Speaker Boner Agress Obama is Breaking the Law; So Why No Impeachment Yet?

[JimBowie1958]

Boehner: Cantor doesn?t change immigration - POLITICO.com

Asked at his weekly news conference whether the prospects of an overhaul were dead in light of House Majority Leader Eric Cantor’s primary loss on Tuesday, Boehner responded: “The issue of immigration reform has not changed.”

The reason: President Barack Obama has still not gained the trust from House Republicans that the GOP says is necessary to do immigration reform, Boehner said.

“The president continues to ignore laws that he signed into law, violating his oath of office, he did it again with the release of these Taliban five,” the Ohio Republican said, referring to Guantanamo Bay prisoners Obama recently released in exchange for an American prisoner of war. “Every time he does this, it makes it harder to gain the trust of our members to do the big things that need to be done around here.”

Doesn't the Speaker of the House have a sworn duty to the Republic to reign in lawless behavior on the part of the President?

So why isn't Obama being impeached?

 

[eagle1462010]

Without support of the Senate the process is useless. The Liberals in the Senate would never impeach him.

They better hope they don't lose the Senate. But even if they do we'd still not have enough to Convict him in the Senate as Dems would have to cross over.

 

[JimBowie1958]

Without support of the Senate the process is useless. The Liberals in the Senate would never impeach him.

They better hope they don't lose the Senate. But even if they do we'd still not have enough to Convict him in the Senate as Dems would have to cross over.

I disagree. The impeachment itself is a punishment and provides grounds for further action at he state and local level, such as disbarment.

The Senate simply votes to uphold removal from office or not.

Clinton was impeached as is still today the only President to have ever been disgraced by impeachment, and this of course makes him a rock star in the Democratic Party, the party of racism, frauds and criminals.

Edit: Peach corrected me, that also Johnson got impeached. But Johnson was impeached for political reasons, not for ignoring and violating US laws.

 

[mudwhistle]

If they start impeachment during an election year it will bring out the Democrat base. It will rally all of the mindless liberals to support their lousy Democrat candidates.

They have to take the Senate first to stop him. If they don't take the Senate Obama is going to have two more years of hell raising without any obstruction. I'm not looking forward to that at all.

Either way, the next two plus years are going to be terrible. Who knows what else this prick has in mind.

 

[Peach]

Without support of the Senate the process is useless. The Liberals in the Senate would never impeach him.

They better hope they don't lose the Senate. But even if they do we'd still not have enough to Convict him in the Senate as Dems would have to cross over.

I disagree. The impeachment itself is a punishment and provides grounds for further action at he state and local level, such as disbarment.

The Senate simply votes to uphold removal from office or not.

Clinton was impeached as is still today the only President to have ever been disgraced by impeachment, and this of course makes him a rock star in the Democratic Party, the party of racism, frauds and criminals.

Johnson was impeached, and acquitted. Clinton, ditto. Nixon resigned before the vote, believing he would be convicted. In hindsight, I believe both Nixon & Clinton should have been censured, consider that for Obama. Nixon's resignation hurt this country, as did Clinton's impeachment.

 

[JimBowie1958]

If they start impeachment during an election year it will bring out the Democrat base. It will rally all of the mindless liberals to support their lousy Democrat candidates.

They have to take the Senate first to stop him. If they don't take the Senate Obama is going to have two more years of hell raising without any obstruction. I'm not looking forward to that at all.

Either way, the next two plus years are going to be terrible. Who knows what else this prick has in mind.

So it not through any personal failing of Boehner's that he does nothing, but only his impeccable and masterful political strategery? And thus Constitutional duty can be shirked if suitable political maneuvering calls for it?



I think that initiating the impeachment process DESPITE its apparent political drawbacks would convince the public of the legitimacy of the matters, and remind them of all the many scandals, ignored laws and broken laws that this POTUS has done.

Sometimes the traditional and honorable methods of action are best precisely because they are not calculating and 'smart' but only forthright.

 

[JimBowie1958]

Without support of the Senate the process is useless. The Liberals in the Senate would never impeach him.

They better hope they don't lose the Senate. But even if they do we'd still not have enough to Convict him in the Senate as Dems would have to cross over.

I disagree. The impeachment itself is a punishment and provides grounds for further action at he state and local level, such as disbarment.

The Senate simply votes to uphold removal from office or not.

Clinton was impeached as is still today the only President to have ever been disgraced by impeachment, and this of course makes him a rock star in the Democratic Party, the party of racism, frauds and criminals.

Johnson was impeached, and acquitted. Clinton, ditto. Nixon resigned before the vote, believing he would be convicted. In hindsight, I believe both Nixon & Clinton should have been censured, consider that for Obama. Nixon's resignation hurt this country, as did Clinton's impeachment.

I disagree that Nixon's resignation hurt this country, as we got rid of a dangerous President with authoritarian inclinations. We also drew a line in the sand against future would be dictators, at least until Obama entered office.

Sometimes doing the painful thing is best in the long run despite the hurt involved.

 

[Peach]

If they start impeachment during an election year it will bring out the Democrat base. It will rally all of the mindless liberals to support their lousy Democrat candidates.

They have to take the Senate first to stop him. If they don't take the Senate Obama is going to have two more years of hell raising without any obstruction. I'm not looking forward to that at all.

Either way, the next two plus years are going to be terrible. Who knows what else this prick has in mind.

In my view, just more division, but recognize Democrats will be apocalyptic. If Republicans take the Senate Obama will be toothless; a pattern of impeachment may be worse than the drain on the nation than Clinton's impeachment. Bush lied, was never impeached, and I would have been AGAINST any measure.

 

[Peach]

I disagree. The impeachment itself is a punishment and provides grounds for further action at he state and local level, such as disbarment.

The Senate simply votes to uphold removal from office or not.

Clinton was impeached as is still today the only President to have ever been disgraced by impeachment, and this of course makes him a rock star in the Democratic Party, the party of racism, frauds and criminals.

Johnson was impeached, and acquitted. Clinton, ditto. Nixon resigned before the vote, believing he would be convicted. In hindsight, I believe both Nixon & Clinton should have been censured, consider that for Obama. Nixon's resignation hurt this country, as did Clinton's impeachment.

I disagree that Nixon's resignation hurt this country, as we got rid of a dangerous President with authoritarian inclinations. We also drew a line in the sand against future would be dictators, at least until Obama entered office.

Sometimes doing the painful thing is best in the long run despite the hurt involved.

Take the Senate, CENSURE. Obama's "power" is ebbing, and there is little sign it will cease to do so. Why did we not impeach Bush II? He lied. If impeachment becomes the norm, this nation is in dire straits.

 

[JimBowie1958]

If they start impeachment during an election year it will bring out the Democrat base. It will rally all of the mindless liberals to support their lousy Democrat candidates.

They have to take the Senate first to stop him. If they don't take the Senate Obama is going to have two more years of hell raising without any obstruction. I'm not looking forward to that at all.

Either way, the next two plus years are going to be terrible. Who knows what else this prick has in mind.

In my view, just more division, but recognize Democrats will be apocalyptic. If Republicans take the Senate Obama will be toothless; a pattern of impeachment may be worse than the drain on the nation than Clinton's impeachment. Bush lied, was never impeached, and I would have been AGAINST any measure.

I think W should have been censored for MISREPRESENTING the case for war on Iraq, but I don't think he consciously lied. We knew that Hussein had some WMDs because I suspect we sold some to him, but we were aware of his inventory and Hussein failed to document his destruction of what he did have. Personally I think he still had a lot of chemical weapons and moved them into Syria just before our broadcast date of invasion.

As to Democrats going apocalyptic, that would be the case even if Obama was being impeached for smoking crack and molesting little children, things the Dims have been documented to overlook in their heroes. Nothing would get them on the side of legality and the Constitution, with the root problem being that the old Tammany Hall branch of the Jacksonian party took over when Al Smith took the nomination in '28. They are a criminal syndicate with a political front, but that was tolerable when they were also statesmen who loved their country. Now they are also riven with Marxist acolytes and couldn't give a fig about the Constitution, the law or simple humane decency.

Sending them into apocalyptic fits sounds therapeutic for the Republic if you ask me.

 

[Peach]

If they start impeachment during an election year it will bring out the Democrat base. It will rally all of the mindless liberals to support their lousy Democrat candidates.

They have to take the Senate first to stop him. If they don't take the Senate Obama is going to have two more years of hell raising without any obstruction. I'm not looking forward to that at all.

Either way, the next two plus years are going to be terrible. Who knows what else this prick has in mind.

In my view, just more division, but recognize Democrats will be apocalyptic. If Republicans take the Senate Obama will be toothless; a pattern of impeachment may be worse than the drain on the nation than Clinton's impeachment. Bush lied, was never impeached, and I would have been AGAINST any measure.

I think W should have been censored for MISREPRESENTING the case for war on Iraq, but I don't think he consciously lied. We knew that Hussein had some WMDs because I suspect we sold some to him, but we were aware of his inventory and Hussein failed to document his destruction of what he did have. Personally I think he still had a lot of chemical weapons and moved them into Syria just before our broadcast date of invasion.

As to Democrats going apocalyptic, that would be the case even if Obama was being impeached for smoking crack and molesting little children, things the Dims have been documented to overlook in their heroes. Nothing would get them on the side of legality and the Constitution, with the root problem being that the old Tammany Hall branch of the Jacksonian party took over when Al Smith took the nomination in '28. They are a criminal syndicate with a political front, but that was tolerable when they were also statesmen who loved their country. Now they are also riven with Marxist acolytes and couldn't give a fig about the Constitution, the law or simple humane decency.

Sending them into apocalyptic fits sounds therapeutic for the Republic if you ask me.

Obama admitted using cocaine before entering office, Bush refused to answer the question. Back to today, now there is a thread that is close to, repeat close to, advocating armed insurrection in this country. The issues are becoming less issues than insanity. Obama will be gone in 2 & 1/2 years. the political process can neuter him, organize for November. If you do not believe Nixon's resignation hurt this nation, look at GDP & debt, pre & post resignation.

 

[JimBowie1958]

In my view, just more division, but recognize Democrats will be apocalyptic. If Republicans take the Senate Obama will be toothless; a pattern of impeachment may be worse than the drain on the nation than Clinton's impeachment. Bush lied, was never impeached, and I would have been AGAINST any measure.

I think W should have been censored for MISREPRESENTING the case for war on Iraq, but I don't think he consciously lied. We knew that Hussein had some WMDs because I suspect we sold some to him, but we were aware of his inventory and Hussein failed to document his destruction of what he did have. Personally I think he still had a lot of chemical weapons and moved them into Syria just before our broadcast date of invasion.

As to Democrats going apocalyptic, that would be the case even if Obama was being impeached for smoking crack and molesting little children, things the Dims have been documented to overlook in their heroes. Nothing would get them on the side of legality and the Constitution, with the root problem being that the old Tammany Hall branch of the Jacksonian party took over when Al Smith took the nomination in '28. They are a criminal syndicate with a political front, but that was tolerable when they were also statesmen who loved their country. Now they are also riven with Marxist acolytes and couldn't give a fig about the Constitution, the law or simple humane decency.

Sending them into apocalyptic fits sounds therapeutic for the Republic if you ask me.

Obama admitted using cocaine before entering office, Bush refused to answer the question. Back to today, now there is a thread that is close to, repeat close to, advocating armed insurrection in this country. The issues are becoming less issues than insanity. Obama will be gone in 2 & 1/2 years. the political process can neuter him, organize for November. If you do not believe Nixon's resignation hurt this nation, look at GDP & debt, pre & post resignation.

I do not think Nixons resignation caused the GDP and debt problems nearly so much as abandoning Bretton Woods did.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bretton_Woods_system#Nixon_Shock

 

[JimBowie1958]

https://fs6.formsite.com/westerncenterjournalism/form188/index.html

RE: The Time To Impeach Barack Obama Is Upon Us! It Is Now!

What must Barack Obama do — how many offenses and derelictions of duty must he commit — before you begin to understand that the people of this great nation can no longer tolerate Barack Obama's subversion of the Constitution or his willful violations of his Oath of Office and that removing Barack Obama from office is the only solution to cure what is ailing our great nation?

Add another serious scandal to the list of scandals which have become festering sores on the body of this great nation. In direct violation of the law, Barack Obama released five high-value terrorists from Guantanamo Bay in exchange for the release of former Army Sgt. Bowe Bergdahl, a man whose collaboration with our enemies abroad may have led to the death of American service members.

Make no mistake, Obama's actions were not only in direct violation of the law, they border on sedition and it's high time that Congress take Mr. Obama's abuses seriously and remove him from office.

The American people know that the affliction that is killing this nation is Barack Hussein Obama. He is the problem. He is a cancer that is attacking the body of this great nation and, for the good of the nation, the cancer must be removed. Draft Article of Impeachment against Barack Obama, and do it today. The American people are tired of waiting for you to act.

 

[Luddly Neddite]

Doesn't the Speaker of the House have a sworn duty to the Republic to reign in lawless behavior on the part of the President?

So why isn't Obama being impeached?

There is no "lawless behavior".

No impeachment because there are no grounds.

Make all the excuses you want - its all wishful thinking with no basis in reality.

 

[PredFan]

Boehner: Cantor doesn?t change immigration - POLITICO.com

Asked at his weekly news conference whether the prospects of an overhaul were dead in light of House Majority Leader Eric Cantor’s primary loss on Tuesday, Boehner responded: “The issue of immigration reform has not changed.”

The reason: President Barack Obama has still not gained the trust from House Republicans that the GOP says is necessary to do immigration reform, Boehner said.

“The president continues to ignore laws that he signed into law, violating his oath of office, he did it again with the release of these Taliban five,” the Ohio Republican said, referring to Guantanamo Bay prisoners Obama recently released in exchange for an American prisoner of war. “Every time he does this, it makes it harder to gain the trust of our members to do the big things that need to be done around here.”

Doesn't the Speaker of the House have a sworn duty to the Republic to reign in lawless behavior on the part of the President?

So why isn't Obama being impeached?

You sure are obsessed with boners dude.

 

[PredFan]

Without support of the Senate the process is useless. The Liberals in the Senate would never impeach him.

They better hope they don't lose the Senate. But even if they do we'd still not have enough to Convict him in the Senate as Dems would have to cross over.

Obama could unload an AK47 on a school and they wouldn't impeach him.

 

[natstew]

Johnson was impeached, and acquitted. Clinton, ditto. Nixon resigned before the vote, believing he would be convicted. In hindsight, I believe both Nixon & Clinton should have been censured, consider that for Obama. Nixon's resignation hurt this country, as did Clinton's impeachment.

I disagree that Nixon's resignation hurt this country, as we got rid of a dangerous President with authoritarian inclinations. We also drew a line in the sand against future would be dictators, at least until Obama entered office.

Sometimes doing the painful thing is best in the long run despite the hurt involved.

Take the Senate, CENSURE. Obama's "power" is ebbing, and there is little sign it will cease to do so. Why did we not impeach Bush II? He lied. If impeachment becomes the norm, this nation is in dire straits.

You goddamn lying motherfucker!! there you go, doing what you sorry ass Democrat scum do, accuse the Republicans of doing what you are yourselves doing, LYING.

It's not a lie when you believe that what you're saying is true. Everyone on the planet thought Saddam had WMD's, which he did, just not in a quanity that would prohibit you scumbags from falsely accusing Bush of lying.

you really are despicable! Hillary, Bill, and 99% of Congress 'knew' Saddam had WMD's. Anyone who claimed he didn't was called blind, even by the Democrats.

GOD! YOU PEOPLE DISGUST ME!

 

[Luddly Neddite]

Without support of the Senate the process is useless. The Liberals in the Senate would never impeach him.

They better hope they don't lose the Senate. But even if they do we'd still not have enough to Convict him in the Senate as Dems would have to cross over.

Obama could unload an AK47 on a school and they wouldn't impeach him.

If there were grounds, nothing would or could stop impeachment.

Same thing with the myth of him being born in Kenya or any of the various birther variations. There are so many people, all throwing money at that non-issue, and they have not been able to find any proof that he's not a citizen or that he's Communist or that he's responsible for the blood moon or any of the rest of that nonsense.

There is no THERE there and all the phony investigations, Trump/Arpaio lies, filibustering and lies won't change that fact.

 

[natstew]

As for the poll:
There should be another option.

Boehner won't impeach Obama because it would give the 2014 and 2016 elections to the Democrats.

The lying, cheating, shit eating, piss drinking, baby killing, murdering, scumbag Democrats would like nothing more than impeachment proceedings to begin.

(wanna know how I really feel? Just keep on being disgustingly stupid)

 

[Peach]

If they start impeachment during an election year it will bring out the Democrat base. It will rally all of the mindless liberals to support their lousy Democrat candidates.

They have to take the Senate first to stop him. If they don't take the Senate Obama is going to have two more years of hell raising without any obstruction. I'm not looking forward to that at all.

Either way, the next two plus years are going to be terrible. Who knows what else this prick has in mind.

In my view, just more division, but recognize Democrats will be apocalyptic. If Republicans take the Senate Obama will be toothless; a pattern of impeachment may be worse than the drain on the nation than Clinton's impeachment. Bush lied, was never impeached, and I would have been AGAINST any measure.

I think W should have been censored for MISREPRESENTING the case for war on Iraq, but I don't think he consciously lied. We knew that Hussein had some WMDs because I suspect we sold some to him, but we were aware of his inventory and Hussein failed to document his destruction of what he did have. Personally I think he still had a lot of chemical weapons and moved them into Syria just before our broadcast date of invasion.

As to Democrats going apocalyptic, that would be the case even if Obama was being impeached for smoking crack and molesting little children, things the Dims have been documented to overlook in their heroes. Nothing would get them on the side of legality and the Constitution, with the root problem being that the old Tammany Hall branch of the Jacksonian party took over when Al Smith took the nomination in '28. They are a criminal syndicate with a political front, but that was tolerable when they were also statesmen who loved their country. Now they are also riven with Marxist acolytes and couldn't give a fig about the Constitution, the law or simple humane decency.

Sending them into apocalyptic fits sounds therapeutic for the Republic if you ask me.

I see no Marxists, yet I see many entrenched in power, and determined to remain in office, or use their offices after departing for personal gain. Oligarchy, that is the essential problem, Congress and the executive branch being a social clubs, rather than representatives. I agree on the lack of statesmen; a relative , who who does not approve of Obama, cited Wellstone as the last true statesmen in national office. He sees hints of Lindsay Graham as a statesman, I hope he is correct. I like Christie, but have yet to conclude he is statesman. As for Hillary Clinton, not a chance. Olympia Snowe was the last woman I could think of in that manner. Of course she left office because of the games.

Obama sure has made a lot of money for a "Marxist", and I read part of Dreams From My Father, last night. I saw no Marxism, in fact he noted the pathetic college student "communists" on the fringe of others, trying to peddle the Daily Worker. He seems to pity that behavior as did I, in college. It made me remember the one helpless looking guy at the freshman dining hall, trying to get students to buy The Daily Worker; he was ridiculed, and laughed at, endlessly. One time a "jock" took his stack of unwanted pablum, and he almost cried...........