hack and that party is the only element of value to you.

But factual and documented crimes are not "a conspiracy theory,' they are facts.

Are you denying that Operation Choke Point existed?

Let me google that for you

Are you claiming that Extortion is not a violation of federal law?

18 U.S. Code 872 - Extortion by officers or employees of the United States LII Legal Information Institute

No, you're blindly blowing smoke in desperate hope of obfuscating the facts.

Obama is a crook, he needs to be removed from office. You don't CARE that he is a crook, because you hold party above all, but that doesn't alter the FACT that he is a crook.

 

[Mad_Cabbie]

I'm starting this thread in the CDZ because I'd like at least a semi-serious explanation without all the partisan BS about the constitutionality of impeachment of Obama. I'd really like to know.

What is the constitutional argument for impeaching Obama? What has he done that is an impeachable offense?

If he goes through with this rumored legal status for several million people then yes, he should be impeached. He's not a king and he doesn't have the authority to rule by executive fiat. This is exactly why Congress was given the power of impeachment, to prevent this kind of person from trying to rule over the populous.

Will he be impeached? No.

No, he should NOT be impeached. That's utterly absurd and dishonest to say the least.

Obama s Immigration Executive Order Policy Implications Cato Liberty

Republicans can stop Obama's executive order by PASSING A BILL.

That's all they have to do.

 

[Uncensored2008]

No, he should NOT be impeached. That's utterly absurd and dishonest to say the least.

Obama s Immigration Executive Order Policy Implications Cato Liberty

Republicans can stop Obama's executive order by PASSING A BILL.

That's all they have to do.

There is already immigration law in place.

If Obama will blithely violate existing law, why would you think he would obey new law?

Your position is irrational.

 

[Mad_Cabbie]

No, he should NOT be impeached. That's utterly absurd and dishonest to say the least.

Obama s Immigration Executive Order Policy Implications Cato Liberty

Republicans can stop Obama's executive order by PASSING A BILL.

That's all they have to do.

There is already immigration law in place.

If Obama with blithely violate existing law, why would you think he would obey new law?

Your position is irrational.

I specifically asked you not to quote me until you can do it without making insults and rude comments.

Thank you.

 

[Howey]

I certainly believe his complete refusal to uphold existing immigration laws would qualify as neglect of duty.

According to the definition of those who oppose him, perhaps, but every executive has to decide where to focus enforcement of laws. That fact would open all future executives to impeachment. Also, since Obama has not been guilty of "complete refusal" to uphold immigration laws, your analysis fails on that point. The eternal bugaboo of relying on the absolute torpedoes that notion.

What a load of crock. The man HAS most certainly ordered ICE to stand down, and is talking about unilaterally making these people legal in direct defiance of current law.

If you can't be honest, stay out of the CDZ. I can get lies in the other forums.

Then why are deportations at an all time high?