Which of these Acts Justify Impeachment?

[JimBowie1958]

Just wondering, do any of you libtards deny that Obama has ordered the execution of American citizens without trial or other due process?

Really, you don't know about this?

OR the guns smuggling to Mexican drug lords under operation Fast and Furious in direct violation of the law?

OR his refusal to enforce immigration laws and gave an amnesty to nearly one million illegals?

Guess it proves one thing; you have to be either willfully blind or stupid as shit to still support this dictator Obama.

 

[JimBowie1958]

It is very interesting that 3 out of 13 people do not think that TREASON AGAINST THE AMERICAN PEOPLE DOES NOT JUSTIFY IMPEACHMENT.

See what I mean when I say that there are Dimbocraps who will justify ANYTHING THIS PRESIDENT DOES NO MATTER WHAT? They cant even agree that the most heinous crime imaginable to a nation by its own leaders in a HYPOTHETICAL CASE justifies impeachment for fear that their Glorious Leader just might be guilty of it!

roflmao

 

[JimBowie1958]

Just wondering, do any of you libtards deny that Obama has ordered the execution of American citizens without trial or other due process?

Really, you don't know about this?

OR the guns smuggling to Mexican drug lords under operation Fast and Furious in direct violation of the law?

OR his refusal to enforce immigration laws and gave an amnesty to nearly one million illegals?

Guess it proves one thing; you have to be either willfully blind or stupid as shit to still support this dictator Obama.

Come on, ya bunch of libtard cowards! Answer the questions!

 

[Delta4Embassy]

Didn't see the "Being a ******" option. Curious since that's the only thing different about the current President and every other. If we impeached every President for breaking the law we wouldn't have Presidents any more. But before being too quick to prosecute him for j-walking and the like, might take a closer look at Congress. Presidents can't do anything without Congressional approval. If he broke laws, Congress aided and abetted it. So by trying to bring down the President, you'll be hurting your own Republican side.

Look at WWII, dropping bombs on civilian population centers is a war crime today. But no one was every prosecuted for it because that's what war is. No shortage of things Presidents and Congress do which if a regular citizen did them would result in criminal prosecution.

This is really all about this President is black and has a funny name. More you insist it's about other things, more people laugh at you and swear to support the Democrats. No one wants to openly support racists any more.

 

[Freewill]

Didn't see the "Being a ******" option. Curious since that's the only thing different about the current President and every other. If we impeached every President for breaking the law we wouldn't have Presidents any more. But before being too quick to prosecute him for j-walking and the like, might take a closer look at Congress. Presidents can't do anything without Congressional approval. If he broke laws, Congress aided and abetted it. So by trying to bring down the President, you'll be hurting your own Republican side.

Look at WWII, dropping bombs on civilian population centers is a war crime today. But no one was every prosecuted for it because that's what war is. No shortage of things Presidents and Congress do which if a regular citizen did them would result in criminal prosecution.

This is really all about this President is black and has a funny name. More you insist it's about other things, more people laugh at you and swear to support the Democrats. No one wants to openly support racists any more.

You are so incorrect.

Are you justifying the targeting of civilian targets by the fire bombing of Dresden? Really? Seldom are the victors tried for war crimes.

Do you really believe that if Kerry or Hillary were elected president and did EXACTLY the same things as Obama the critique would not be the same? I think it would be exactly the same. Yes, his race has some importance to many, both because he is and because he is black but not the majority, as witnessed by the last two elections.

 

[JimBowie1958]

Didn't see the "Being a ******" option.

Why do you libtards like using the ****** word so much? Libtards are about the only people with a high school degree that refer to people with that monicker. Why are libtards so racist?

And to answer your question, I guess its not there because the author, me, is not a racist pig libtard.

Curious since that's the only thing different about the current President and every other.

Lol, really? You don't think that there is any other difference between Obama and say Ronald Reagan or Jimmy Carter?

And since you are jumping to the conclusion that I am talking solely about Obama, and you think he is like every other President, then where has any other President smuggled guns to Mexican drug lords?

Where did Reagan or Carter order American citizens killed without trial that was not on a battlefield?

Your ability to analyze a set of data is on a pre-school level.

If we impeached every President for breaking the law we wouldn't have Presidents any more.

This is hilarious. Your position is that 'Well yes, Obama did all these things but so did everyone else.' Not only is that a lie, but it is laughably ignorant.

But before being too quick to prosecute him for j-walking and the like, might take a closer look at Congress. Presidents can't do anything without Congressional approval.

Dude, stop being a complete dumbass. That Obama is doing things WITHOUT CONGRESSIONAL APPROVAL IS PART OF THE PROBLEM!

lol

If he broke laws, Congress aided and abetted it.

Got to give you that one; their inaction is in fact tacit aid. They have the resources and Constitutional duty to stop this dictator and they refuse for political considerations.

So by trying to bring down the President, you'll be hurting your own Republican side.

Lol, good, I hope it does hurt THOSE kind of RINOs.

Look at WWII, dropping bombs on civilian population centers is a war crime today. But no one was every prosecuted for it because that's what war is.

lolol, talk about irrelevance.

No shortage of things Presidents and Congress do which if a regular citizen did them would result in criminal prosecution.

You say that like its a good thing, lol.

This is really all about this President is black and has a funny name.

In your tiny mind.

More you insist it's about other things, more people laugh at you and swear to support the Democrats.

No, more and more people are waking up and realizing that this nations existence as a Republic of, by and for the PEOPLE is being brought to an end by this dictator.

No one wants to openly support racists any more.

Then why do so many vote Dimbocrap in every election?

roflmao

 

[JimBowie1958]

Didn't see the "Being a ******" option. Curious since that's the only thing different about the current President and every other. If we impeached every President for breaking the law we wouldn't have Presidents any more. But before being too quick to prosecute him for j-walking and the like, might take a closer look at Congress. Presidents can't do anything without Congressional approval. If he broke laws, Congress aided and abetted it. So by trying to bring down the President, you'll be hurting your own Republican side.

Look at WWII, dropping bombs on civilian population centers is a war crime today. But no one was every prosecuted for it because that's what war is. No shortage of things Presidents and Congress do which if a regular citizen did them would result in criminal prosecution.

This is really all about this President is black and has a funny name. More you insist it's about other things, more people laugh at you and swear to support the Democrats. No one wants to openly support racists any more.

You are so incorrect.

Are you justifying the targeting of civilian targets by the fire bombing of Dresden? Really? Seldom are the victors tried for war crimes.

Do you really believe that if Kerry or Hillary were elected president and did EXACTLY the same things as Obama the critique would not be the same? I think it would be exactly the same. Yes, his race has some importance to many, both because he is and because he is black but not the majority, as witnessed by the last two elections.

Obama is not black. He is half white and half black, and the black side is from an area that has a lot of racial heritage from both whites and blacks.

Why do so many people use the One Drop Rule when speaking of this President?

Oh, yeah, the Democrats invented the rule, sorry, forgot.

 

[JimBowie1958]

Just wondering, do any of you libtards deny that Obama has ordered the execution of American citizens without trial or other due process?

Really, you don't know about this?

OR the guns smuggling to Mexican drug lords under operation Fast and Furious in direct violation of the law?

OR his refusal to enforce immigration laws and gave an amnesty to nearly one million illegals?

Come on!

Surely there are a few libtards with the courage and honesty to answer these simple questions?

 

[Grandma]

I included some things that Obama has not been accused of, but he has allowed guns to be sold/smuggled to Mexican drug lords,

Actually that was Dubya and Cheney.

publically and officially engaged in selective law enforcement, hell he brags about it, and the IRS has been targeting political opponents

It's been proven that left wing groups were targeted just as much.

These are known FACTS that no one even disputes.

Except that everyone does dispute them, because you're lying.

We as a country are past the time when some aging, brainless beauty queen could spew a pack of lies at the low-info, low IQ lower end and have her word taken as gospel. We're past the time when some politician could claim God was on his/her side. We're past the time when someone could dress up in the flag and a box of teabags and be considered a credible patriot.

 

[JimBowie1958]

I included some things that Obama has not been accused of, but he has allowed guns to be sold/smuggled to Mexican drug lords,

Actually that was Dubya and Cheney.

That is a lie. Fast and Furious began letting guns go illegally into Mexico and its drug cartels under Obama, not Bush.

Is Obama right that 'Fast and Furious' started under Bush? | Fact Checker

The practice of "gun walking," or letting guns be bought illegally in Arizona with the idea of tracing them back to drug cartel kingpins in Mexico, was first tried in 2006 by the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives. The investigation was called Operation Wide Receiver.

ATF agents decided in the fall of 2009 to start up the gun-walking practice again. This program was called Operation Fast and Furious. A year later, one of the guns was found at the scene of a shootout that left a Border Patrol agent dead, leading to a congressional investigation.

While "gun walking" is something that predates Obama taking office, Fast and Furious clearly started after he was elected, so it's inaccurate to state otherwise.

IT is questionable if 'Operation Wide Receiver' even happened at all.

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/11/01/u...eceiver-sent-illegal-guns-to-mexico.html?_r=0

He also said that it was a “mistake” not to immediately point out, when accusations surfaced this year that the A.T.F. had let guns “walk” in Fast and Furious, that a similar tactic had been used in Wide Receiver. He said he did not make the connection at first because A.T.F. leaders and federal prosecutors n Phoenix had said the accusations about Fast and Furious were false.

The history of Wide Receiver is in tension with a statement in a Feb. 4 letter to Congress from the Justice Department that said, in response to early questions about Fast and Furious, the “A.T.F. makes every effort to interdict weapons that have been purchased illegally and prevent their transport into Mexico.” The department did not repeat that line in later statements.

Republican lawmakers leading the investigation, Representative Darrell Issa of California and Senator Charles E. Grassley of Iowa, have been scrutinizing Mr. Breuer because his office signed off on wiretap applications for the Fast and Furious case, although the department has said Mr. Breuer did not know the details of the tactics A.T.F. agents were using. He is scheduled to testify on Tuesday at a Senate hearing on international crime issues.

'In tension' meaning it is contradicted by later story lines.

And the Obama administration is stonewalling any investigation again by simply not giving Congress the requested documents on the two operations.

ATF gunwalking scandal - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

As a result of a dispute over the release of Justice Department documents related to the scandal, Attorney General Eric Holder became the first sitting member of the Cabinet of the United States to be held in contempt of Congress on June 28, 2012.[19][20] Earlier that month, President Barack Obama had invoked executive privilege for the first time in his presidency over the same documents.[21][22]

Our Imperial Presidente covering for his political hacks.

publically and officially engaged in selective law enforcement, hell he brags about it, and the IRS has been targeting political opponents

It's been proven that left wing groups were targeted just as much.

That is also a lie.

Committee report: No progressive groups were targeted by IRS | The Daily Caller

IRS agents’ testimony: NO progressive groups were targeted by IRS

IRS agents testified before Congress that the agency’s political targeting did not apply to progressive groups as Democrats and the media have claimed, according to a bombshell new staff report prepared by the House Oversight Committee chairman, Rep. Darrell Issa.

IRS agents testified before Oversight that ACORN groups were scrutinized because the agency thought they were old organizations applying as new ones. Emerge America was scrutinized for potential “improper private benefit.” No evidence exists that the IRS requested additional information from any Occupy Wall Street group.

“Only seven applications in the IRS backlog contained the word ‘progressive,’ all of which were then approved by the IRS, while Tea Party groups received unprecedented review and experienced years-long delays. While some liberal-oriented groups were singled out for scrutiny, evidence shows it was due to non-political reasons,” according to the Oversight staff report, which was obtained by The Daily Caller.

New Oversight Report Debunks Myth that Liberal Groups were Targeted by IRS | Committee on Oversight & Government Reform

“[T]here is simply no evidence that any liberal or progressive group received enhanced scrutiny because its application reflected the organization’s political views.”

These are known FACTS that no one even disputes.

Except that everyone does dispute them, because you're lying.

Not a single lie told by me. With you ass kissing Obama drones there is no need to lie; you are merely projecting your behavior onto me.

We as a country are past the time when some aging, brainless beauty queen could spew a pack of lies at the low-info, low IQ lower end and have her word taken as gospel. We're past the time when some politician could claim God was on his/her side. We're past the time when someone could dress up in the flag and a box of teabags and be considered a credible patriot.

You are proof that we are not, as you have swallowed the Kool Aid, fool, and your lies wont stop the truth from getting out..

 

[JimBowie1958]

Lol, three libtards have said that taking bribes, committing treason, wiretapping opposition leaders and even ordering the execution without trial of American citizens would not justify impeachment!

roflmao

 

[Jackson]

Keep in mind that the president has to be found guilty to be impeached.

 

[ABikerSailor]

I'm wondering....................have you conservative drones been listening to your dear leader known as Boehner?

I'm guessing not..................because he said that there is no move in the GOP to impeach Obama, rather the impeachment movement was said by Boehner to be started by the Democrats in the White House as a way to raise money.................

House Speaker John A. Boehner (R-Ohio) insisted Tuesday there were “no plans” for impeachment, calling talk of the subject a “scam” designed by Democrats to raise money.

I just provided the pertinent quote, however, if you wish to read the whole article, link is provided here: Boehner rules out impeachment, but Democrats cash in on the threat - LA Times

Unlike most people on here, I quote what I think is relevant, and will also post the link so that you can read it for yourselves.

Sorry................but the GOP is lying yet again.

 

[JimBowie1958]

Keep in mind that the president has to be found guilty to be impeached.

There does not have to be a civilian criminal case the President is convicted of for an impeachment to be implemented.

The House tries him and the impeachment itself is the guilty verdict.

 

[JimBowie1958]

I'm wondering....................have you conservative drones been listening to your dear leader known as Boehner?

I'm guessing not..................because he said that there is no move in the GOP to impeach Obama, rather the impeachment movement was said by Boehner to be started by the Democrats in the White House as a way to raise money.................

House Speaker John A. Boehner (R-Ohio) insisted Tuesday there were “no plans” for impeachment, calling talk of the subject a “scam” designed by Democrats to raise money.

I just provided the pertinent quote, however, if you wish to read the whole article, link is provided here: Boehner rules out impeachment, but Democrats cash in on the threat - LA Times

Unlike most people on here, I quote what I think is relevant, and will also post the link so that you can read it for yourselves.

Sorry................but the GOP is lying yet again.

That Speaker Boner is a gutless coward who will only pursue impeachment if he thinks it is politically expedient does not mean that there is no case or that any of these claims about Obamas malevolence is false.

This is why you keep voting Dimbocrap; you do not know how to think critically or rationally.

 

[Old Rocks]

Boys, boys, don't you know that the impeachment thing is a Dem scheme? Warrior 102 just stated so in another thread. Glad to know that all of you are secret Democrats

 

[ABikerSailor]

I'm wondering....................have you conservative drones been listening to your dear leader known as Boehner?

I'm guessing not..................because he said that there is no move in the GOP to impeach Obama, rather the impeachment movement was said by Boehner to be started by the Democrats in the White House as a way to raise money.................

House Speaker John A. Boehner (R-Ohio) insisted Tuesday there were “no plans” for impeachment, calling talk of the subject a “scam” designed by Democrats to raise money.

I just provided the pertinent quote, however, if you wish to read the whole article, link is provided here: Boehner rules out impeachment, but Democrats cash in on the threat - LA Times

Unlike most people on here, I quote what I think is relevant, and will also post the link so that you can read it for yourselves.

Sorry................but the GOP is lying yet again.

That Speaker Boner is a gutless coward who will only pursue impeachment if he thinks it is politically expedient does not mean that there is no case or that any of these claims about Obamas malevolence is false.

This is why you keep voting Dimbocrap; you do not know how to think critically or rationally.

Actually, I do know how to think critically as well as rationally.

If Boehner and the rest of the GOP pursue this suit of claiming that Obama has changed the law should remember one thing.

He didn't change the law.

Businesses that have over 50 people will still have to implement the ACA (also known as Obamacare) within the next 5 months (hey...............he gave them from October 2013 until October 2014).

The GOP was pissed about it, and requested a delay, because their overlords (in the form of corporations) asked for (and demanded) it.

Obama gave it to them, and yet they want to sue him for doing it.

Sorry, but Boehner is really bad at his job, as well as has shown that he has no spine.

I hope Boehner is voted out of office, and has a scandal show up on the back end to finish him off, because he's a really crappy politician and should be shown the back door.

My wish for this year? To see Boehner, McConnell and Cantor voted out of office.

I've already gained one wish in the fact that Cantor is out of office.

Can we finish up the other two?

And oh yeah..................Blake Farenthold needs to go as well. Not only is he ugly, but his policies suck ass.

Bill Maher has him on the flip a district. I hope he is flipped, loses, and fades out of sight.

Same with Gomert.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

The president didn't 'change' any laws.

Both the 'lawsuit' and 'impeachment' are devoid of merit.

In Sunday's Washington Post, Bush II Health & Human Services Secretary Michael O. Leavitt concurred*that "The [Obama] Administration's decision to delay the employer mandate was wise," in light of the Bush Administration's initially bumpy but ultimately successful phase-in of the 2004 prescription drug benefit to Medicare. Though "wise," is the current postponement "illegal"? On the contrary, Treasury's Mazur wrote to Chair Upton, such temporary postponements of tax reporting and payment requirements are routine, citing numerous examples of such postponements by Republican and Democratic administrations when statutory deadlines proved unworkable.

In fact, applicable judicial precedent places such timing adjustments well within the Executive Branch's lawful discretion.

Delaying Parts of Obamacare: 'Blatantly Illegal' or Routine Adjustment? - Simon Lazarus - The Atlantic

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

Keep in mind that the president has to be found guilty to be impeached.

Incorrect.

Impeachment is the same as an indictment, the formal filling of charges. When a president is impeached he is subject to trial in the Senate, where his guilt or innocence is determined.

'Impeached' doesn't mean 'removed from office.'

 

[Kosh]

In the case of Obama he did violate the War Powers Act in his illegal war with Libya.

Changing laws like Obamacare on the Executive level only (especially in the cases of delaying), is a violation of the Constitution. And is an impeachable offense.

We found that out in the Clinton years when he was given the line item veto and the SC decided that gave to much power to the executive branch. The same applies to EO's. EO's are designed to enforce laws not to change them.

For a law to be changed it must be done in Congress and not by the President or the Courts. Something the far left will not understand and has displayed so far in this thread.