Getbig Bodybuilding, Figure and Fitness Forums

Getbig Main Boards => Politics and Political Issues Board => Topic started by: Dos Equis on May 13, 2013, 11:10:19 AM



Title: Impeachment
Post by: Dos Equis on May 13, 2013, 11:10:19 AM
As I've indicated in other threads, I think the impeachment talk is premature.  I think if Obama either gave or had knowledge of the stand down order in Benghazi, or the IRS abuse, then the talk carries much more weight. 

But keep in mind that if Obama is impeached, we get President Biden.  Be careful what you wish for.   

Here is a summary of the process:

Similar to the British system, Article One of the United States Constitution gives the House of Representatives the sole power of impeachment and the Senate the sole power to try impeachments. Unlike the British system, impeachment is only the first of two stages, and conviction requires a two-thirds vote. Impeachment does not necessarily result in removal from office; it is only a legal statement of charges, parallel to an indictment in criminal law. An official who is impeached faces a second legislative vote (whether by the same body or another), which determines conviction, or failure to convict, on the charges embodied by the impeachment. Most constitutions require a supermajority to convict. Although the subject of the charge is criminal action, it does not constitute a criminal trial; the only question under consideration is the removal of the individual from office, and the possibility of a subsequent vote preventing the removed official from ever again holding political office in the jurisdiction where he was removed. Impeachment with respect to political office should not be confused with witness impeachment.

[edit] Impeachable offensesIn the United States, impeachment can occur both at the federal and state level. The Constitution defines impeachment at the federal level and limits impeachment to "The President, Vice President, and all civil officers of the United States" who may be impeached and removed only for "treason, bribery, or other high crimes and misdemeanors".[4] Several commentators have suggested that Congress alone may decide for itself what constitutes a "high crime or misdemeanor" especially since Nixon v. United States stated that the Supreme Court did not have the authority to determine whether the Senate properly "tried" a defendant.[citation needed] In 1970, then-House Minority Leader Gerald R. Ford defined the criterion as he saw it: "An impeachable offense is whatever a majority of the House of Representatives considers it to be at a given moment in history."[5] Four years later, Gerald Ford would become president when President Richard Nixon resigned under the threat of impeachment.

Article III of the Constitution states that judges remain in office "during good behavior", implying that Congress may remove a judge for bad behavior via impeachment and conviction. The House has impeached 14 federal judges and the Senate has convicted six of them.[citation needed]

[edit] Officials subject to impeachmentThe central question regarding the Constitutional dispute about the impeachment of members of the legislature is whether members of Congress are officers of the United States. The Constitution grants the House the power to impeach "The President, the Vice President, and all civil Officers of the United States." [4] It has been suggested that members of Congress are not officers of the United States.[6] Others, however, believe that members are civil officers and are subject to impeachment.[citation needed]

The House of Representatives did impeach a senator once:[7] Senator William Blount, in 1798. The Senate expelled Senator Blount and, after initially hearing his impeachment, dismissed the charges for lack of jurisdiction.[8] Left unsettled was the question whether members of Congress were civil officers of the United States. The House has not impeached a Member of Congress since Blount. As each House has the authority to expel its own members without involving the other chamber, expulsion has been the method used for removing Members of Congress.

Jefferson's Manual, which is integral to the Rules of the House of Representatives,[9] states that impeachment is set in motion by charges made on the floor, charges preferred by a memorial, a member's resolution referred to a committee, a message from the president, charges transmitted from the legislature of a state or territory or from a grand jury, or from facts developed and reported by an investigating committee of the House. It further states that a proposition to impeach is a question of high privilege in the House and at once supersedes business otherwise in order under the rules governing the order of business.

[edit] ProcessThe impeachment process is a two-step procedure. The House of Representatives must first pass, by a simple majority of those present and voting, articles of impeachment, which constitute the formal allegation or allegations. Upon their passage, the defendant has been "impeached". Next, the Senate tries the accused. In the case of the impeachment of a president, the Chief Justice of the United States presides over the proceedings. For the impeachment of any other official, the Constitution is silent on who shall preside, suggesting that this role falls to the Senate's usual presiding officer. This may include the impeachment of the vice president, although legal theories suggest that allowing a defendant to be the judge in his own case would be a blatant conflict of interest. If the Vice President did not preside over an impeachment (of anyone besides the President), the duties would fall to the President pro tempore of the Senate.

To convict the accused, a two-thirds majority of the senators present is required. Conviction automatically removes the defendant from office. Following conviction, the Senate may vote to further punish the individual by barring him from holding future federal office, elected or appointed. Conviction by the Senate does not bar criminal prosecution. Even after an accused has left office, it is possible to impeach to disqualify the person from future office or from certain emoluments of his prior office (such as a pension). If there is no charge for which a two-thirds majority of the senators present vote "guilty", the defendant is acquitted and no punishment is imposed.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Impeachment#United_States


Title: Re: Impeachment
Post by: Option D on May 13, 2013, 11:24:37 AM
has there been any testimony that suggested that if any suggested action would have netted a different outcome in Bengazi. Or is the narrative "there was a cover up on the source of the raid"...


Title: Re: Impeachment
Post by: The Enigma on May 13, 2013, 11:26:09 AM
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VTy3RYDj0lk


Impeachment?

Try treason.


Title: Re: Impeachment
Post by: Dos Equis on May 13, 2013, 11:28:45 AM
has there been any testimony that suggested that if any suggested action would have netted a different outcome in Bengazi. Or is the narrative "there was a cover up on the source of the raid"...

You should watch the testimony. 

We don't know what the outcome would have been.  The facts are those people were defenseless, they were under attack for hours, a stand down order was given, we didnt' even try to help them, and then our government repeatedly lied about it. 


Title: Re: Impeachment
Post by: Necrosis on May 13, 2013, 11:42:52 AM
You should watch the testimony. 

We don't know what the outcome would have been.  The facts are those people were defenseless, they were under attack for hours, a stand down order was given, we didnt' even try to help them, and then our government repeatedly lied about it. 

what Lies? what world do you live in?

nevermind you think evolution is false, that the world is 6000 years old and that ben stein made a documentary not a fantasy film.

I perceive you as being delusional as you hold many beliefs that cannot be verified. Not little beliefs like wearing yellow socks makes you feel better but on topics of life and death importance.

Fucking amazing how stupid America is, it's like a sitcom.


Title: Re: Impeachment
Post by: Dos Equis on May 13, 2013, 11:48:31 AM
what Lies? what world do you live in?

nevermind you think evolution is false, that the world is 6000 years old and that ben stein made a documentary not a fantasy film.

I perceive you as being delusional as you hold many beliefs that cannot be verified. Not little beliefs like wearing yellow socks makes you feel better but on topics of life and death importance.

Fucking amazing how stupid America is, it's like a sitcom.

Yawn.  ::)   If you want to have a dialogue about this, you let me know.  In the meantime, keep in mind you're Canadian. 


Title: Re: Impeachment
Post by: Straw Man on May 13, 2013, 12:18:15 PM
As I've indicated in other threads, I think the impeachment talk is premature.  I think if Obama either gave or had knowledge of the stand down order in Benghazi, or the IRS abuse, then the talk carries much more weight. 

But keep in mind that if Obama is impeached, we get President Biden.  Be careful what you wish for.   


Can someone explain to me why the Bush Appointed head of the IRS would cover for Obama
The guy first said in March that this wasn't happening and then said it was a decision at a field office which is probably easily verifiable or not.  


Regarding the so called "stand down order" I posted this last week but I guess I'll keep posting it as long as people choose to keep bringing it

http://thinkprogress.org/security/2013/05/08/1982151/witnesses-debunk-benghazi/
The Claim - A Special Forces Team that could have saved lives was told to stand down
Quote
One of the most shocking reveals in the lead-up to today’s hearing was that a team of Special Forces in Tripoli were told not to deploy to Benghazi during the attack. That decision has led to an uproar on the right, including claims of dereliction of duty towards Joint Chiefs of Staff chairman Gen. Martin Dempsey for not taking actions that could have saved lives.
During questioning, Hicks confirmed that the team was ready to be deployed — not to join the fighting at the CIA annex — but “to secure the airport for the withdrawal of our personnel from Benghazi after the mortar attack.” Hicks also confirmed that it was the second such team to be readied for deployment, with the first having proceeded to Benghazi earlier. Despite the second team not deploying, the staff was all evacuated first to Tripoli, then to Germany, within 18 hours of the attack taking place.

Maddow did a montage last week showing how many times the Repubs have been talking about impeaching Obama starting within about 3 months after the took office.  The Repubs are a complete joke at this point


Title: Re: Impeachment
Post by: Soul Crusher on May 13, 2013, 02:27:35 PM
DOJ Secretly Obtains Months Of AP Phone Records; AP Condemns 'Unprecedented Intrusion'


AP  |  By By MARK SHERMAN Posted: 05/13/2013 4:20 pm EDT  |  Updated: 05/13/2013 6:00 pm EDT

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/05/13/ap-phone-records-government-intrusion-unprecedented_n_3268569.html


WASHINGTON (AP) — The Justice Department secretly obtained two months of telephone records of reporters and editors for The Associated Press in what the news cooperative's top executive called a "massive and unprecedented intrusion" into how news organizations gather the news.

The records obtained by the Justice Department listed outgoing calls for the work and personal phone numbers of individual reporters, general AP office numbers in New York, Washington and Hartford, Conn., and the main number for AP reporters in the House of Representatives press gallery, according to attorneys for the AP. It was not clear if the records also included incoming calls or the duration of calls.

In all, the government seized the records for more than 20 separate telephone lines assigned to AP and its journalists in April and May of 2012. The exact number of journalists who used the phone lines during that period is unknown but more than 100 journalists work in the offices where phone records were targeted, on a wide array of stories about government and other matters.

In a letter of protest sent to Attorney General Eric Holder on Monday, AP President and Chief Executive Officer Gary Pruitt said the government sought and obtained information far beyond anything that could be justified by any specific investigation. He demanded the return of the phone records and destruction of all copies.

"There can be no possible justification for such an overbroad collection of the telephone communications of The Associated Press and its reporters. These records potentially reveal communications with confidential sources across all of the newsgathering activities undertaken by the AP during a two-month period, provide a road map to AP's newsgathering operations, and disclose information about AP's activities and operations that the government has no conceivable right to know," Pruitt said.

The government would not say why it sought the records. U.S. officials have previously said in public testimony that the U.S. attorney in Washington is conducting a criminal investigation into who may have provided information contained in a May 7, 2012, AP story about a foiled terror plot. The story disclosed details of a CIA operation in Yemen that stopped an al-Qaida plot in the spring of 2012 to detonate a bomb on an airplane bound for the United States.

In testimony in February, CIA Director John Brennan noted that the FBI had questioned him about whether he was AP's source, which he denied. He called the release of the information to the media about the terror plot an "unauthorized and dangerous disclosure of classified information."

Prosecutors have sought phone records from reporters before, but the seizure of records from such a wide array of AP offices, including general AP switchboards numbers and an office-wide shared fax line, is unusual.

In the letter notifying the AP received Friday, the Justice Department offered no explanation for the seizure, according to Pruitt's letter and attorneys for the AP. The records were presumably obtained from phone companies earlier this year although the government letter did not explain that. None of the information provided by the government to the AP suggested the actual phone conversations were monitored.

Among those whose phone numbers were obtained were five reporters and an editor who were involved in the May 7, 2012 story.

The Obama administration has aggressively investigated disclosures of classified information to the media and has brought six cases against people suspected of providing classified information, more than under all previous presidents combined.

Justice Department published rules require that subpoenas of records from news organizations must be personally approved by the attorney general but it was not known if that happened in this case. The letter notifying AP that its phone records had been obtained though subpoenas was sent Friday by Ronald Machen, the U.S. attorney in Washington.

William Miller, a spokesman for Machen, said Monday that in general the U.S. attorney follows "all applicable laws, federal regulations, and Department of Justice policies when issuing subpoenas for phone records of media organizations" but he would not address questions about the specifics of the AP records. "We do not comment on ongoing criminal investigations," Miller said in an e-mail.

The Justice Department lays out strict rules for efforts to get phone records from news organizations. A subpoena can only be considered after "all reasonable attempts" have been made to get the same information from other sources, the rules say. It was unclear what other steps, in total, the Justice Department has taken to get information in the case.

A subpoena to the media must be "as narrowly drawn as possible" and "should be directed at relevant information regarding a limited subject matter and should cover a reasonably limited time period," according to the rules.

The reason for these constraints, the department says, is to avoid actions that "might impair the news gathering function" because the government recognizes that "freedom of the press can be no broader than the freedom of reporters to investigate and report the news."

News organizations normally are notified in advance that the government wants phone records and enter into negotiations over the desired information. In this case, however, the government, in its letter to the AP, cited an exemption to those rules that holds that prior notification can be waived if such notice, in the exemption's wording, might "pose a substantial threat to the integrity of the investigation."

It is unknown whether a judge or a grand jury signed off on the subpoenas.

The May 7, 2012, AP story that disclosed details of the CIA operation in Yemen to stop an airliner bomb plot occurred around the one-year anniversary of the May 2, 2011, killing of Osama bin Laden.

The plot was significant both because of its seriousness and also because the White House previously had told the public it had "no credible information that terrorist organizations, including al-Qaida, are plotting attacks in the U.S. to coincide with the (May 2) anniversary of bin Laden's death."

The AP delayed reporting the story at the request of government officials who said it would jeopardize national security. Once government officials said those concerns were allayed, the AP disclosed the plot because officials said it no longer endangered national security. The Obama administration, however, continued to request that the story be held until the administration could make an official announcement.

The May 7 story was written by reporters Matt Apuzzo and Adam Goldman with contributions from reporters Kimberly Dozier, Eileen Sullivan and Alan Fram. They and their editor, Ted Bridis, were among the journalists whose April-May 2012 phone records were seized by the government.

Brennan talked about the AP story and investigation in written testimony to the Senate. "The irresponsible and damaging leak of classified information was made ... when someone informed the Associated Press that the U.S. Government had intercepted an IED (improvised explosive device) that was supposed to be used in an attack and that the U.S. Government currently had that IED in its possession and was analyzing it," he said.

He also defended the White House's plan to discuss the plot immediately afterward. "Once someone leaked information about interdiction of the IED and that the IED was actually in our possession, it was imperative to inform the American people consistent with Government policy that there was never any danger to the American people associated with this al-Qa'ida plot," Brennan told senators.


http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/05/13/ap-phone-records-government-intrusion-unprecedented_n_3268569.html



Title: Re: Impeachment
Post by: Dos Equis on May 13, 2013, 02:32:41 PM
DOJ Secretly Obtains Months Of AP Phone Records; AP Condemns 'Unprecedented Intrusion'


AP  |  By By MARK SHERMAN Posted: 05/13/2013 4:20 pm EDT  |  Updated: 05/13/2013 6:00 pm EDT

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/05/13/ap-phone-records-government-intrusion-unprecedented_n_3268569.html


WASHINGTON (AP) — The Justice Department secretly obtained two months of telephone records of reporters and editors for The Associated Press in what the news cooperative's top executive called a "massive and unprecedented intrusion" into how news organizations gather the news.

The records obtained by the Justice Department listed outgoing calls for the work and personal phone numbers of individual reporters, general AP office numbers in New York, Washington and Hartford, Conn., and the main number for AP reporters in the House of Representatives press gallery, according to attorneys for the AP. It was not clear if the records also included incoming calls or the duration of calls.

In all, the government seized the records for more than 20 separate telephone lines assigned to AP and its journalists in April and May of 2012. The exact number of journalists who used the phone lines during that period is unknown but more than 100 journalists work in the offices where phone records were targeted, on a wide array of stories about government and other matters.

In a letter of protest sent to Attorney General Eric Holder on Monday, AP President and Chief Executive Officer Gary Pruitt said the government sought and obtained information far beyond anything that could be justified by any specific investigation. He demanded the return of the phone records and destruction of all copies.

"There can be no possible justification for such an overbroad collection of the telephone communications of The Associated Press and its reporters. These records potentially reveal communications with confidential sources across all of the newsgathering activities undertaken by the AP during a two-month period, provide a road map to AP's newsgathering operations, and disclose information about AP's activities and operations that the government has no conceivable right to know," Pruitt said.

The government would not say why it sought the records. U.S. officials have previously said in public testimony that the U.S. attorney in Washington is conducting a criminal investigation into who may have provided information contained in a May 7, 2012, AP story about a foiled terror plot. The story disclosed details of a CIA operation in Yemen that stopped an al-Qaida plot in the spring of 2012 to detonate a bomb on an airplane bound for the United States.

In testimony in February, CIA Director John Brennan noted that the FBI had questioned him about whether he was AP's source, which he denied. He called the release of the information to the media about the terror plot an "unauthorized and dangerous disclosure of classified information."

Prosecutors have sought phone records from reporters before, but the seizure of records from such a wide array of AP offices, including general AP switchboards numbers and an office-wide shared fax line, is unusual.

In the letter notifying the AP received Friday, the Justice Department offered no explanation for the seizure, according to Pruitt's letter and attorneys for the AP. The records were presumably obtained from phone companies earlier this year although the government letter did not explain that. None of the information provided by the government to the AP suggested the actual phone conversations were monitored.

Among those whose phone numbers were obtained were five reporters and an editor who were involved in the May 7, 2012 story.

The Obama administration has aggressively investigated disclosures of classified information to the media and has brought six cases against people suspected of providing classified information, more than under all previous presidents combined.

Justice Department published rules require that subpoenas of records from news organizations must be personally approved by the attorney general but it was not known if that happened in this case. The letter notifying AP that its phone records had been obtained though subpoenas was sent Friday by Ronald Machen, the U.S. attorney in Washington.

William Miller, a spokesman for Machen, said Monday that in general the U.S. attorney follows "all applicable laws, federal regulations, and Department of Justice policies when issuing subpoenas for phone records of media organizations" but he would not address questions about the specifics of the AP records. "We do not comment on ongoing criminal investigations," Miller said in an e-mail.

The Justice Department lays out strict rules for efforts to get phone records from news organizations. A subpoena can only be considered after "all reasonable attempts" have been made to get the same information from other sources, the rules say. It was unclear what other steps, in total, the Justice Department has taken to get information in the case.

A subpoena to the media must be "as narrowly drawn as possible" and "should be directed at relevant information regarding a limited subject matter and should cover a reasonably limited time period," according to the rules.

The reason for these constraints, the department says, is to avoid actions that "might impair the news gathering function" because the government recognizes that "freedom of the press can be no broader than the freedom of reporters to investigate and report the news."

News organizations normally are notified in advance that the government wants phone records and enter into negotiations over the desired information. In this case, however, the government, in its letter to the AP, cited an exemption to those rules that holds that prior notification can be waived if such notice, in the exemption's wording, might "pose a substantial threat to the integrity of the investigation."

It is unknown whether a judge or a grand jury signed off on the subpoenas.

The May 7, 2012, AP story that disclosed details of the CIA operation in Yemen to stop an airliner bomb plot occurred around the one-year anniversary of the May 2, 2011, killing of Osama bin Laden.

The plot was significant both because of its seriousness and also because the White House previously had told the public it had "no credible information that terrorist organizations, including al-Qaida, are plotting attacks in the U.S. to coincide with the (May 2) anniversary of bin Laden's death."

The AP delayed reporting the story at the request of government officials who said it would jeopardize national security. Once government officials said those concerns were allayed, the AP disclosed the plot because officials said it no longer endangered national security. The Obama administration, however, continued to request that the story be held until the administration could make an official announcement.

The May 7 story was written by reporters Matt Apuzzo and Adam Goldman with contributions from reporters Kimberly Dozier, Eileen Sullivan and Alan Fram. They and their editor, Ted Bridis, were among the journalists whose April-May 2012 phone records were seized by the government.

Brennan talked about the AP story and investigation in written testimony to the Senate. "The irresponsible and damaging leak of classified information was made ... when someone informed the Associated Press that the U.S. Government had intercepted an IED (improvised explosive device) that was supposed to be used in an attack and that the U.S. Government currently had that IED in its possession and was analyzing it," he said.

He also defended the White House's plan to discuss the plot immediately afterward. "Once someone leaked information about interdiction of the IED and that the IED was actually in our possession, it was imperative to inform the American people consistent with Government policy that there was never any danger to the American people associated with this al-Qa'ida plot," Brennan told senators.


http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/05/13/ap-phone-records-government-intrusion-unprecedented_n_3268569.html



Good grief.   >:(


Title: Re: Impeachment
Post by: Soul Crusher on May 13, 2013, 02:40:34 PM
http://www.glennbeck.com/2013/05/13/its-time-to-appoint-special-counsel-explore-impeachment-of-president-obama


Nice - its coming.


F obama - he is a communist piece of shit


Title: Re: Impeachment
Post by: Option D on May 13, 2013, 02:43:21 PM
http://www.glennbeck.com/2013/05/13/its-time-to-appoint-special-counsel-explore-impeachment-of-president-obama


Nice - its coming.


F obama - he is a communist piece of shit

whats coming....a LANDSLIDE...

you walked right into that one


Title: Re: Impeachment
Post by: Soul Crusher on May 13, 2013, 02:45:48 PM
whats coming....a LANDSLIDE...

you walked right into that one


Keep spinning for obama just cause he is black - makes you look even worse as the days go on. 

Obama is a disgrace to all black people EVERYWHERE


Title: Re: Impeachment
Post by: Option D on May 13, 2013, 02:46:34 PM

Keep spinning for obama just cause he is black - makes you look even worse as the days go on. 

Obama is a disgrace to all black people EVERYWHERE

i just asked what was coming.. how did my blackness get into this.


Title: Re: Impeachment
Post by: Soul Crusher on May 13, 2013, 02:47:38 PM
i just asked what was coming.. how did my blackness get into this.

Very simple - its very obvious you have only one reason to support this criminal in office at this point. 


Title: Re: Impeachment
Post by: Option D on May 13, 2013, 02:56:45 PM
Very simple - its very obvious you have only one reason to support this criminal in office at this point. 

landslide coming?


Title: Re: Impeachment
Post by: 240 is Back on May 13, 2013, 03:47:45 PM
33,

how long will the weak liberals refuse to impeach obama?   What fuels their lack of honesty about his criminal cabal? 

Why do they want to keep obama in office?


Title: Re: Impeachment
Post by: Soul Crusher on May 13, 2013, 03:49:42 PM
33,

how long will the weak liberals refuse to impeach obama?   What fuels their lack of honesty about his criminal cabal? 

Why do they want to keep obama in office?

They are going to turn on obama eventually as they see he has failed them and is leading them to ruin. 

These last two weeks and the next two are going to be a disaster for obama as now he turned on his best ally - the media. 

Pissing off AP and the ACLU will be his worst mistake ever. 


Title: Re: Impeachment
Post by: LurkerNoMore on May 13, 2013, 03:51:45 PM
landslide coming?

"Tsunami".   Never mind the fact the Redumblicans already said that impeachment was not an option.


Title: Re: Impeachment
Post by: Skip8282 on May 13, 2013, 04:01:32 PM
Impeachment is going nowhere.  But Obama should man the fuck up and start firing some of these fuck ups in his admin.


Title: Re: Impeachment
Post by: 240 is Back on May 13, 2013, 04:02:31 PM
They are going to turn on obama eventually as they see he has failed them and is leading them to ruin. 

These last two weeks and the next two are going to be a disaster for obama as now he turned on his best ally - the media. 

Pissing off AP and the ACLU will be his worst mistake ever. 

What about the REPUBS who voted Romney, but dont have the balls to say he needs to be impeached?

Are they the same ones without the balls to question the birth cert?


Title: Re: Impeachment
Post by: Soul Crusher on May 13, 2013, 04:03:45 PM
What about the REPUBS who voted Romney, but dont have the balls to say he needs to be impeached?

Are they the same ones without the balls to question the birth cert?

Yes!  They are a disgrace too


Title: Re: Impeachment
Post by: LurkerNoMore on May 13, 2013, 04:06:11 PM
So not buying into your delusions = disgrace?


Title: Re: Impeachment
Post by: Necrosis on May 13, 2013, 06:01:03 PM
Yes!  They are a disgrace too

You are absolutely delusional, I assume most people here have normal lives but different views. Are you mentally challenged. Just read 240 trolling you and you just amping up the crazy.



Title: Re: Impeachment
Post by: Roger Bacon on May 13, 2013, 06:08:18 PM
In the meantime, keep in mind you're Canadian. 

 ;D

lol


Title: Re: Impeachment
Post by: Fury on May 13, 2013, 06:10:02 PM
In the meantime, keep in mind you're Canadian. 

LOL!


Title: Re: Impeachment
Post by: Soul Crusher on May 15, 2013, 08:55:46 AM
Charlie Rangel: Obama answers not enough
By: Kevin Robillard
May 15, 2013 08:11 AM EDT
 
Rep. Charlie Rangel (D-N.Y.) said Wednesday that he believes President Barack Obama owes the American public explanations for both the seizure of Associated Press phone records by the Department of Justice and the IRS targeting of conservative groups.

“I don’t think anyone truly believes that the president has given us a sufficient answer for America, much less the press,” Rangel said on MSNBC’s “Morning Joe.” “I think this is just the beginning and the whole idea of comparing this with Nixon, I really think is just, it doesn’t make much sense. But the president has to come forward and share why he did not alert the press they were going to do this. He has to tell the Americans, including me: What was this national security question? You just can’t raise the flag and expect to salute it every time without any reason and the same thing applies to the IRS.”

(PHOTOS: 10 slams on the IRS)

The White House has said Obama wasn’t involved in either the IRS decision to target conservative groups — a position backed up by an inspector general report released Tuesday — or in the DOJ’s decision to broadly subpoena phone records for 20 Associated Press phone lines in three cities.

Rangel is a member of the House Ways And Means Committee, which will hold a hearing on why the IRS gave tougher scrutiny to conservative groups’ non-profits applications on Friday morning.

“In Watergate, Senator Baker said it all, everybody uses this: ‘What did he know and when did he know it?’” Rangel said. “I am confident that the President is angry as hell about this, as he should be. The IRS is no place for partisanship, Democrat or Republican.”

(Also on POLITICO: TOP 5 Obama scandal responses)

But Rangel, a staunch Obama ally, said the press should give Obama time to sort out what happened.

“We have to give him an opportunity to root out any wrongdoing, whether it’s just negligence or criminal,” Rangel said. “But, for right now, to say that the president should be doubted? No. He has to come forward and give more of an answer than he has done.”

Follow @politico
 
© 2013 POLITICO LLC
 


Title: Re: Impeachment
Post by: 240 is Back on May 15, 2013, 09:19:32 AM
Watch... Rangel will be calling for impeachment before Mccain and graham lol.........


Title: Re: Impeachment
Post by: LurkerNoMore on May 15, 2013, 09:48:09 AM
It's fun watching idiots reveling with delight in what they think is an accumulation of crap that will either make Obama resign or be impeached. If the President plays his cards right, he might last out the week.   :D

At least the meltdowns are amusing for the rest of us.


Title: Re: Impeachment
Post by: Soul Crusher on May 15, 2013, 09:48:52 AM
Obama escaping ScandalFest 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oAl2VlF3OSw


Title: Re: Impeachment
Post by: LurkerNoMore on May 15, 2013, 10:30:07 AM
It's fun watching idiots reveling with delight in what they think is an accumulation of crap that will either make Obama resign or be impeached. If the President plays his cards right, he might last out the week.   :D

At least the meltdowns are amusing for the rest of us.

x2


Title: Re: Impeachment
Post by: Soul Crusher on May 15, 2013, 10:57:18 AM
Axelrod: Government ‘So Vast,‘ Obama Can't Know About Wrongdoing
 NRO ^ | May 15, 2013 | Andrew Johnson

Posted on Wednesday, May 15, 2013 2:29:03 PM by COUNTrecount

Axelrod: Government ‘So Vast,‘ Obama Can't Know About Wrongdoing

By Andrew Johnson

May 15, 2013 9:13 AM

The government is simply too big for President Obama to keep track of all the wrongdoing taking place on his watch, his former senior adviser, David Axelrod, told MSNBC. “Part of being president is there’s so much beneath you that you can’t know because the government is so vast,” he explained.

Axelrod also defended the administration against criticism of the Department of Justice’s decision to seize reporters’ phone records, noting that Joe Scarborough had criticized the administration for the number of national-security leaks that had occurred. Scarborough was having none of it: ”I’ve heard the president’s defenders trying to say this, and I congratulate you guys for going off into a room, calling each other, and coming up with this bogus argument, but never did I suggest that 100 AP reporters have all of their phone records seized, their cell-phone records seized, their home phone numbers seized.”

“So please, save that for somebody else to buy into that,” he demanded. “Answer my question.”


Title: Re: Impeachment
Post by: LurkerNoMore on May 15, 2013, 11:02:29 AM
It's fun watching idiots reveling with delight in what they think is an accumulation of crap that will either make Obama resign or be impeached. If the President plays his cards right, he might last out the week.   :D

At least the meltdowns are amusing for the rest of us.

x3


Title: Re: Impeachment
Post by: Dos Equis on May 15, 2013, 11:06:04 AM
How many times can Lurker quote himself in one thread?  My money is on 5 to 10.   :)


Title: Re: Impeachment
Post by: LurkerNoMore on May 15, 2013, 11:33:31 AM
How many times can Lurker quote himself in one thread?  My money is on 5 to 10.   :)

As many times as it is relevant.  How many times will that be based on the whining it is directed at?  5 to 10?


Title: Re: Impeachment
Post by: Soul Crusher on May 15, 2013, 11:34:07 AM
As many times as it is relevant.  How many times will that be based on the whining it is directed at?  5 to 10?

To think you clowns thought obama would be n rushmore one day. 


Title: Re: Impeachment
Post by: LurkerNoMore on May 15, 2013, 11:35:52 AM
To think you clowns thought obama would be n rushmore one day. 

I never said that.

Nor did I ever say he would be divorced, resigning, deported, not running, etc.. etc.. etc...

Once again when impeachment doesn't occur this time, just like the last half dozen of times you got your panties wet for it, what is your excuse going to be? 


Title: Re: Impeachment
Post by: blacken700 on May 15, 2013, 11:47:52 AM
the stupid party in full swing  :D :D :D :D :D


Title: Re: Impeachment
Post by: Soul Crusher on May 15, 2013, 11:59:07 AM
Even liberals are talking about impeachment

May 15, 2013 by Joe Saunders Leave a Comment







0
inShare.




Email

Print

American Prospect, a liberal flagship publication co-founded by longtime Clinton family friend Robert Reich, is openly worrying about the possibility President Obama could face impeachment over the Benghazi bumbling.
 
And blaming the media!
 
American Prospect contributing editor Paul Waldman writes that given “the media’s inability to resist a presidential scandal story … this whole thing might not end unless and until Barack Obama is impeached.”
 
That paragraph comes right after Waldman writes that “just a few days ago it looked for all the world like Benghazi would take its place with Solyndra and ‘Fast and Furious’ as one more wished-for scandal that, despite the best efforts of Republicans, failed to take flight.”
 
“Failed to take flight,” though, is really another way of saying “were ignored or explained away” by a supposedly adversarial press. Try to imagine how “Katrina,” “Abu Ghraib” or “enhanced interrogation” a few years back “failed to take flight.”
 
Waldman doesn’t explain how the media’s “inability to resist a presidential scandal story.” somehow managed to resist two of them — one that involved the loss of a half-billion taxpayer dollars to White House cronies, another that led to the death of an American border guard and God knows how many others.
 
He also doesn’t mention the media’s “inability to resist” covering for Obama going back to the Jeremiah Wright “God damn America” days.
 
And now, four Americans are dead at the hands of foreign savages, the administration is exposed as lying about it from Day One, and Waldman wants his readers to believe Obama’s troubles are all the fault of Fox News, naturally, conservative talk radio, and a Washington press corps that’s suddenly, unaccountably taking an interest in the underside of an administration it’s spent four years cheerleading for.
 
“The [impeachment] train is moving and there may be no way to stop it,” Waldman concludes.
 
A pity, that.


http://www.bizpacreview.com/2013/05/15/even-liberals-are-talking-about-impeachment-69565



Title: Re: Impeachment
Post by: LurkerNoMore on May 15, 2013, 02:43:14 PM
It's fun watching idiots reveling with delight in what they think is an accumulation of crap that will either make Obama resign or be impeached. If the President plays his cards right, he might last out the week.   :D

At least the meltdowns are amusing for the rest of us.

x4


Title: Re: Impeachment
Post by: Straw Man on May 15, 2013, 03:20:09 PM
Even liberals are talking about impeachment

May 15, 2013 by Joe Saunders Leave a Comment

American Prospect, a liberal flagship publication co-founded by longtime Clinton family friend Robert Reich, is openly worrying about the possibility President Obama could face impeachment over the Benghazi bumbling.
 
And blaming the media!
 
American Prospect contributing editor Paul Waldman writes that given “the media’s inability to resist a presidential scandal story … this whole thing might not end unless and until Barack Obama is impeached.”
 
That paragraph comes right after Waldman writes that “just a few days ago it looked for all the world like Benghazi would take its place with Solyndra and ‘Fast and Furious’ as one more wished-for scandal that, despite the best efforts of Republicans, failed to take flight.”
 
“Failed to take flight,” though, is really another way of saying “were ignored or explained away” by a supposedly adversarial press. Try to imagine how “Katrina,” “Abu Ghraib” or “enhanced interrogation” a few years back “failed to take flight.”
 
Waldman doesn’t explain how the media’s “inability to resist a presidential scandal story.” somehow managed to resist two of them — one that involved the loss of a half-billion taxpayer dollars to White House cronies, another that led to the death of an American border guard and God knows how many others.
 
He also doesn’t mention the media’s “inability to resist” covering for Obama going back to the Jeremiah Wright “God damn America” days.
 
And now, four Americans are dead at the hands of foreign savages, the administration is exposed as lying about it from Day One, and Waldman wants his readers to believe Obama’s troubles are all the fault of Fox News, naturally, conservative talk radio, and a Washington press corps that’s suddenly, unaccountably taking an interest in the underside of an administration it’s spent four years cheerleading for.
 
“The [impeachment] train is moving and there may be no way to stop it,” Waldman concludes.
 
A pity, that.


http://www.bizpacreview.com/2013/05/15/even-liberals-are-talking-about-impeachment-69565



Hmmm, I wonder why the good people at bizpacreview.com didn't bother to include the paragraph that immediately follows the statement about impeachment. 

I guess that have to exclude the parts that contradict their claim so the dumb fucks who read their site won't get the actual full story but only the bizpacreview approved spin

Let's take a look

http://prospect.org/article/scandal-makers

Quote
So suddenly it looks like this isn't going away, not because there was appalling malfeasance (or any malfeasance at all), but because once the train is moving, it's almost impossible to stop. Put together the right's desperate longing for an Obama scandal—turn on Fox News or listen to conservative radio, and you'll see eyelids fluttering in ecstasy as this story gains momentum—with congressional Republicans' helplessness in the face of pressure from their base, and the media's inability to resist a presidential scandal story, and this whole thing might not end unless and until Barack Obama is impeached.

"But that's crazy," you may say. And yes, it is. Furthermore, it would be unbelievably stupid of Republicans to push it that far, just from the perspective of their own political self-interest. But that doesn't mean they won't do it. It's a little glib to say that they'd do it because they're nuts, but the truth is that impeachment could well become the inevitable end point of a process that has nothing to do with the actual facts, with all the different parts of the conservative machine feeding coal into the boiler as the train gets faster and faster.


Title: Re: Impeachment
Post by: Soul Crusher on May 15, 2013, 07:17:47 PM

Eagan: Even liberals are leaping off bandwagon



Wednesday, May 15, 2013
Margery Eagan



You know the worm has turned when even MSNBC’s Chris Matthews and Rachel Maddow hold their noses at the stench from Barack Obama’s scandals — when so many stories from the so-called liberal press now describe the erstwhile Messiah as “aloof,” “arrogant” and “holier than thou.”

Obama announced the acting IRS chief’s resignation last night. It’s a start. But not quite enough to make up for the continuous late-night news loop from the Benghazi cover-up to the IRS scandal to the seizing of phone records of Associated Press editors and reporters.

Comedy Central’s Jon Stewart — the chief news source for millions of young and liberal Obama voters — has laced into the president nonstop over White House claims that the president has learned of all this malfeasance on the TV news, just like any old bar stool Joe.



.

The way things are going, Stewart said, “I wouldn’t be surprised if President Obama learned Osama bin Laden had been killed when he saw himself announcing it on television.”

The same media types accused of covering Obama on bended knee — such as myself — are now turning our collective backs. And no wonder. What we’re learning about his administration has undermined our basic trust in government.

Yet the president seems oblivious to how serious and unsettling these scandals are, and how much damage he’s done to his own agenda. And how he’s fed right into the fears of the tin-foil hat set who can point to these very scary power grabs and say, “See? He really is coming to get us.”

Obama is no Nixon — at least not yet. Tricky Dick was the prime mover behind the White House “plumbers,” the notorious “enemies list” and the Watergate break-in, while Obama remains oddly passive in the face of his own administration’s perfect storm of scandals.

As for the IRS, we can’t forget its long and disgraceful history of targeting citizens for political payback: from Clinton ladies Gennifer Flowers and Paula Jones to Martin Luther King Jr. to the John Birch Society and supposed communist sympathizers. The Wall Street Journal just reported that congressmen from both parties are seeking hundreds of politically motivated audits in the Clinton era.

Until now, whenever Obama screwed up, Hillary voters could say, “I told you so.” But that ended when Hillary, inexplicably, told congressmen pressing her on why Americans at our embassy were killed, “What difference does it make?”

Now we die-hard Dems are depressed, discouraged ... and bracing for “Joe Biden in 2016.”


Title: Re: Impeachment
Post by: LurkerNoMore on May 15, 2013, 07:26:33 PM
It's fun watching idiots reveling with delight in what they think is an accumulation of crap that will either make Obama resign or be impeached. If the President plays his cards right, he might last out the week.   :D

At least the meltdowns are amusing for the rest of us.

x5


Title: Re: Impeachment
Post by: Dos Equis on May 15, 2013, 07:32:58 PM
x5

lol

Quote
How many times can Lurker quote himself in one thread?  My money is on 5 to 10.   :)

I wonder how many times I can quote myself in one thread??  lol


Title: Re: Impeachment
Post by: LurkerNoMore on May 15, 2013, 07:34:06 PM
As many times as it is relevant.  How many times will that be based on the whining it is directed at?  5 to 10?

x2


Title: Re: Impeachment
Post by: 240 is Back on May 15, 2013, 08:39:58 PM
This rep won't call for it - but says it's not "off table".  THAT is as ballsy as they get?  Where are the other top repubs on this?  



Jason Chaffetz: Impeachment not off table


 
"Rep. Jason Chaffetz says he’s not taking impeachment off the table when it comes to President Obama’s handling of the attacks in Benghazi.

The Salt Lake Tribune reported Monday that the Utah Republican had called the handling of Benghazi an “impeachable offense,” and that he had vowed to keep searching for answers from the White House."

"Asked Tuesday on CNN what he meant by the comments, Chaffetz said it wasn’t what he was hoping for, but that impeachment was in the “realm of possibility.”

“It’s not something I’m seeking, it’s not the endgame, it’s not what we’re playing for,” he said. “I was simply asked if it was within the realm of possibilities, and I’d say ‘yes.’”


http://www.politico.com/story/2013/05/jason-chaffetz-impeachment-91385.html


Title: Re: Impeachment
Post by: Soul Crusher on May 16, 2013, 05:54:25 AM
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/05/16/rachel-maddow-obama-ap-irrevocable-harm_n_3284975.html

Madcow is off the reservation now too


Title: Re: Impeachment
Post by: Dos Equis on May 16, 2013, 12:58:47 PM
The Nixon Articles of Impeachment:

Articles of Impeachment
This is the full text of the Articles of Impeachment adopted by House Judiciary Committee on July 27, 1974.

■Analysis of the Judiciary Committee Votes
Article 1
RESOLVED, That Richard M. Nixon, President of the United States, is impeached for high crimes and misdemeanours, and that the following articles of impeachment to be exhibited to the Senate:

ARTICLES OF IMPEACHMENT EXHIBITED BY THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA IN THE NAME OF ITSELF AND OF ALL OF THE PEOPLE OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, AGAINST RICHARD M. NIXON, PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, IN MAINTENANCE AND SUPPORT OF ITS IMPEACHMENT AGAINST HIM FOR HIGH CRIMES AND MISDEMEANOURS.

ARTICLE 1

In his conduct of the office of President of the United States, Richard M. Nixon, in violation of his constitutional oath faithfully to execute the office of President of the United States and, to the best of his ability, preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution of the United States, and in violation of his consitutional duty to take care that the laws be faithfully executed, has prevented, obstructed, and impeded the administration of justice, in that:

On June 17, 1972, and prior thereto, agents of the Committee for the Re-election of the President committed unlawful entry of the headquarters of the Democratic National Committee in Washington, District of Columbia, for the purpose of securing political intelligence. Subsequent thereto, Richard M. Nixon, using the powers of his high office, engaged personally and through his close subordinates and agents, in a course of conduct or plan designed to delay, impede, and obstruct the investigation of such illegal entry; to cover up, conceal and protect those responsible; and to conceal the existence and scope of other unlawful covert activities.

The means used to implement this course of conduct or plan included one or more of the following:

1.making false or misleading statements to lawfully authorized investigative officers and employees of the United States;

2.withholding relevant and material evidence or information from lawfully authorized investigative officers and employees of the United States;

3.approving, condoning, acquiescing in, and counselling witnesses with respect to the giving of false or misleading statements to lawfully authorized investigative officers and employees of the United States and false or misleading testimony in duly instituted judicial and congressional proceedings;

4.interfering or endeavouring to interfere with the conduct of investigations by the Department of Justice of the United States, the Federal Bureau of Investigation, the office of Watergate Special Prosecution Force, and Congressional Committees;

5.approving, condoning, and acquiescing in, the surreptitious payment of substantial sums of money for the purpose of obtaining the silence or influencing the testimony of witnesses, potential witnesses or individuals who participated in such unlawful entry and other illegal activities;

6.endeavouring to misuse the Central Intelligence Agency, an agency of the United States;

7.disseminating information received from officers of the Department of Justice of the United States to subjects of investigations conducted by lawfully authorized investigative officers and employees of the United States, for the purpose of aiding and assisting such subjects in their attempts to avoid criminal liability;

8.making or causing to be made false or misleading public statements for the purpose of deceiving the people of the United States into believing that a thorough and complete investigation had been conducted with respect to allegations of misconduct on the part of personnel of the executive branch of the United States and personnel of the Committee for the Re-election of the President, and that there was no involvement of such personnel in such misconduct: or

9.endeavouring to cause prospective defendants, and individuals duly tried and convicted, to expect favoured treatment and consideration in return for their silence or false testimony, or rewarding individuals for their silence or false testimony.
In all of this, Richard M. Nixon has acted in a manner contrary to his trust as President and subversive of constitutional government, to the great prejudice of the cause of law and justice and to the manifest injury of the people of the United States.

Wherefore Richard M. Nixon, by such conduct, warrants impeachment and trial, and removal from office.

Adopted 27-11 by the Committee on the Judiciary of the House of Representatives, at 7.07pm on Saturday, 27th July, 1974, in Room 2141 of the Rayburn Office Building, Washington D.C.

http://watergate.info/impeachment/articles-of-impeachment


Title: Re: Impeachment
Post by: Dos Equis on May 16, 2013, 01:01:53 PM
President Andrew Johnson, who was acquitted:

On February 24, three days after Johnson's dismissal of Stanton, the House of Representatives voted 126 to 47 in favor of a resolution to impeach the president of high crimes and misdemeanors. The two sponsors of the resolution, Thaddeus Stevens and John A. Bingham, were immediately dispatched to inform the Senate that the House had officially voted for impeachment.

One week later, the House adopted eleven articles of impeachment against the president. The articles charged Johnson with:

1.Dismissing Edwin Stanton from office after the Senate had voted not to concur with his dismissal and had ordered him reinstated.
2.Appointing Thomas Secretary of War ad interim despite the lack of vacancy in the office, since the dismissal of Stanton had been invalid.
3.Appointing Thomas without the required advice and consent of the Senate.
4.Conspiring, with Thomas and "other persons to the House of Representatives unknown," to unlawfully prevent Stanton from continuing in office.
5.Conspiring to unlawfully curtail faithful execution of the Tenure of Office Act.
6.Conspiring to "seize, take, and possess the property of the United States in the Department of War."
7.Conspiring to "seize, take, and possess the property of the United States in the Department of War" with specific intent to violate the Tenure of Office Act.
8.Issuing to Thomas the authority of the office of Secretary of War with unlawful intent to "control the disbursements of the moneys appropriated for the military service and for the Department of War."
9.Issuing to Major General William H. Emory orders with unlawful intent to violate the Tenure of Office Act.
10.Making three speeches with intent to show disrespect for the Congress among the citizens of the United States.
The eleventh article was a summation of the first ten.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Impeachment_of_Andrew_Johnson#Impeachment


Title: Re: Impeachment
Post by: Dos Equis on May 16, 2013, 01:08:50 PM
President Bill Clinton

Articles of Impeachment and
Judiciary Committee Roll Call Votes
Updated Sunday, December 19, 1998

Following are the text and roll call votes for the four articles of impeachment approved by the House Judiciary Committee on December 11 and 12, 1998. Also see the text and votes on a censure resolution.


UPDATE: The Full House's Impeachment Vote

1. The president provided perjurious, false and misleading testimony to the grand jury regarding the Paula Jones case and his relationship with Monica Lewinsky.
House: Passed 228-206
Committee: Passed 21-16
Full Text
Roll Call Vote

2. The president provided perjurious, false and misleading testimony in the Jones case in his answers to written questions and in his deposition.

House: Failed 229-205
Committee: Passed 20-17
Full Text
Roll Call Vote
 
3. The president obstructed justice in an effort to delay, impede, cover up and conceal the existence of evidence related to the Jones case.
House: Passed 221-212
Committee: Passed 21-16
Full Text
Roll Call Vote

4. The president misused and abused his office by making perjurious, false and misleading statements to Congress. (Amended by a 29-5 vote. See draft version.)
House: Failed 285-148
Committee: Passed 21-16
Full Text
Roll Call Vote
 
(Editor's Note: Members' names link to their Congressional Guide profiles, which contain their e-mail and other contact information. Also see profiles of Judiciary Committee members.)

Resolution Impeaching William Jefferson Clinton, President of the United States, for high crimes and misdemeanors.
Resolved, that William Jefferson Clinton, President of the United States, is impeached for high crimes and misdemeanors, and that the following articles of impeachment be exhibited to the United States Senate:

Articles of impeachment exhibited by the House of Representatives of the United States of America in the name of itself and of the people of the United States of America, against William Jefferson Clinton, President of the United States of America, in maintenance and support of its impeachment against him for high crimes and misdemeanors.


Article I

In his conduct while President of the United States, William Jefferson Clinton, in violation of his constitutional oath faithfully to execute the office of President of the United States and, to the best of his ability, preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution of the United States, and in violation of his constitutional duty to take care that the laws be faithfully executed, has willfully corrupted and manipulated the judicial process of the United States for his personal gain and exoneration, impeding the administra tion of justice, in that:
On August 17, 1998, William Jefferson Clinton swore to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth before a Federal grand jury of the United States. Contrary to that oath, William Jefferson Clinton willfully provided perjurious, false and misleading testimony to the grand jury concerning one or more of the following: (1) the nature and details of his relationship with a subordinate Government employee; (2) prior perjurious, false and misleading testi mony he gave in a Federal civil rights action brought against him; (3) prior false and misleading statements he allowed his attorney to make to a Federal judge in that civil rights action; and (4) his corrupt efforts to influence the testimony of witnesses and to impede the discovery of evidence in that civil rights action.

In doing this, William Jefferson Clinton has undermined the integrity of his office, has brought disrepute on the Presidency, has betrayed his trust as President, and has acted in a manner subversive of the rule of law and justice, to the manifest injury of the people of the United States.

Wherefore, William Jefferson Clinton, by such conduct, warrants impeachment and trial, and removal from office and disqualification to hold and enjoy any office of honor, trust or profit under the United States.



--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


Article I passed on a 21-16 vote.

Voting Aye
Henry Hyde (R-Ill.)
James Sensenbrenner (R-Wis.)
Bill McCollum (R-Fla.)
George Gekas (R-Pa.)
Howard Coble (R-N.C.)
Lamar Smith (R-Tex.)
Elton Gallegly (R-Calif.)
Charles Canady (R-Fla.)
Bob Inglis (R-S.C.)
Bob Goodlatte (R-Va.)
Steve Buyer (R-Ind.)
Ed Bryant (R-Tenn.)
Steve Chabot (R-Ohio)
Bob Barr (R-Ga.)
William Jenkins (R-Tenn.)
Asa Hutchinson (R-Ark.)
Edward Pease (R-Ind.)
Christopher Cannon (R-Utah)
James Rogan (R-Calif.)
Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.)
Mary Bono (R-Calif.)

 Voting Nay
John Conyers (D-Mich.)
Thomas Barrett (D-Wis.)
Barney Frank (D-Mass.
Charles Schumer (D-N.Y.)
Howard Berman (D-Calif.)
Rick Boucher (D-Va.)
Jerrold Nadler (D-N.Y.)
Bobby Scott (D-Va.)
Mel Watt (D-N.C.)
Zoe Lofgren (D-Calif.)
Sheila Jackson Lee (D-Tex.)
Maxine Waters (D-Calif.)
Martin Meehan (D-Mass.)
William Delahunt (D-Mass.)
Robert Wexler (D-Fla.)
Steven Rothman (D-N.J.)


Article II

In his conduct while President of the United States, William Jefferson Clinton, in violation of his constitutional oath faithfully to execute the office of President of the United States and, to the best of his ability, preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution of the United States, and in violation of his constitutional duty to take care that the laws be faithfully executed, has willfully corrupted and manipulated the judicial process of the United States for his personal gain and exoneration, impeding the administra tion of justice, in that:
(1) On December 23, 1997, William Jefferson Clinton, in sworn answers to written questions asked as part of a Federal civil rights action brought against him, willfully provided perjurious, false and misleading testimony in response to questions deemed relevant by a Federal judge concerning conduct and proposed conduct with subordinate employees.

(2) On January 17, 1998, William Jefferson Clinton swore under oath to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth in a deposition given as part of a Federal civil rights action brought against him. Contrary to that oath, William Jefferson Clinton willfully provided perjurious, false and misleading testimony in response to questions deemed relevant by a Federal judge concerning the nature and details of his relationship with a subordinate Government employee, his knowledge of that employee's involvement and participation in the civil rights action brought against him, and his corrupt efforts to influence the testimony of that employee.

In all of this, William Jefferson Clinton has undermined the integrity of his office, has brought disrepute on the Presidency, has betrayed his trust as President, and has acted in a manner subversive of the rule of law and justice, to the manifest injury of the people of the United States.

Wherefore, William Jefferson Clinton, by such conduct, warrants impeachment and trial, and removal from office and disqualification to hold and enjoy any office of honor, trust or profit under the United States.



--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


Article II passed on a 20-17 vote.

Voting Aye
Henry Hyde (R-Ill.)
James Sensenbrenner (R-Wis.)
Bill McCollum (R-Fla.)
George Gekas (R-Pa.)
Howard Coble (R-N.C.)
Lamar Smith (R-Tex.)
Elton Gallegly (R-Calif.)
Charles Canady (R-Fla.)
Bob Inglis (R-S.C.)
Bob Goodlatte (R-Va.)
Steve Buyer (R-Ind.)
Ed Bryant (R-Tenn.)
Steve Chabot (R-Ohio)
Bob Barr (R-Ga.)
William Jenkins (R-Tenn.)
Asa Hutchinson (R-Ark.)
Edward Pease (R-Ind.)
Christopher Cannon (R-Utah)
James Rogan (R-Calif.)
Mary Bono (R-Calif.)

 Voting Nay
Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.)
John Conyers (D-Mich.)
Thomas Barrett (D-Wis.)
Barney Frank (D-Mass.
Charles Schumer (D-N.Y.)
Howard Berman (D-Calif.)
Rick Boucher (D-Va.)
Jerrold Nadler (D-N.Y.)
Bobby Scott (D-Va.)
Mel Watt (D-N.C.)
Zoe Lofgren (D-Calif.)
Sheila Jackson Lee (D-Tex.)
Maxine Waters (D-Calif.)
Martin Meehan (D-Mass.)
William Delahunt (D-Mass.)
Robert Wexler (D-Fla.)
Steven Rothman (D-N.J.)

 
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
 
 
Article III


In his conduct while President of the United States, William Jefferson Clinton, in violation of his constitutional oath faithfully to execute the office of President of the United States and, to the best of his ability, preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution of the United States, and in violation of his constitutional duty to take care that the laws be faithfully executed, has prevented, obstructed, and impeded the administration of justice, and has to that end engaged personally, and through his subordinates and agents, in a course of conduct or scheme designed to delay, impede, cover up, and conceal the existence of evidence and testimony related to a Federal civil rights action brought against him in a duly instituted judicial proceeding.

The means used to implement this course of conduct or scheme included one or more of the following acts:

(1) On or about December 17, 1997, William Jefferson Clinton corruptly encouraged a witness in a Federal civil rights action brought against him to execute a sworn affidavit in that proceeding that he knew to be perjurious, false and misleading.

(2) On or about December 17, 1997, William Jefferson Clinton corruptly encouraged a witness in a Federal civil rights action brought against him to give perjurious, false and misleading testimony if and when called to testify personally in that proceeding.

(3) On or about December 28, 1997, William Jefferson Clinton corruptly engaged in, encouraged, or supported a scheme to conceal evidence that had been subpoenaed in a Federal civil rights action brought against him.

(4) Beginning on or about December 7, 1997, and continuing through and including January 14, 1998, William Jefferson Clinton intensified and succeeded in an effort to secure job assistance to a witness in a Federal civil rights action brought against him in order to corruptly prevent the truthful testimony of that witness in that proceeding at a time when the truthful testimony of that witness would have been harmful to him.

(5) On January 17, 1998, at his deposition in a Federal civil rights action brought against him, William Jefferson Clinton corruptly allowed his attorney to make false and misleading statements to a Federal judge characterizing an affidavit, in order to prevent questioning deemed relevant by the judge. Such false and misleading statements were subsequently acknowledged by his attorney in a communication to that judge.

(6) On or about January 18 and January 20-21, 1998, William Jefferson Clinton related a false and misleading account of events relevant to a Federal civil rights action brought against him to a potential witness in that proceeding, in order to corruptly influence the testimony of that witness.

(7) On or about January 21, 23 and 26, 1998, William Jefferson Clinton made false and misleading statements to potential witnesses in a Federal grand jury proceeding in order to corruptly influence the testimony of those witnesses. The false and misleading statements made by William Jefferson Clinton were repeated by the witnesses to the grand jury, causing the grand jury to receive false and misleading information.

In all of this, William Jefferson Clinton has undermined the integrity of his office, has brought disrepute on the Presidency, has betrayed his trust as President, and has acted in a manner subversive of the rule of law and justice, to the manifest injury of the people of the United States.

Wherefore, William Jefferson Clinton, by such conduct, warrants impeachment and trial, and removal from office and disqualification to hold and enjoy any office of honor, trust or profit under the United States.



--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


Article III passed on a 21-16 vote.

Voting Aye
Henry Hyde (R-Ill.)
James Sensenbrenner (R-Wis.)
Bill McCollum (R-Fla.)
George Gekas (R-Pa.)
Howard Coble (R-N.C.)
Lamar Smith (R-Tex.)
Elton Gallegly (R-Calif.)
Charles Canady (R-Fla.)
Bob Inglis (R-S.C.)
Bob Goodlatte (R-Va.)
Steve Buyer (R-Ind.)
Ed Bryant (R-Tenn.)
Steve Chabot (R-Ohio)
Bob Barr (R-Ga.)
William Jenkins (R-Tenn.)
Asa Hutchinson (R-Ark.)
Edward Pease (R-Ind.)
Christopher Cannon (R-Utah)
James Rogan (R-Calif.)
Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.)
Mary Bono (R-Calif.)

 Voting Nay
John Conyers (D-Mich.)
Thomas Barrett (D-Wis.)
Barney Frank (D-Mass.
Charles Schumer (D-N.Y.)
Howard Berman (D-Calif.)
Rick Boucher (D-Va.)
Jerrold Nadler (D-N.Y.)
Bobby Scott (D-Va.)
Mel Watt (D-N.C.)
Zoe Lofgren (D-Calif.)
Sheila Jackson Lee (D-Tex.)
Maxine Waters (D-Calif.)
Martin Meehan (D-Mass.)
William Delahunt (D-Mass.)
Robert Wexler (D-Fla.)
Steven Rothman (D-N.J.)

 --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
 Article IV


Using the powers and influence of the office of President of the United States, William Jefferson Clinton, in violation of his constitutional oath faithfully to execute the office of President of the United States and, to the best of his ability, preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution of the United States, and in disregard of his constitutional duty to take care that the laws be faithfully executed, has engaged in conduct that resulted in misuse and abuse of his high office, impaired the due and proper administration of justice and the conduct of lawful inquiries, and contravened the authority of the legislative branch and the truth-seeking purpose of a coordinate investigative proceeding in that, as President, William Jefferson Clinton, refused and failed to respond to certain written requests for admission and willfully made perjurious, false and misleading sworn statements in response to certain written requests for admission propounded to him as part of the impeachment inquiry authorized by the House of Representatives of the Congress of the United States.

William Jefferson Clinton, in refusing and failing to respond, and in making perjurious, false and misleading statements, assumed to himself functions and judgments necessary to the exercise of the sole power of impeachment vested by the Constitution in the House of Representatives and exhibited contempt for the inquiry.

In doing this, William Jefferson Clinton has undermined the integrity of his office, has brought disrepute on the Presidency, has betrayed his trust as President, and has acted in a manner subversive of the rule of law and justice, to the manifest injury of the people of the United States.

Wherefore, William Jefferson Clinton, by such conduct, warrants impeachment and trial, and removal from office and disqualification to hold and enjoy any office of honor, trust or profit under the United States.



--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


Article IV passed on a 21-16 vote.

Voting Aye
Henry Hyde (R-Ill.)
James Sensenbrenner (R-Wis.)
Bill McCollum (R-Fla.)
George Gekas (R-Pa.)
Howard Coble (R-N.C.)
Lamar Smith (R-Tex.)
Elton Gallegly (R-Calif.)
Charles Canady (R-Fla.)
Bob Inglis (R-S.C.)
Bob Goodlatte (R-Va.)
Steve Buyer (R-Ind.)
Ed Bryant (R-Tenn.)
Steve Chabot (R-Ohio)
Bob Barr (R-Ga.)
William Jenkins (R-Tenn.)
Asa Hutchinson (R-Ark.)
Edward Pease (R-Ind.)
Christopher Cannon (R-Utah)
James Rogan (R-Calif.)
Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.)
Mary Bono (R-Calif.)

 Voting Nay
John Conyers (D-Mich.)
Thomas Barrett (D-Wis.)
Barney Frank (D-Mass.
Charles Schumer (D-N.Y.)
Howard Berman (D-Calif.)
Rick Boucher (D-Va.)
Jerrold Nadler (D-N.Y.)
Bobby Scott (D-Va.)
Mel Watt (D-N.C.)
Zoe Lofgren (D-Calif.)
Sheila Jackson Lee (D-Tex.)
Maxine Waters (D-Calif.)
Martin Meehan (D-Mass.)
William Delahunt (D-Mass.)
Robert Wexler (D-Fla.)
Steven Rothman (D-N.J.)

 
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/politics/special/clinton/stories/impeachvote121198.htm
 


Title: Re: Impeachment
Post by: Straw Man on May 16, 2013, 02:07:51 PM
Still haven't seen anyone who can articulate exactly what the scandal is



Title: Re: Impeachment
Post by: Dos Equis on May 16, 2013, 04:34:40 PM
Interesting discussion of "high crimes and misdemeanors."  We impeached a judge for "chronic intoxication" in 1804.  I doubt any judge or president would be impeached today for being an alcoholic.

High crimes and misdemeanors is a phrase from Section 4 of Article Two of the United States Constitution: "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."

"High" in the legal and common parlance of the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries of "high crimes" signifies activity by or against those who have special duties acquired by taking an oath of office that are not shared with common persons.[1] A high crime is one that can only be done by someone in a unique position of authority, which is political in character, who does things to circumvent justice. The phrase "high crimes and misdemeanors" when used together was a common phrase at the time the U.S. Constitution was written and did not mean any stringent or difficult criteria for determining guilt. It meant the opposite. The phrase was historically used to cover a very broad range of crimes.

In the Washington Post reprinting of the Judiciary Committee's review of Impeachment in 1974, the review states, ""High Crimes and Misdemeanors" has traditionally been considered a "term of art", like such other constitutional phrases as "levying war" and "due process." The Supreme Court has held that such phrases must be construed, not according to modern usage, but according to what the framers meant when they adopted them. Chief Justice Marshall wrote of another such phrase:

"It is a technical term. It is used in a very old statute of that country whose language is our language, and whose laws form the substratum of our laws. It is scarcely conceivable that the term was not employed by the framers of our constitution in the sense which had been affixed to it by those from whom we borrowed it."[citation needed]

The constitutional convention adopted “high crimes and misdemeanors” with little discussion. Most of the framers knew the phrase well.[citation needed] Since 1386, the English parliament had used the term “high crimes and misdemeanors” to describe one of the grounds to impeach officials of the crown. Officials accused of “high crimes and misdemeanors” were accused of offenses as varied as misappropriating government funds, appointing unfit subordinates, not prosecuting cases, not spending money allocated by Parliament, promoting themselves ahead of more deserving candidates, threatening a grand jury, disobeying an order from Parliament, arresting a man to keep him from running for Parliament, losing a ship by neglecting to moor it, helping “suppress petitions to the King to call a Parliament,” granting warrants without cause, and bribery.[citation needed] Some of these charges were crimes. Others were not. The one common denominator in all these accusations was that the official had somehow abused the power of his office and was unfit to serve.[citation needed]

As can be found in[2] historical references of the period, the phrase in its original meaning is interpreted as "for whatever reason whatsoever". High indicates a type of very serious crime, and misdemeanors indicates crimes that are minor. Therefore this phrase covers all or any crime that abuses office. Benjamin Franklin asserted that the power of impeachment and removal was necessary for those times when the Executive "rendered himself obnoxious," and the Constitution should provide for the "regular punishment of the Executive when his conduct should deserve it, and for his honorable acquittal when he should be unjustly accused." James Madison said, "...impeachment... was indispensable" to defend the community against "the incapacity, negligence or perfidy of the chief Magistrate." With a single executive, Madison argued, unlike a legislature whose collective nature provided security, "loss of capacity or corruption was more within the compass of probable events, and either of them might be fatal to the Republic."[3]

According to the Constitutional Rights Foundation, "Prior to the Clinton investigation, the House had begun impeachment proceedings against only 17 officials — one U.S. senator, two presidents, one cabinet member, and 13 federal judges."[4]

The very difficult case of impeaching someone in the House of Representatives and removing that person in the Senate by a vote of two-thirds majority in the Senate was meant to be the check to balance against efforts to easily remove people from office for minor reasons that could easily be determined by the standard of "high crimes and misdemeanors". It was George Mason who offered up the term "high crimes and misdemeanors" as one of the criteria to remove public officials who abuse their office. Their original intentions can be gleaned by the phrases and words that were proposed before, such as "high misdemeanor", "maladministration", or "other crime". Edmund Randolf said impeachment should be reserved for those who "misbehave". Cotesworth Pinkney said, It should be reserved "...for those who behave amiss, or betray their public trust." As can be seen from all these references to the term "high crimes and misdemeanors", there is no concrete definition for the term, except to allow people to remove an official for office for subjective reasons entirely.

Alexander Hamilton said, "...those offences which proceed from the misconduct of public men, or, in other words, from the abuse or violation of some public trust. They are of a nature which may with peculiar propriety be denominated POLITICAL, as they relate chiefly to injuries done immediately to the society itself."[2]

The first impeachment conviction by the United States Senate was in 1804 of John Pickering, a judge of the United States District Court for the District of New Hampshire, for chronic intoxication. Federal judges have been impeached and removed from office for tax evasion, conspiracy to solicit a bribe, and making false statements to a grand jury.[citation needed]

In the impeachment of Bill Clinton in the late 1990s for perjury, the exact meaning of the term high crimes and misdemeanors became the subject of debate. A particular subject of debate is exactly what rises to the level of high crimes and misdemeanors. Some felt[who?] that the act of perjury, a federal crime, rose to that level. Others felt[who?] that this particular act of perjury, while illegal, did not reach that level because the lie was specifically in regard to a matter of personal infidelity and that the questioning that led to it was allegedly politically motivated.

The legacy of high crimes and misdemeanors persists in military justice, where those having contractual obligations under the Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ) may be punished for offenses that would not be crimes if committed by civilians.[citation

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/High_crimes_and_misdemeanours


Title: Re: Impeachment
Post by: Straw Man on May 16, 2013, 04:38:00 PM
still waiting for someone (anyone) to tell us what the "high crime and misdemeanor" is

As far as I can tell it's Darrell Issa's personal interpretation of "act of terror” vs. “terrorist attack.”


Title: Re: Impeachment
Post by: 240 is Back on May 16, 2013, 05:18:09 PM
I love it when people talk about impeachment, say "this is what people are saying", quote past impeachments...

but don't have the balls to say we should be impeaching obama.


stop sitting on the fence.  own it.  say it.


Title: Re: Impeachment
Post by: Shockwave on May 16, 2013, 05:19:23 PM
I don't believe we'll ever see another President face impeachment. Far too many politics involved.


Title: Re: Impeachment
Post by: Dos Equis on May 16, 2013, 06:25:48 PM
I don't believe we'll ever see another President face impeachment. Far too many politics involved.

Probably not.


Title: Re: Impeachment
Post by: Dos Equis on May 21, 2013, 04:42:11 PM
Portion of Nixon's resignation speech.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZEOGJJ7UKFM


Title: Re: Impeachment
Post by: Straw Man on May 21, 2013, 04:43:48 PM
Still not a single person on this board who can articulate a valid reason for impeachment

All they can seem to do is fantasize about it


Title: Re: Impeachment
Post by: Soul Crusher on May 21, 2013, 05:07:58 PM
Still not a single person on this board who can articulate a valid reason for impeachment

All they can seem to do is fantasize about it

Obama is a twink and is black.   How about that?   :D


Title: Re: Impeachment
Post by: Dos Equis on October 21, 2013, 12:34:45 PM
Glenn Beck Has Had Enough: ‘I, Personally, Am Calling To Impeach The President’
By Brian Carey on September 18, 2013 S
Subscribe to Brian Carey's Feed@brianmcarey 

Glenn Beck is fed up with this President, and he wants him out of office. In fact, he wants President Obama out of office well before January of 2017, when he is scheduled to leave office.

Just yesterday on his own television network, BlazeTV, Beck personally called for the impeachment of President Obama. This is the first time that he has done that.

“I called today for the very first time in my career,” Beck said, “on this President. I, personally, I have said before, ‘That’s impeachable.’ I, personally, am calling to impeach the President of the United States. This is impeachable.”

And what, exactly, does Beck mean by “this”? What is it that President Obama is doing that rises to the constitutionally defined level of “high crimes” and/or “misdemeanors”?

Beck believes that the President should be impeached because he is willing to arm the Syrian rebels. “He is arming known terrorists,” Beck said, “and people like John McCain should be impeached as well.”

John McCain should be impeached? We didn’t see that one coming.

“If you don’t want your vote back,” Beck continued, “what will it take? If you in Arizona said, ‘I voted for John McCain because I thought John McCain was strong on defense and better than the other guy.’ Whatever the deal is, if them saying, ‘We’re going to arm al-Qaeda’ and yes, we know that some of the arms are going to fall into the hands of al-Qaeda… if that’s not an impeachable offense for Lindsey Graham, for John McCain, for John Boehner, for the President of the United States, I don’t know what an impeachable offense is.”

Have a look at the video below.


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SsZWeKAa2uQ

http://downtrend.com/brian-carey/glenn-beck-has-had-enough-i-personally-am-calling-to-impeach-the-president/


Title: Re: Impeachment
Post by: Straw Man on October 21, 2013, 12:37:37 PM
Obama is a twink and is black.   How about that?   :D

Being black is most definitely one of the reasons that Repubs would like to impeach him



Title: Re: Impeachment
Post by: Soul Crusher on October 21, 2013, 12:38:21 PM
He should be deported to Kenya via a wooden ship and put in steerage


Title: Re: Impeachment
Post by: Roger Bacon on October 21, 2013, 12:39:20 PM
We didn't impeach our former President unfortunately, I have a feeling we won't be impeaching Obama either.  :-\


Title: Re: Impeachment
Post by: Roger Bacon on October 21, 2013, 12:39:58 PM
He should be deported to Kenya via a wooden ship and put in steerage

ROFL!!!!!!!!!!!!


Title: Re: Impeachment
Post by: Straw Man on October 21, 2013, 12:47:26 PM
Glenn Beck Has Had Enough: ‘I, Personally, Am Calling To Impeach The President’
By Brian Carey on September 18, 2013 S
Subscribe to Brian Carey's Feed@brianmcarey 

Glenn Beck is fed up with this President, and he wants him out of office. In fact, he wants President Obama out of office well before January of 2017, when he is scheduled to leave office.

Just yesterday on his own television network, BlazeTV, Beck personally called for the impeachment of President Obama. This is the first time that he has done that.

“I called today for the very first time in my career,” Beck said, “on this President. I, personally, I have said before, ‘That’s impeachable.’ I, personally, am calling to impeach the President of the United States. This is impeachable.”

And what, exactly, does Beck mean by “this”? What is it that President Obama is doing that rises to the constitutionally defined level of “high crimes” and/or “misdemeanors”?

Beck believes that the President should be impeached because he is willing to arm the Syrian rebels. “He is arming known terrorists,” Beck said, “and people like John McCain should be impeached as well.”

John McCain should be impeached? We didn’t see that one coming.

“If you don’t want your vote back,” Beck continued, “what will it take? If you in Arizona said, ‘I voted for John McCain because I thought John McCain was strong on defense and better than the other guy.’ Whatever the deal is, if them saying, ‘We’re going to arm al-Qaeda’ and yes, we know that some of the arms are going to fall into the hands of al-Qaeda… if that’s not an impeachable offense for Lindsey Graham, for John McCain, for John Boehner, for the President of the United States, I don’t know what an impeachable offense is.”

Have a look at the video below.


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SsZWeKAa2uQ

http://downtrend.com/brian-carey/glenn-beck-has-had-enough-i-personally-am-calling-to-impeach-the-president/

since when does anyone gives a shit what Glenn Beck thinks?


Title: Re: Impeachment
Post by: Straw Man on October 21, 2013, 12:48:10 PM
We didn't impeach our former President unfortunately, I have a feeling we won't be impeaching Obama either.  :-\

no shit Sherlock



Title: Re: Impeachment
Post by: Roger Bacon on October 21, 2013, 12:48:49 PM
since when does anyone gives a shit what Glenn Beck thinks?

I like him...  

(http://rebelwithmomentum.files.wordpress.com/2013/05/embarrassed-smiley-face-2.jpg)


Title: Re: Impeachment
Post by: Straw Man on October 21, 2013, 12:49:00 PM
He should be deported to Kenya via a wooden ship and put in steerage

why didn't you share any of your racist hatred of Obama when you had your 10 seconds of national infamy and humiliation



Title: Re: Impeachment
Post by: Roger Bacon on October 21, 2013, 12:50:34 PM
no shit Sherlock

On the other hand, Obama has hurt Americans much worse than George W ever did so maybe there is still hope?



Title: Re: Impeachment
Post by: Straw Man on October 21, 2013, 12:51:28 PM
I like him...  

(http://rebelwithmomentum.files.wordpress.com/2013/05/embarrassed-smiley-face-2.jpg)

sorry, I should have said since when does anyone other than mental patients and morons give a shit what Glenn Beck thinks



Title: Re: Impeachment
Post by: Straw Man on October 21, 2013, 12:51:59 PM
On the other hand, Obama has hurt Americans much worse than George W ever did so maybe there is still hope?

for example


Title: Re: Impeachment
Post by: Soul Crusher on October 21, 2013, 12:54:52 PM
for example

ObamaCare
IRS scandals
NSA scandals
Fast n Furious and Grenade Walking
Crushing small business people w his communism

and on and on and on and on. 


Title: Re: Impeachment
Post by: Straw Man on October 21, 2013, 12:57:01 PM
ObamaCare
IRS scandals
NSA scandals
Fast n Furious and Grenade Walking
Crushing small business people w his communism

and on and on and on and on. 

so basically you got nothing except for imaginary shit you and Repubs like to tell each other



Title: Re: Impeachment
Post by: Roger Bacon on October 21, 2013, 12:58:20 PM
sorry, I should have said since when does anyone other than mental patients and morons give a shit what Glenn Beck thinks

I can't wait until a Republican president is raping us so you and I can agree with each other again. 



Title: Re: Impeachment
Post by: Roger Bacon on October 21, 2013, 01:01:42 PM
ObamaCare
IRS scandals
NSA scandals
Fast n Furious and Grenade Walking
Crushing small business people w his communism

and on and on and on and on.  

If George W. was responsible for all this corruption, scandals, and outright treason Straw Man would be going nuts.  He's truly worse than Coach even, the most partisan mother fucker on this board.  :-\


Title: Re: Impeachment
Post by: Straw Man on October 21, 2013, 01:05:06 PM
I can't wait until a Republican president is raping us so you and I can agree with each other again. 

weird that you are desiring to be raped

I actually remember the last few months of the Bush Administration and it was pretty fucking horrible

Millions of jobs being lost, stock market crashing, housing market crashing.....almost every American being harmed in some way or another, some quite profoundly

Let's not forget the thousand that died based on a bunch of lies and the many thousands who are maimed or had their lives altered forever

You want all that again just so that you can agree with me that it sucks?


Title: Re: Impeachment
Post by: Soul Crusher on October 21, 2013, 01:05:55 PM
weird that you are desiring to be raped

I actually remember the last few months of the Bush Administration and it was pretty fucking horrible

Millions of jobs being lost, stock market crashing, housing market crashing.....almost every American being harmed in some way or another, some quite profoundly

Let's not forget the thousand that died based on a bunch of lies and the many thousands who are maimed or had their lives altered forever

You want all that again just so that you can agree with me that it sucks?

More soldiers have died under Obama than W - get your facts straight twink


Title: Re: Impeachment
Post by: Straw Man on October 21, 2013, 01:06:47 PM
If George W. was responsible for all this corruption, scandals, and outright treason Straw Man would be going nuts.  He's truly worse than Coach even, the most partisan mother fucker on this board.  :-\

I have spoken at length and with facts about why most of the stuff on that list is complete and utter nonsense

I've also criticized Obama many times

The only difference between you and me is that I don't criticize him for make believe nonsense or just because he's black


Title: Re: Impeachment
Post by: Straw Man on October 21, 2013, 01:07:50 PM
More soldiers have died under Obama than W - get your facts straight twink

yeah and we would't even be there is it weren't for W

Those are his wars ...remember

no, of course you don't remember that

that would require you to have the normal brain function of the average 8th grader


Title: Re: Impeachment
Post by: Soul Crusher on October 21, 2013, 02:06:20 PM
yeah and we would't even be there is it weren't for W

Those are his wars ...remember

no, of course you don't remember that

that would require you to have the normal brain function of the average 8th grader



Title: Re: Impeachment
Post by: 240 is Back on October 21, 2013, 02:52:30 PM
Insane that it took Beck until Sept 2013 to call for impeachement.

more insane that some other wimp repubs on getbig won't call for impeachment.  Benghazi alone is enough.

I can see dems or moderates passing on it, you are letting politics blind you, but okay.

however, REPUBLICANS?  Turn in your voter IDs and go jump off something tall onto something sharp already.  Impeach.  Stop being wimps with the "let's give obama 3 more years to realllly make a mess of things!"  You idiots.


Title: Re: Impeachment
Post by: Straw Man on October 21, 2013, 02:55:32 PM
Insane that it took Beck until Sept 2013 to call for impeachement.

more insane that some other wimp repubs on getbig won't call for impeachment.  Benghazi alone is enough.

I can see dems or moderates passing on it, you are letting politics blind you, but okay.

however, REPUBLICANS?  Turn in your voter IDs and go jump off something tall onto something sharp already.  Impeach.  Stop being wimps with the "let's give obama 3 more years to realllly make a mess of things!"  You idiots.

I assume this is a joke



Title: Re: Impeachment
Post by: whork on October 21, 2013, 05:24:00 PM
More soldiers have died under Obama than W - get your facts straight twink

And why is that?


Title: Re: Impeachment
Post by: Soul Crusher on October 21, 2013, 05:30:27 PM
And why is that?

Rules of Engagement have changed


Title: Re: Impeachment
Post by: whork on October 21, 2013, 05:32:17 PM
Rules of Engagement have changed


You have to be a little more specific.


Title: Re: Impeachment
Post by: Soul Crusher on October 21, 2013, 05:35:08 PM

You have to be a little more specific.

Look it up - HH6 will explain


Title: Re: Impeachment
Post by: whork on October 22, 2013, 03:40:50 AM
Look it up - HH6 will explain


So you have time to copypaste 20+ articles each day but cant be bothered to explain something that might actually have value.

You really are nothing but a troll.


Title: Re: Impeachment
Post by: Dos Equis on November 14, 2013, 08:52:23 AM
House Republicans to Try to Impeach Holder
Thursday, 14 Nov 2013

Republicans in the House of Representatives plan to introduce articles of impeachment against Attorney General Eric Holder on Thursday, in the hopes of removing a cabinet member they say has lied to Congress as well as failed to uphold federal law.

"This was not a decision that I made lightly. Since the House voted in 2012 to hold Attorney General Eric Holder in contempt, the pattern of disregard for the rule of law and refusal to be forthright has only continued," Texas Rep. Pete Olson, who drafted the articles, said in a statement provided to Reuters on Wednesday.

"The American people deserve answers and accountability. If the attorney general refuses to provide answers, then Congress must take action."

The Justice Department did not respond to requests for comment on the possibility of an impeachment move.

The resolution could pass the Republican-dominated House but would likely sputter in the Democratic-dominated Senate, which would have to hold a trial to remove Holder, who has been attorney general since 2009, from office.

Still, an impeachment drive would further fuel the tensions that exist between the federal government's top law enforcement officer and conservative lawmakers. According to the media firm CQ Roll Call, 10 other Republicans would co-sponsor the articles of impeachment, five of whom are from Texas.

According to an outline, the first article is based on "Operation Fast and Furious" a bungled attempt to build cases against major gun traffickers who supplied firearms to Mexican drug cartels, while electing not to immediately prosecute low-level traffickers even as they bought 2,000 potentially illegal guns.

The operation came to light after two of those firearms were found in Arizona at the scene of the fatal shooting of U.S. Border Patrol agent Brian Terry.

After Holder refused to give a congressional committee subpoenaed documents about the Justice Department's involvement in "Fast and Furious" he was found in contempt of Congress. The House oversight committee has also sued for the documents.

The other impeachment articles rest on issues that have raised conservatives' ire in recent years, including Holder's decisions not to enforce laws on same-sex marriage, on prison sentences for certain drug crimes and not to prosecute an official in the Internal Revenue Service for targeting conservative political activists.

They also say Holder lied to Congress about a Justice Department investigation into Fox News correspondent James Rosen.

http://www.newsmax.com/Newsfront/house-republicans-impeach-holder/2013/11/14/id/536551#ixzz2kdiUAjc5


Title: Re: Impeachment
Post by: Option D on November 14, 2013, 09:54:09 AM
House Republicans to Try to Impeach Holder
Thursday, 14 Nov 2013

Republicans in the House of Representatives plan to introduce articles of impeachment against Attorney General Eric Holder on Thursday, in the hopes of removing a cabinet member they say has lied to Congress as well as failed to uphold federal law.

"This was not a decision that I made lightly. Since the House voted in 2012 to hold Attorney General Eric Holder in contempt, the pattern of disregard for the rule of law and refusal to be forthright has only continued," Texas Rep. Pete Olson, who drafted the articles, said in a statement provided to Reuters on Wednesday.

"The American people deserve answers and accountability. If the attorney general refuses to provide answers, then Congress must take action."

The Justice Department did not respond to requests for comment on the possibility of an impeachment move.

The resolution could pass the Republican-dominated House but would likely sputter in the Democratic-dominated Senate, which would have to hold a trial to remove Holder, who has been attorney general since 2009, from office.

Still, an impeachment drive would further fuel the tensions that exist between the federal government's top law enforcement officer and conservative lawmakers. According to the media firm CQ Roll Call, 10 other Republicans would co-sponsor the articles of impeachment, five of whom are from Texas.

According to an outline, the first article is based on "Operation Fast and Furious" a bungled attempt to build cases against major gun traffickers who supplied firearms to Mexican drug cartels, while electing not to immediately prosecute low-level traffickers even as they bought 2,000 potentially illegal guns.

The operation came to light after two of those firearms were found in Arizona at the scene of the fatal shooting of U.S. Border Patrol agent Brian Terry.

After Holder refused to give a congressional committee subpoenaed documents about the Justice Department's involvement in "Fast and Furious" he was found in contempt of Congress. The House oversight committee has also sued for the documents.

The other impeachment articles rest on issues that have raised conservatives' ire in recent years, including Holder's decisions not to enforce laws on same-sex marriage, on prison sentences for certain drug crimes and not to prosecute an official in the Internal Revenue Service for targeting conservative political activists.

They also say Holder lied to Congress about a Justice Department investigation into Fox News correspondent James Rosen.

http://www.newsmax.com/Newsfront/house-republicans-impeach-holder/2013/11/14/id/536551#ixzz2kdiUAjc5


Jesus H Christ....

Does this shit play in the public?


Title: Re: Impeachment
Post by: Dos Equis on November 14, 2013, 12:05:24 PM
Jesus H Christ....

Does this shit play in the public?

It's not going to happen, but I don't blame them. 


Title: Re: Impeachment
Post by: 240 is Back on November 14, 2013, 12:10:05 PM
Only 11 total republicans will impeach Holder.  

Disgusting.   Just plain vile.  



Title: Re: Impeachment
Post by: Dos Equis on November 14, 2013, 12:12:36 PM
 ::)


Title: Re: Impeachment
Post by: Soul Crusher on November 14, 2013, 12:36:42 PM
Jesus H Christ....

Does this shit play in the public?

If Holder was white he would be executed


Title: Re: Impeachment
Post by: AndreaRyc on November 14, 2013, 02:26:44 PM
See?  This thread is what I'm talking about.

Right wing filth lives in its own fantastic sewage.  Only amongst this garbage is talk of 'impeachment' a somber yet necessary act.

Fine.  Ok.  Draw up your articles of impeachment.  Granted none of you dimwits have the slightest idea of what that means but I'm sure I'll get some links and 'Booms" thrown out there.





Title: Re: Impeachment
Post by: Dos Equis on November 14, 2013, 04:15:42 PM
See?  This thread is what I'm talking about.

Right wing filth lives in its own fantastic sewage.  Only amongst this garbage is talk of 'impeachment' a somber yet necessary act.

Fine.  Ok.  Draw up your articles of impeachment.  Granted none of you dimwits have the slightest idea of what that means but I'm sure I'll get some links and 'Booms" thrown out there.



Filth?  Sewage??  Well that's pretty mean garebear.  I think I like the unfunny comic relief version better. 


Title: Re: Impeachment
Post by: whork on November 14, 2013, 04:29:39 PM
Only 11 total republicans will impeach Holder.  

Disgusting.   Just plain vile.  




Thats actually a good point.

If Obama (and Holder) is destroying the country why not impeach ??? Because its BS ???


Title: Re: Impeachment
Post by: whork on November 14, 2013, 04:32:05 PM
See?  This thread is what I'm talking about.

Right wing filth lives in its own fantastic sewage.  Only amongst this garbage is talk of 'impeachment' a somber yet necessary act.



Relax there fellow, Rightwingers is people as well no need for that kind of rhetoric.
They are pretty fucking dumb but people none the less.



Fine.  Ok.  Draw up your articles of impeachment.  Granted none of you dimwits have the slightest idea of what that means but I'm sure I'll get some links and 'Booms" thrown out there.






Title: Re: Impeachment
Post by: 240 is Back on November 14, 2013, 04:39:30 PM
obama should be impeached for standing by and putting on a tux for a fundraiser while they fought at benghazi for 7+ hours... with help only 1 hour away, begging for permission...

he didn't want the world to know what was going on there, he didn't want a big massacre of bad guys just 2 months before the election.

Any republican who doesn't call for impeachment, based upon this - well, you truly endorse obama and you deserve every single executive order he writes.  Period.  I'll give 3333Soulcrusher & coach credit, as they call for impeachment.  I dont know of any other "repubs" here that support it.  They roll eyes at such a thought. 


Title: Re: Impeachment
Post by: Soul Crusher on November 14, 2013, 08:15:02 PM
obama should be impeached for standing by and putting on a tux for a fundraiser while they fought at benghazi for 7+ hours... with help only 1 hour away, begging for permission...

he didn't want the world to know what was going on there, he didn't want a big massacre of bad guys just 2 months before the election.

Any republican who doesn't call for impeachment, based upon this - well, you truly endorse obama and you deserve every single executive order he writes.  Period.  I'll give 3333Soulcrusher & coach credit, as they call for impeachment.  I dont know of any other "repubs" here that support it.  They roll eyes at such a thought. 

OTWINK hould have been impeached in 2008


Title: Re: Impeachment
Post by: AndreaRyc on November 15, 2013, 06:56:26 AM
Filth?  Sewage??  Well that's pretty mean garebear.  I think I like the unfunny comic relief version better. 
You have the balls to say my vitriol is worse than the garbage posted by your fellow brownshirts?  No pal.  I'm spot on.  You stand with sadistic traitorous scum.  It's a given.

For christ's sake just look at the TITLES of some of these threads.  Well old man, as moderator, you're doing a hell of bad job.


Title: Re: Impeachment
Post by: headhuntersix on November 15, 2013, 07:04:00 AM
You have the balls to say my vitriol is worse than the garbage posted by your fellow brownshirts?  No pal.  I'm spot on.  You stand with sadistic traitorous scum.  It's a given.

For christ's sake just look at the TITLES of some of these threads.  Well old man, as moderator, you're doing a hell of bad job.

Is this really queerbear........another douchbag lib whining and crying about the failure of "HIM IN THE WHITEHOUSE".....ur guy is an utter asshat and u have no idea what to do now do u.


Title: Re: Impeachment
Post by: Soul Crusher on November 15, 2013, 07:04:32 AM
You have the balls to say my vitriol is worse than the garbage posted by your fellow brownshirts?  No pal.  I'm spot on.  You stand with sadistic traitorous scum.  It's a given.

For christ's sake just look at the TITLES of some of these threads.  Well old man, as moderator, you're doing a hell of bad job.

LMFAO 


Title: Re: Impeachment
Post by: Option D on November 15, 2013, 07:08:29 AM
obama should be impeached for standing by and putting on a tux for a fundraiser while they fought at benghazi for 7+ hours... with help only 1 hour away, begging for permission...

he didn't want the world to know what was going on there, he didn't want a big massacre of bad guys just 2 months before the election.

Any republican who doesn't call for impeachment, based upon this - well, you truly endorse obama and you deserve every single executive order he writes.  Period.  I'll give 3333Soulcrusher & coach credit, as they call for impeachment.  I dont know of any other "repubs" here that support it.  They roll eyes at such a thought. 

They would call for impeachment if he wore white after labor day


Title: Re: Impeachment
Post by: Soul Crusher on November 15, 2013, 07:10:43 AM
They would call for impeachment if he wore white after labor day


Nice way to avoid 240's point. 



Title: Re: Impeachment
Post by: headhuntersix on November 15, 2013, 07:12:02 AM
Impeachment is a mistake.....unless its so clear cut that not to impeach would be criminal. Obama has accelerated lame duck status with the Obamacare disaster and that won't fully play out until thew hole law is out there. He's not getting immigration and I suspect we'll have a few more foreign policy messes befoe this is all done. Let the house of cards fail...get out of the way and let grab some popcorn.


Title: Re: Impeachment
Post by: Soul Crusher on November 15, 2013, 07:16:16 AM
Impeachment is a mistake.....unless its so clear cut that not to impeach would be criminal. Obama has accelerated lame duck status with the Obamacare disaster and that won't fully play out until thew hole law is out there. He's not getting immigration and I suspect we'll have a few more foreign policy messes befoe this is all done. Let the house of cards fail...get out of the way and let grab some popcorn.

Correct - its better to let Obama's disasters and scandal burn down his corrupt worthless admn so the GOP can steamroll the communists next year./ 


Title: Re: Impeachment
Post by: Gonuclear on November 15, 2013, 07:29:49 AM
Yawn.  ::)   If you want to have a dialogue about this, you let me know.  In the meantime, keep in mind you're Canadian. 


Yawn yourself.  Canadians are not allowed to comment for some reason (existing in your mind but nowhere else)?

And you are a moderator?



Title: Re: Impeachment
Post by: headhuntersix on November 15, 2013, 07:31:31 AM
Yeah...last thing we need is...'you just don't like black people' as they cart this asshat away. First off..he's half white folks....half white. Clinton was blacker then this guy and way cooler. Barry couldn't act black if he had lessons. He can't shoot a basketball..there's video of that, he drinks beer like a fag..which he might be.....and he plays golf...only Tiger plays golf and he's half asian. Yeah I know rascist post...blah blah blah....Christie is a fat whop fuck....feel better.


Title: Re: Impeachment
Post by: headhuntersix on November 15, 2013, 07:33:44 AM

Yawn yourself.  Canadians are not allowed to comment for some reason (existing in your mind but nowhere else)?

And you are a moderator?



Comment all you want but we're gonna repeatedly as you why you care. Worry about Canada, great country..taxes are way to high..plenty of natural resources, beautiful scenary...Montreal is awsome...great Hockey....bad gun laws but getting better, maybe.


Title: Re: Impeachment
Post by: Dos Equis on November 15, 2013, 08:32:19 AM
You have the balls to say my vitriol is worse than the garbage posted by your fellow brownshirts?  No pal.  I'm spot on.  You stand with sadistic traitorous scum.  It's a given.

For christ's sake just look at the TITLES of some of these threads.  Well old man, as moderator, you're doing a hell of bad job.

Holy smokes.  Quite the angry little buggah. 

And, garebear, how big of a loser do you have to be to get yourself banned from a message board full of "sadistic traitorous scum" and come back to that same board as a gimmick?   :-\


Title: Re: Impeachment
Post by: Dos Equis on November 15, 2013, 08:32:46 AM
Is this really queerbear........another douchbag lib whining and crying about the failure of "HIM IN THE WHITEHOUSE".....ur guy is an utter asshat and u have no idea what to do now do u.

Yes.


Title: Re: Impeachment
Post by: Option D on November 15, 2013, 08:42:04 AM
Nice way to avoid 240's point. 



Oh...so 240 has a point now?...because its  negative towards the president?

Lol...shut up dumbass



Title: Re: Impeachment
Post by: Option D on November 15, 2013, 08:43:00 AM
Yeah...last thing we need is...'you just don't like black people' as they cart this asshat away. First off..he's half white folks....half white. Clinton was blacker then this guy and way cooler. Barry couldn't act black if he had lessons. He can't shoot a basketball..there's video of that, he drinks beer like a fag..which he might be.....and he plays golf...only Tiger plays golf and he's half asian. Yeah I know rascist post...blah blah blah....Christie is a fat whop fuck....feel better.

QFT


Title: Re: Impeachment
Post by: Soul Crusher on November 15, 2013, 08:46:51 AM
Oh...so 240 has a point now?...because its  negative towards the president?

Lol...shut up dumbass



No - its because Obama went to bed that night and off to a fundraiser w Jay Z as our people died.  Like a typical Obama cultist you have no problem w that. 


Title: Re: Impeachment
Post by: Straw Man on November 15, 2013, 09:02:30 AM

Yawn yourself.  Canadians are not allowed to comment for some reason (existing in your mind but nowhere else)?

And you are a moderator?



I always find the claim by some here that people in other countries can't comment on anything that happens outside their country to be ridiculous and of course they never seem to apply this restriction to themselves



Title: Re: Impeachment
Post by: Gonuclear on November 15, 2013, 09:14:35 AM
Comment all you want but we're gonna repeatedly as you why you care. Worry about Canada, great country..taxes are way to high..plenty of natural resources, beautiful scenary...Montreal is awsome...great Hockey....bad gun laws but getting better, maybe.

Wow.  Glad we got your input, Overlord.

I say to our Canadian friends, have at it.  As to why they care: You should be grateful that they do care. I notice you have no problems whatsoever commenting on other countries.

For the record, I am an American, so your "you" is out of place.


Title: Re: Impeachment
Post by: Dos Equis on November 15, 2013, 09:35:57 AM

Yawn yourself.  Canadians are not allowed to comment for some reason (existing in your mind but nowhere else)?

And you are a moderator?



Canadians are allowed to comment, and several of them do.  

Yes.  A well paid moderator I might add.  Although I'm thinking of asking Ron for a raise.  Maybe we should form a union?   


Title: Re: Impeachment
Post by: AndreaRyc on November 15, 2013, 10:33:10 AM
LMFAO 
All I have for you is this:  Quiet down.  Learn something from all this to stop being a trivial partial human being.  Which is what you are.


Title: Re: Impeachment
Post by: Soul Crusher on November 15, 2013, 10:34:57 AM
All I have for you is this:  Quiet down.  Learn something from all this to stop being a trivial partial human being.  Which is what you are.


Title: Re: Impeachment
Post by: Dos Equis on November 15, 2013, 11:36:57 AM


That's exactly how it works.   :-\


Title: Re: Impeachment
Post by: 240 is Back on November 15, 2013, 12:42:10 PM
Impeachment is a mistake.....unless its so clear cut that not to impeach would be criminal. Obama has accelerated lame duck status with the Obamacare disaster and that won't fully play out until thew hole law is out there. He's not getting immigration and I suspect we'll have a few more foreign policy messes befoe this is all done. Let the house of cards fail...get out of the way and let grab some popcorn.

Dude,

Obama is still playing nice, since he has to help the dems limp thru the 2014 elections.

have you NO IDEA what will happen in 2015?  Dude, he will be a lame duck.  Dems will be distancing themselves.  He will still have all his executive power, which grows by the year.

I predict he will unleash a tirade of liberal policies in the form of executive orders -
- Gun control
- Amnesty
- Climate change
- Obamacare (doing whatever he can to keep it in place)
and who knows what else.  

I believe benghazi was criminal.  And if not, well, here's a big list of impeachable offenses:
http://www.redflagnews.com/opinion/obamas-impeachable-offenses-updated-by-michael-connelly-jd-carrollton-tx#sthash.9nYNltQJ.dpbs

Now, if the repubs dont act, hey, they deserve the onslaught of lib policies.  Every bit of it.  They asked for it.  Either they impeach, or they sit back in 2015 with the Vaseline and enjoy the pounding.  Every month, another executive act... and it'll be all this "how can he do this, we never saw it coming..."

Obama was the most liberal senator going in.  He loves the lib policies - they're AWESOME for keeping the majority of people voting dem out of handout need.  Move another 5% of the population into poverty and dems will never lose the White house again, ya know?  

so anyway, that's my guess... obama will go uber-lib in 2015 and hey, repubs own it too.  Sit back, get some popcorn, and enjoy the lib show! 


Title: Re: Impeachment
Post by: JOHN MATRIX on November 15, 2013, 12:50:31 PM
SHIP OBAMA BACK TO AFRICA
HAND HIM AND FAMILY LOINCLOTH AND A SPEAR AND DIRECT THEM TO THE NEAREST BUSH


Title: Re: Impeachment
Post by: Gonuclear on November 15, 2013, 04:36:37 PM
SHIP OBAMA BACK TO AFRICA
HAND HIM AND FAMILY LOINCLOTH AND A SPEAR AND DIRECT THEM TO THE NEAREST BUSH

Great idea.  Let's do that after we put you in the nut house.  Enjoy the padded cell and call us in the morning.

No worries.  An ipod will be available so that you can still post your rants.


Title: Re: Impeachment
Post by: Straw Man on November 15, 2013, 04:39:48 PM


and the way it worked before was just the insurance company pointing the gun at you and with bigger bags of money and of course dropping you without cause or not even letting you have insurance if you had a pre-existing condition


Title: Re: Impeachment
Post by: Gonuclear on November 15, 2013, 07:43:18 PM
If Holder was white he would be executed

And if you were ever in the Navy, you'd be shit out of luck.
But you weren't in the Navy.  You lied about it.  And now YOU complain about Obama.

Jump into the toilet where you belong.


Title: Re: Impeachment
Post by: polychronopolous on November 15, 2013, 08:00:14 PM


Haha that's pretty good  :D


Title: Re: Impeachment
Post by: Soul Crusher on November 16, 2013, 04:30:10 AM
And if you were ever in the Navy, you'd be shit out of luck.
But you weren't in the Navy.  You lied about it.  And now YOU complain about Obama.

Jump into the toilet where you belong.


Lol.   Already cleared that up moron.


Title: Re: Impeachment
Post by: polychronopolous on November 16, 2013, 07:33:20 AM
Yeah...last thing we need is...'you just don't like black people' as they cart this asshat away. First off..he's half white folks....half white. Clinton was blacker then this guy and way cooler. Barry couldn't act black if he had lessons. He can't shoot a basketball..there's video of that, he drinks beer like a fag..which he might be.....and he plays golf...only Tiger plays golf and he's half asian. Yeah I know rascist post...blah blah blah....Christie is a fat whop fuck....feel better.

It looked like he threw pretty good passes for an older guy and tries to get others involved by assists mostly but you're right his jumper was kinda wack.

Now, Bill Bradley, that was a U.S. Senator who could play some damn basketball.


Title: Re: Impeachment
Post by: Gonuclear on November 16, 2013, 10:13:21 AM

Lol.   Already cleared that up moron.


"Cleared that up" by admitting you are a blatant liar.  Just like the white bread sickos who claim to be vets but aren't.

That disqualifies you from anything but squatting in the gutter, shitheel.

Probably means you are as gutless as you are dishonest.

And stupid, with a big, big mouth spouting nonsense.

And so your opinion, fake veteran, is worthless.


Title: Re: Impeachment
Post by: Soul Crusher on November 16, 2013, 10:36:15 AM
Lol.   The poster ignpred the 10 other posts i had explaiming my time as USMMA where i wa completely upfront.



"Cleared that up" by admitting you are a blatant liar.  Just like the white bread sickos who claim to be vets but aren't.

That disqualifies you from anything but squatting in the gutter, shitheel.

Probably means you are as gutless as you are dishonest.

And stupid, with a big, big mouth spouting nonsense.

And so your opinion, fake veteran, is worthless.


Title: Re: Impeachment
Post by: Gonuclear on November 16, 2013, 08:05:02 PM
Lol.   The poster ignpred the 10 other posts i had explaiming my time as USMMA where i wa completely upfront.



I read those posts.  They were about as upfront as Clinton's line: "It depends on what the meaning of 'is' is."

No getting around it: You are a bonafide liar with zero credibility. 

And that makes any of your opinions meaningless.


Title: Re: Impeachment
Post by: Soul Crusher on November 17, 2013, 06:21:42 AM
I read those posts.  They were about as upfront as Clinton's line: "It depends on what the meaning of 'is' is."

No getting around it: You are a bonafide liar with zero credibility. 

And that makes any of your opinions meaningless.


Lol gimmick.


Title: Re: Impeachment
Post by: Dos Equis on January 09, 2014, 11:31:33 AM
They sound awfully paranoid. 

DNC sends email defending Obama from impeachment possibility
12/28/2013
 
The Democratic National Committee (DNC) sent out a paranoid email Saturday evening urging supporters to vote for Democrats so that Republicans can’t impeach President Obama.

The email, subject line “Impeachment,” was sent to Obama for America supporters, imploring them to contribute to the DNC’s 2014 efforts. “What do these people all have in common?,” the email asked, featuring quotes from Republican Sen. James Inhofe of Oklahoma, Rep. Michele Bachmann of Minnesota, Rep. Kerry Bentivolio of Michigan, and Rep. Blake Farenthold of Texas discussing the possibility of impeaching Obama for one of his numerous instances of presidential misconduct.

The DNC email discussed the “I-Word” and said that “Republicans are actually excited about the idea.”

“Show these Republicans that they are way, way off-base, and give President Obama a Congress that has his back,” according to the DNC email, noting that Democrats need to win 17 GOP House seats to reclaim a majority.

The DNC, which recently expanded its political tactics to include boycotting independent news outlets, previously supported the last president to be impeached: Bill Clinton.

Obama’s staff changed key talking points on the 2012 Benghazi terrorist attack; his Internal Revenue Service targeted conservative groups during the 2012 election cycle; and Obama personally lied to the American people when he told them that they could keep their existing doctors and health insurance plans under Obamacare.

Obama’s expansion of executive branch authority is “setting the stage for something very dangerous in the future” according to Republican Rep. Justin Amash.

http://dailycaller.com/2013/12/28/dnc-sends-email-defending-obama-from-impeachment-possibility/#ixzz2pvo0qyHg


Title: Re: Impeachment
Post by: Dos Equis on January 09, 2014, 11:49:26 AM
WashPost's Milbank Compares Talk of Impeaching Obama to 'Revenge Killing'
By Brad Wilmouth | January 8, 2014

On Tuesday's PoliticsNation on MSNBC, during a discussion of Republican congressional members who have spoken of the possibility of impeaching President Obama, Washington Post columnist Dana Milbank labeled such talk "tribal politics" and compared it to a "revenge killing" against the President because he won the election.

After host Al Sharpton played clips of several Republican members of Congress from a House Judiciary Committee hearing, Milbank dismissed the likelihood of impeachment and then added:

But I think what this represents is not a serious effort to remove the President. But it's a certain frustration, and they said as much in that hearing having lost these elections: What do you do to counter this President? I think that's in a way what politics has become now.

It's not just about defeating your opponent, it's about taking him out. And I think that's sort of this revenge killing almost that's become part of our tribal politics right now. And I think that's what we're feeling.

Below is a transcript of the relevant portion of the Tuesday, January 7, PoliticsNation on MSNBC:

AL SHARPTON: Maybe not even though. Maybe because he beat them twice. But the House Judiciary Committee held a hearing last month, Dana, about how the President has failed his constitutional duties. They offered up a laundry list of issues they had. Listen to this.

REP. BLAKE FARENTHOLD (R-TX): Then you can insert whatever you want, Benghazi, Fast and Furious, the IRS targeting of advocacy groups, NSA overreach. If you like your health care, you can keep it.

REP. LOUIE GOHMERT (R-TX): The President ordered Anwar al Awlaki killed by a drone strike.

REP. BOB GOODLATTE (R-VA): The President effectively enacted the Dream Act himself.

REP. TRENT FRANKS (R-AZ): The deep-water drilling ban, Mr. Holder's attempt to reform criminal justice by selectively enforcing our laws. Mr. Obama's unilaterally ignoring immigration laws in many cases.

SHARPTON: I mean, Dana, you wrote about this hearing. It's like a complete grab bag, wasn't it?

MILBANK: Right. And I think the Republican leadership recognized they look a little crazy, to be having an impeachment hearing. Because Joe is right. If both chambers were controlled by Republicans, they may well attempt to do it. But there is another thing out there called the public, and the public would say that's a bunch of nonsense there is nothing approaching high crimes or even misdemeanors here.

But I think what this represents is not a serious effort to remove the President. But it's a certain frustration, and they said as much in that hearing having lost these elections: What do you do to counter this President? I think that's in a way what politics has become now. It's not just about defeating your opponent, it's about taking him out.

SHARPTON: Yes.

MILBANK: And I think that's sort of this revenge killing almost that's become part of our tribal politics right now. And I think that's what we're feeling.

http://newsbusters.org/blogs/brad-wilmouth/2014/01/08/washposts-milbank-compares-talk-impeaching-obama-revenge-killing#ixzz2pvseeAl9


Title: Re: Impeachment
Post by: temple_of_dis on January 09, 2014, 03:46:11 PM
impeach obama to dayy! over IRS scandal!!!



Title: Re: Impeachment
Post by: Dos Equis on May 01, 2014, 10:32:08 AM
Missouri House panel concludes hearing on impeaching Gov. Jay Nixon
April 30, 2014
The Associated Press

JEFFERSON CITY, Mo. — A Republican-led Missouri House panel has wrapped up a hearing on measures seeking to impeach Democratic Gov. Jay Nixon without voting on the proposals.

One of two resolutions considered Wednesday criticizes the governor for the amount of time he took to call elections to fill legislative vacancies. The other would impeach Nixon for refusing to fire officials involved with the Revenue Department’s decision last year to scan driver’s license applicants’ personal documents into a computer system.

Judiciary Committee chairman Rep. Stanley Cox says he isn’t sure if the panel will vote on the measures before lawmakers adjourn May 16.

The committee considered an additional impeachment resolution last week citing Nixon’s decision to let legally married same-sex couples file joint tax returns in Missouri.

Nixon called the hearings “some sort of show.”

http://www.kansascity.com/2014/04/30/4993191/missouri-house-panel-concludes.html#storylink=cpy


Title: Re: Impeachment
Post by: Soul Crusher on May 01, 2014, 10:49:42 AM
Obama should be imprisoned not just impeached


Title: Re: Impeachment
Post by: Dos Equis on June 05, 2014, 08:25:36 AM
Graham warns of Republican impeachment push over Gitmo
By Alexander Bolton - 06/04/14

Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.) warned Wednesday that Republican lawmakers would call for President Obama’s impeachment if he released more prisoners from Guantanamo Bay without congressional approval.

Republicans worry Obama may try to shut down the prison camp unilaterally after congressional opposition has repeatedly stymied efforts to pass legislation to close it.

“It’s going to be impossible for them to flow prisoners out of Gitmo now without a huge backlash,” Graham said. “There will be people on our side calling for his impeachment if he did that.”

Graham served as a House prosecutor during former President Clinton’s 1998 impeachment trial.

Congress tried to build in a safeguard against Obama making unilateral decisions on releasing terrorist detainees by including language in the National Defense Authorization Act requiring the administration to alert Congress of such moves at least 30 days in advance.

Obama did not follow that law when he swapped five senior Taliban commanders for Army Sgt. Bowe Bergdahl.

Sen. Carl Levin (Mich.), the Democratic chairman of the Armed Services panel, said Obama had a plausible legal argument for ignoring the law.

“The White House did not comply with the requirement of the 30-day provision. However, the White House said it had power under Article II of the Constitution to do what it did,” Levin said. “I’m not a court that’s going to decide whether or not under Article II the commander in chief has the power to move this quickly even though Congress said you’ve got to give 30 days notice.”

Levin said Congress was notified that Obama might not follow the NDAA’s requirement in a signing statement attached to the law.

“The executive branch must have the flexibility, among other things, to act swiftly in conducting negotiations with foreign countries regarding the circumstances of detainee transfers,” Obama asserted in his Dec. 26 statement.

Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) on Tuesday applauded Obama’s decision to release five Taliban leaders because it would hasten the closure of the Guantanamo Bay prison camp.

“My own personal opinion, Guantanamo has been there far too long, and I think that we should get them out of there as quickly as we can,” he said.

Reid noted that Democrats have tried to pass legislation to close the prison camp and transfer the detainees to the United States to face criminal trials but have been “held up from doing so by Republicans.”

“So I'm glad to get of these five people, send them back to Qatar, and I think the arrangements made there are, as far as I understand, what's been explained to me, adequate,” he said the Taliban militants released over the weekend.

The former detainees must spend at least a year in Qatar, which helped mediate the exchange, under the terms of the deal.

Graham, a member of the Armed Services Committee who face a contested primary next week, said he has added language to the pending defense authorization bill that would require an up-or-down vote in Congress to approve the closure of Guantanamo.

The bill also includes a provision barring the administration from transferring detainees to Yemen, he noted.

White House and Pentagon officials held a classified briefing for senators on Wednesday night, but it did not satisfy skeptics.

http://thehill.com/homenews/senate/208264-gop-senator-obama-faces-impeachment-push-if-more-prisoners-leave-gitmo#ixzz33maLWDxW


Title: Re: Impeachment
Post by: Soul Crusher on June 17, 2014, 10:08:50 AM
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/06/17/lou-barletta-impeach_n_5503121.html?ncid=fcbklnkushpmg00000013



YES!!!!  House GOP has enough votes to impeach ghettobama


Title: Re: Impeachment
Post by: 240 is Back on June 17, 2014, 12:26:24 PM
they have the votes, but I doubt they have the balls :(


Title: Re: Impeachment
Post by: flipper5470 on June 17, 2014, 03:10:14 PM
Great..pass the Articles of Impeachment...good luck getting the Democrat controlled Senate to convict him or even start the trial in the first place


Title: Re: Impeachment
Post by: Straw Man on June 17, 2014, 03:38:17 PM
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/06/17/lou-barletta-impeach_n_5503121.html?ncid=fcbklnkushpmg00000013



YES!!!!  House GOP has enough votes to impeach ghettobama

Fucking Moron

Yes, get excited.  It's going to be just like LANDSLIDE

You should take the time to actually read the articles you post (yes, I know that suggestion is pointless because the purpose of any of your posts is just to silence that OCD monkey on your back if only for a few minutes)

Quote
Barletta's spokesman told the Wilkes-Barre Times Leader that the congressman was not calling for Obama's impeachment, and that his "full answer" was "Could that pass the House? Probably. Would the Senate ever convict? Certainly not. There’s not the will nationally to remove the president, so would it be wise to pursue that? Or would it be harmful to the country? Surely the latter.’ He is not advocating or proposing it.”


Title: Re: Impeachment
Post by: 240 is Back on June 17, 2014, 06:35:43 PM
Great..pass the Articles of Impeachment...good luck getting the Democrat controlled Senate to convict him or even start the trial in the first place

Senate Dems turned on Clinton, a popular president in a good economy, for fibbing about hanky panky. 

Obama is a shitty unpopular president, in a shitty economy, with a laundry list of actual crimes that caused loss of life.


Title: Re: Impeachment
Post by: flipper5470 on June 17, 2014, 06:40:02 PM
No they did not!!!   The House passed the articles and the Senate had a show trial where he was acquitted...


Title: Re: Impeachment
Post by: Coach is Back! on June 17, 2014, 08:52:39 PM
Impeachment is not enough. (If you know what I mean)


Title: Re: Impeachment
Post by: SOMEPARTS on June 17, 2014, 09:24:52 PM
Senate Dems turned on Clinton, a popular president in a good economy, for fibbing about hanky panky. 

Obama is a shitty unpopular president, in a shitty economy, with a laundry list of actual crimes that caused loss of life.



Agreed. They will turn on him after November. They have him as Prez and Yellen as Fed Chair for a reason...historic scapegoats for some nasty stuff coming.


Title: Re: Impeachment
Post by: Dos Equis on June 30, 2014, 09:24:53 AM
S.D. Republican Party calls for Obama impeachment
David Montgomery, dmontgome@argusleader.com
June 21, 2014

The South Dakota Republican Party state convention passed a resolution calling for the impeachment of President Barack Obama Saturday.

The resolution says Obama has "violated his oath of office in numerous ways." It specifically cites the release of five Taliban combatants in a trade for captive U.S. soldier Bowe Bergdahl, Obama's statement that people could keep insurance companies, and recent EPA regulations on power plants.

"Therefore, be it resolved that the South Dakota Republican Party calls on our U.S. Representatives to initiate impeachment proceedings against the president of the United States," the resolution reads.

Allen Unruh of Sioux Falls sponsored the resolution.

"I've got a thick book on impeachable offenses of the president," Unruh said, calling on South Dakota to "send a symbolic message that liberty shall be the law of the land."

Delegate David Wheeler of Beadle County disagreed.

"I believe we should not use the power of impeachment for political purposes," Wheeler said. "By doing this, we would look petty, like we can't achieve our political goals through the political process."

Larry Eliason of Potter County agreed, noting that he opposed the impeachment resolution even though "the only thing (Obama's) done the last six years that I approve of is when he adopted a pet."

But Larry Klipp of Butte County, a retired Marine, said matters go beyond mere political disagreements with Obama.

"If anyone in this room cannot see the horrendous, traitorous scandals run by the Obama administration, I will pray for you," Klipp said.

Delegates voted 191-176 in favor of the resolution. The Pennington County delegation voted 47-9 in favor of the impeachment resolution, and Minnehaha County voted 28-15 in favor.

Rep. Kristi Noem, South Dakota's lone delegate in the House of Representatives — which has the power to initiate impeachment proceedings — was cool to the resolution.

Noem, who addressed the Republican convention Saturday morning, hours before the resolutions was voted on, doesn't believe impeachment is the "best way" to deal with Obama.

"The congresswoman currently believes the best way for Congress to hold the president accountable is to continue aggressive committee oversight and investigations into the administration's actions like the ongoing VA scandal, the targeting of conservative groups by the IRS, Benghazi, and the recent Taliban prisoner exchange," said Brittany Comins, Noem's spokesperson.

If the House voted to impeach Obama, the Senate would then rule on the validity of the charges. It takes a two-thirds majority in the Senate to remove a president from office.

http://www.argusleader.com/story/davidmontgomery/2014/06/21/sdgop-obama-impeachment/11212075/


Title: Re: Impeachment
Post by: 240 is Back on June 30, 2014, 11:22:13 AM
i can't understand why they wait so long to impeach.  I mean, he was doing impeachable shit back in 2009 with fast and furious, right?  Yet they give him 6 to 7 years to destroy economy and implement obamacare - THEN they want to "talk" about some lawsuits and possible impeachment... I mean, it's like waiting til a murderer is 89 years old to put him on trial for a crime he did 50 years earlier!   

does anyone here really think the repubs in congress will ever impeach?  i doubt they will.  They'll swear they did everything they could to stop him, but unless they tried to impeach, then that isn't the case.   Just go for it already, see what happens - senate dems turned on Clinton in a minute... they'll do the same to obama.


Title: Re: Impeachment
Post by: Dos Equis on July 08, 2014, 05:32:25 PM
Palin calls for Obama's impeachment
David Jackson, USA TODAY
July 8, 2014

Former Republican vice presidential candidate Sarah Palin said the spike in illegal border crossings is another reason to impeach President Obama.

"Enough is enough of the years of abuse from this president," Palin wrote on the Brietbart website. "His unsecured border crisis is the last straw that makes the battered wife say, 'no mas.'"

The former Alaska governor, picked by Republican presidential nominee John McCain to be his running mate in 2008, also protested the federal debt, health care, executive orders and "unsustainably generous welfare-state programs" in a litany of complaints against Obama.

"President Obama's rewarding of lawlessness, including his own, is the foundational problem here. It's not going to get better, and in fact irreparable harm can be done in this lame-duck term as he continues to make up his own laws as he goes along," Palin writes.

She adds: "It's time to impeach; and on behalf of American workers and legal immigrants of all backgrounds, we should vehemently oppose any politician on the left or right who would hesitate in voting for articles of impeachment."

While the Republican-run House, in theory, has the numbers to vote for impeachment, it is impossible to imagine that the Democratic-run Senate would take up such a matter.

http://www.usatoday.com/story/theoval/2014/07/08/obama-sarah-palin-impeachment-john-mccain/12360017/


Title: Re: Impeachment
Post by: RRKore on July 08, 2014, 06:07:37 PM
Palin calls for Obama's impeachment
David Jackson, USA TODAY
July 8, 2014

Former Republican vice presidential candidate Sarah Palin said the spike in illegal border crossings is another reason to impeach President Obama.

"Enough is enough of the years of abuse from this president," Palin wrote on the Brietbart website. "His unsecured border crisis is the last straw that makes the battered wife say, 'no mas.'"

The former Alaska governor, picked by Republican presidential nominee John McCain to be his running mate in 2008, also protested the federal debt, health care, executive orders and "unsustainably generous welfare-state programs" in a litany of complaints against Obama.

"President Obama's rewarding of lawlessness, including his own, is the foundational problem here. It's not going to get better, and in fact irreparable harm can be done in this lame-duck term as he continues to make up his own laws as he goes along," Palin writes.

She adds: "It's time to impeach; and on behalf of American workers and legal immigrants of all backgrounds, we should vehemently oppose any politician on the left or right who would hesitate in voting for articles of impeachment."

While the Republican-run House, in theory, has the numbers to vote for impeachment, it is impossible to imagine that the Democratic-run Senate would take up such a matter.

http://www.usatoday.com/story/theoval/2014/07/08/obama-sarah-palin-impeachment-john-mccain/12360017/

"His unsecured border crisis is the last straw that makes the battered wife say, 'no mas." 

Holy mixed metaphors, BB, you DO have a sense of humor.  Good post.


Title: Re: Impeachment
Post by: Dos Equis on July 08, 2014, 06:08:43 PM
"His unsecured border crisis is the last straw that makes the battered wife say, 'no mas." 

Holy mixed metaphors, BB, you DO have a sense of humor.  Good post.

I laugh all the time.  Just not at pretty much anything you post, because it isn't the least bit funny for the most part. 


Title: Re: Impeachment
Post by: RRKore on July 08, 2014, 06:27:15 PM
I laugh all the time.  Just not at pretty much anything you post, because it isn't the least bit funny for the most part. 

Ah ha!! You are making shit up!!!  Oh, wait....Drat, ya weaseled out by saying "for the most part".

Because I'm pretty sure you thought this was funny when I posted it on ganja thread:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gWhUqo9Aivs


Title: Re: Impeachment
Post by: Dos Equis on July 08, 2014, 06:34:46 PM
Ah ha!! You are making shit up!!!  Oh, wait....Drat, ya weaseled out by saying "for the most part".

Because I'm pretty sure you thought this was funny when I posted it on ganja thread:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gWhUqo9Aivs

Yes that was funny.   :) 


Title: Re: Impeachment
Post by: 240 is Back on July 08, 2014, 06:42:25 PM
Former Republican vice presidential candidate Sarah Palin said the spike in illegal border crossings is another reason to impeach President Obama.

Ugh.  She's swinging this way now.  Good to see she's held every possible position on this issue.

“There is no way that in the U.S. we would round up every illegal immigrant — there are about 12 million of the illegal immigrants — not only economically is that just an impossibility but that’s not a humane way anyway to deal with the issue that we face with illegal immigration,” Palin said.

When asked if she supported “a path to citizenship for undocumented immigrants,” Palin responded that she did.
“I do because I understand why people would want to be in America. To seek the safety and prosperity, the opportunities, the health that is here,” Palin said. “It is so important that yes, people follow the rules so that people can be treated equally and fairly in this country.”

And don't forget that as alaska gov, she supported spending state $ on more vocational training for illegals.  Oh and she allowed anchorage to be a 'sanctuary city' where illegals were welcome to stay without fear of legal trouble.  And she refused to use state dollars to enforce ANY federal immigration policy.


So yes, she was very much a lover of illegals back in the day.  Glad to see she's adopted this position now that it's popular with the base.  :(


Title: Re: Impeachment
Post by: RRKore on July 09, 2014, 06:04:31 AM
At this point, Sarah Palin is a professional "demagogue", I think.

A demagogue /ˈdɛməɡɒɡ/ or rabble-rouser is a political leader in a democracy who appeals to the emotions, fears, prejudices, and ignorance
of the lower classes in order to gain power and promote political motives.
Demagogues usually oppose deliberation and advocate immediate, violent action to address a national crisis; they accuse moderate and thoughtful opponents of weakness.
Demagogues are nothing new; They have appeared in democracies since ancient Athens.
They exploit a fundamental weakness in democracy: because ultimate power is held by the people, nothing stops the people from giving that
power to someone who appeals to the lowest common denominator of a large segment of the population.


Title: Re: Impeachment
Post by: 240 is Back on July 09, 2014, 06:28:08 AM
I'm okay if Palin's role is simply to agitate the base and stir shit.  I love that.  Totally cool.


I dislike that she keeps CHANGING POSITIONS.  As governor, she was about as pro-illegal-alien as one can get.  She wouldn't let her state enforce immigration laws.  She allowed an entire huge sanctuary city where illegals could flaunt it, and cops were powerless to boot em.  She said all 12 mil illegals will never be pushed out. 

NOW NOW NOW, she's yelling about 30 pieces of silver to Rubio, for saying the same shit she was saying 5 years ago!  LOLZERS!


Title: Re: Impeachment
Post by: headhuntersix on July 09, 2014, 06:35:22 AM
I sure PJB's piece on not to impeach is here somewhere. I agree with him....his point being that even if we hold congress, we won't have the media and an outraged public so it won't work as far as building a base for 2016.  The case would need to be clear cut enough to make to the retards that voted for Obama twice in order for it to work.


Title: Re: Impeachment
Post by: Soul Crusher on July 09, 2014, 06:35:49 AM
Forget impeachment - Obama needs to be sent to prison 


Title: Re: Impeachment
Post by: RRKore on July 09, 2014, 08:24:25 AM
Forget impeachment - Obama needs to be sent to prison 

When asked if he wanted to hit a joint, our Choomer-In-Chief here responds with a guilty laugh:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NaC43EDd0Ac


Title: Re: Impeachment
Post by: Soul Crusher on July 09, 2014, 08:27:10 AM
When asked if he wanted to hit a joint, our Choomer-In-Chief here responds with a guilty laugh:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NaC43EDd0Ac

Obama was like - "guy - I just did 5 lines" 


Title: Re: Impeachment
Post by: RRKore on July 09, 2014, 08:34:59 AM
Obama was like - "guy - I just did 5 lines" 

LOL.

I bet you could come up with at least 5 quips that are at least that funny with no problem. 


Title: Re: Impeachment
Post by: Soul Crusher on July 09, 2014, 08:39:26 AM
LOL.

I bet you could come up with at least 5 quips that are at least that funny with no problem. 

I used another word that started w an n - but "guy" will do


Title: Re: Impeachment
Post by: RRKore on July 09, 2014, 08:48:21 AM
I used another word that started w an n - but "guy" will do

I was actually being serious -- I thought your line was funny.

About the "guy" substitution thing, you can avoid that by just using the word "ninja". 

(A couple of years ago over on mma.tv saying "Ninja, please!" was all the rage.)


Title: Re: Impeachment
Post by: Dos Equis on July 09, 2014, 11:40:26 AM
Ugh.  She's swinging this way now.  Good to see she's held every possible position on this issue.

“There is no way that in the U.S. we would round up every illegal immigrant — there are about 12 million of the illegal immigrants — not only economically is that just an impossibility but that’s not a humane way anyway to deal with the issue that we face with illegal immigration,” Palin said.

When asked if she supported “a path to citizenship for undocumented immigrants,” Palin responded that she did.
“I do because I understand why people would want to be in America. To seek the safety and prosperity, the opportunities, the health that is here,” Palin said. “It is so important that yes, people follow the rules so that people can be treated equally and fairly in this country.”

And don't forget that as alaska gov, she supported spending state $ on more vocational training for illegals.  Oh and she allowed anchorage to be a 'sanctuary city' where illegals were welcome to stay without fear of legal trouble.  And she refused to use state dollars to enforce ANY federal immigration policy.


So yes, she was very much a lover of illegals back in the day.  Glad to see she's adopted this position now that it's popular with the base.  :(

 ::)


Title: Re: Impeachment
Post by: 240 is Back on July 09, 2014, 11:58:18 AM
::)

it's true though - Palin changes positions on amnesty, to the extreme.  She let them be left alone when she had the power to stop them.  Now that she's nothing but a part-time tv chat voice, she can't stop shouting the opposition position.

roll eyes all ya want.


Title: Re: Impeachment
Post by: Dos Equis on July 09, 2014, 12:01:05 PM
it's true though - Palin changes positions on amnesty, to the extreme.  She let them be left alone when she had the power to stop them.  Now that she's nothing but a part-time tv chat voice, she can't stop shouting the opposition position.

roll eyes all ya want.

Yawn.


Title: Re: Impeachment
Post by: 240 is Back on July 09, 2014, 12:16:22 PM
Yawn.

i dont get it.   defend her and show me why these completely contradictory statements/positions are totally cool.

Or, call her out for the hypocrisy of her "calling out" rubio and other repubs for holding positions that are actually tame compared to the illegal insanity she let go on as governor.

I see why the "right" keep losing elections.  those who scream loudest about being conservative refuse to admit when their conservative leaders aren't acting very conservative.


Title: Re: Impeachment
Post by: Soul Crusher on July 09, 2014, 12:24:50 PM
fagbama is a communist terrorist and worst pos ever to hold office.  Hope nothing but awful shit for him


Title: Re: Impeachment
Post by: 240 is Back on July 09, 2014, 12:33:21 PM
fagbama is a communist terrorist and worst pos ever to hold office.

I was discussing this with my grandmother.  She said Ford was a bigger punk shroomhead illegal alien america destroyer.  I told her nana, we're going to have to agree to disagree here.


Title: Re: Impeachment
Post by: Dos Equis on July 09, 2014, 12:43:56 PM
i dont get it.   defend her and show me why these completely contradictory statements/positions are totally cool.

Or, call her out for the hypocrisy of her "calling out" rubio and other repubs for holding positions that are actually tame compared to the illegal insanity she let go on as governor.

I see why the "right" keep losing elections.  those who scream loudest about being conservative refuse to admit when their conservative leaders aren't acting very conservative.

First of all, I didn't even read the quotes.  I've clicked on links you have posted enough to know that whatever you post needs to be taken with a grain of salt. 

Second, you can keep trying to pretend like you're a Republican and/or a conservative, but your voting record and most of what you say on the board show you are a liberal.  Just own it already.  Nothing to be ashamed of. 


Title: Re: Impeachment
Post by: RRKore on July 09, 2014, 04:31:20 PM
First of all, I didn't even read the quotes.  I've clicked on links you have posted enough to know that whatever you post needs to be taken with a grain of salt. 

Second, you can keep trying to pretend like you're a Republican and/or a conservative, but your voting record and most of what you say on the board show you are a liberal.  Just own it already.  Nothing to be ashamed of. 

BB, this seems to conflict some with what you said earlier, "...maybe you should try taking words at face value, rather than implying, twisting, and contorting."

Seems to me that you're not doing this with what 240 says (writes). 

Unless he kicked your puppy or something, I really don't get it.


Title: Re: Impeachment
Post by: 240 is Back on July 09, 2014, 04:38:20 PM
Unless he kicked your puppy or something, I really don't get it.

Palin DID support the illegals shitting all over the law.  This isn't debateable.  She DID let them live in sanctuary city in her state.  She DID refuse to use ANY state resources to enforce federal immigration law.  She DID say we cannot deport 12 million of them.  She did say she supports a path to citizenship for those her illegally.  standard dipshit lib/rino position.

NOW she's shitting all over rubio and others for having the same positions she did.   Since SHE is wiser now, it's okay to disregard her entire gov record, and go with what she says TODAY when base polling tells her it is time to hop to this side of the fence.

Look obama is a bag of shit on immigration.   Jeb and most repubs are bags of shit on it too.  We NEED repubs to stand out as being AGAINST amnesty.  We do NOT need palin muddying the waters, pretending to be against it when until very very recently, they spent 46 years being FOR it.  


Title: Re: Impeachment
Post by: Dos Equis on July 09, 2014, 04:47:58 PM
BB, this seems to conflict some with what you said earlier, "...maybe you should try taking words at face value, rather than implying, twisting, and contorting."

Seems to me that you're not doing this with what 240 says (writes). 

Unless he kicked your puppy or something, I really don't get it.

I completely understand why you don't get it. 


Title: Re: Impeachment
Post by: Dos Equis on July 09, 2014, 04:48:26 PM
7 pages on Obama getting impeached. A ridiculous notion. The retard is strong here.

Not true.


Title: Re: Impeachment
Post by: flipper5470 on July 09, 2014, 06:41:17 PM
Palin was pro immigration?  When?   

I don't much care for her...but I don't recall her being anything other than an immigration "hawk"


Title: Re: Impeachment
Post by: 240 is Back on July 09, 2014, 08:34:29 PM
Palin was pro immigration?  When?   

I don't much care for her...but I don't recall her being anything other than an immigration "hawk"

Yes, she's been very vocal about it LATELY since the repub base is against it.   
In the 2008 election, she surprised a lot of repubs during the Couric week by saying this- her actual original position, spoken from the heart before she was trained on what to say:

“There is no way that in the U.S. we would round up every illegal immigrant — there are about 12 million of the illegal immigrants — not only economically is that just an impossibility but that’s not a humane way anyway to deal with the issue that we face with illegal immigration,” Palin said.

When asked if she supported “a path to citizenship for undocumented immigrants,” Palin responded that she did.
“I do because I understand why people would want to be in America. To seek the safety and prosperity, the opportunities, the health that is here,” Palin said. “It is so important that yes, people follow the rules so that people can be treated equally and fairly in this country.”


Then, the positions of the virtually unknown governor were noticed -
As alaska gov, she supported spending state $ on more vocational training for illegals.  I think she said Rubio deserves 30 pieces of silver for about the same thing with DREAM.  ???  Oh and she allowed anchorage to be a 'sanctuary city' where illegals were welcome to stay without fear of legal trouble. Anchorage loves them.  And she refused to use state dollars to enforce ANY federal immigration policy.   

So yes, she was very much a lover of illegals back in the day.  Glad to see she's adopted this position now that it's popular
Above all.... in her own words... knowing an "undocumented immigrant" = illegal alien... she said:

RAMOS: To clarify, so you support a path to citizenship for undocumented immigrants?

PALIN: I do because I understand why people would want to be in America.





She is welcome to her opinion... but for her to shit all over republicans/obama/whoever for holding a position she actually applied as governor?   Ugh.


Title: Re: Impeachment
Post by: flipper5470 on July 10, 2014, 07:05:06 AM
You have to look at the immigration question in two parts....securing the border and dealing with the illegals.  From what I have seen, Palin has always been a hawk on securing the border.   She has been consistent in supporting a path to citizenship...although she opposed the DREAM act because it didn't provide enough of a framework to ensure an orderly path to citizenship.  The "allowing" Anchorage ot become a sanctuary city bit is kind of a nebulous point...it was an effort that began in the legislature and had very little effect on life in Alaska, so why bother fighting the will of the legislature when you have other bigger fights to deal with?

Most people who are hawks on border enforcement...myself included...recognize that there is no chance of ever convincing the nation as a whole that we should round up everyone who came here illegally and ship them home.  It isn't going to happen.  You can make the requirements to stay difficult enough and the economic price high enough that you create an incentive to self deport, but you are not ever ever ever ever going to get the mandate to go gestapo on them and round them up.  So...you should probably focus your energy on border enforcement and enforcement of stricter rules and a bumpier path to citizenship because the notion you have that they should all be trucked home is a pipe dream.


Title: Re: Impeachment
Post by: Soul Crusher on July 10, 2014, 07:09:06 AM
Who cares about palin?  The issue is O-FAG allowing an invasion to occur to advance his domestic agenda


Title: Re: Impeachment
Post by: RRKore on July 10, 2014, 11:09:36 AM
You have to look at the immigration question in two parts....securing the border and dealing with the illegals.  From what I have seen, Palin has always been a hawk on securing the border.   She has been consistent in supporting a path to citizenship...although she opposed the DREAM act because it didn't provide enough of a framework to ensure an orderly path to citizenship.  The "allowing" Anchorage ot become a sanctuary city bit is kind of a nebulous point...it was an effort that began in the legislature and had very little effect on life in Alaska, so why bother fighting the will of the legislature when you have other bigger fights to deal with?

Most people who are hawks on border enforcement...myself included...recognize that there is no chance of ever convincing the nation as a whole that we should round up everyone who came here illegally and ship them home.  It isn't going to happen.  You can make the requirements to stay difficult enough and the economic price high enough that you create an incentive to self deport, but you are not ever ever ever ever going to get the mandate to go gestapo on them and round them up.  So...you should probably focus your energy on border enforcement and enforcement of stricter rules and a bumpier path to citizenship because the notion you have that they should all be trucked home is a pipe dream.

Though I think you're giving Palin too much credit for her thought process on how she came to her position re: illegal aliens in Alaska , I think I agree with her position:  For isn't Alaska the kind of place that should be happy to get anyone, illegal or otherwise, wanting to live there?



Title: Re: Impeachment
Post by: Dos Equis on July 16, 2014, 10:11:47 AM
This was sent to me by a friend.  Good speech.  Even disgraced leaders can offer words of wisdom.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=32GaowQnGRw


Title: Re: Impeachment
Post by: TheGrinch on July 16, 2014, 10:21:30 AM
LOL @ you demos and repub sheeple... when will you wake up and realize both parties are the same and meant to control you?


Title: Re: Impeachment
Post by: Dos Equis on July 23, 2014, 04:36:57 PM
Fox News Poll: Voters say Obama exceeded authority, but oppose impeachment
By Dana Blanton
Published July 23, 2014
FoxNews.com

July 21, 2014: President Barack Obama speaks about the My Brothers Keeper Initiative, at the Walker Jones Education Campus in Washington. (AP)
Despite believing Barack Obama has overstepped his authority as president, most voters reject calls to impeach him for that -- or for any other reason.

By a 58-37 percent margin, the latest Fox News poll finds that voters think President Obama exceeded his authority under the Constitution when he unilaterally changed the health care law by executive order.

Click here for the poll results.

And, more generally, a similar majority disapproves of Obama bypassing Congress, acting unilaterally and refusing to enforce laws he disagrees with: 37 percent approve, while 58 percent disapprove.

Obama’s use of executive power plays well with the party faithful, as a 64-percent majority of Democrats approves of his actions, while a majority of every other demographic group disapproves (including fully 91 percent of Republicans).

Some prominent Republicans, including 2008 vice presidential candidate Sarah Palin, have called for the president’s impeachment. Yet more than six voters in 10 oppose impeaching Obama for changing some laws and failing to enforce others or “for any other reason” (61 percent). Some 36 percent favor impeachment.

Nearly four in 10 Democrats think Obama is guilty of executive overreach on changing the Obamacare law (39 percent), and one in five Democrats favors impeaching their party’s leader (20 percent).

Among Republicans, 83 percent consider Obama’s actions on the health care law a violation of the Constitution. Yet far fewer Republicans -- although still a 56-percent majority -- favor impeachment.

Fifty-five percent of independents believe Obama violated the Constitution, and 37 percent favor impeachment (61 percent are opposed).

The highest level of support for impeaching Obama -- 68 percent -- is among those who are part of the Tea Party movement.

Overall, 81 percent of those favoring impeachment believe President Obama went beyond his authority when he changed the health care law unilaterally.

Charges that Obama has violated the Constitution have helped raise the political temperature in Washington this summer. In early July, House Speaker John Boehner took steps to file a lawsuit against Obama for his “failure to follow the Constitution” on the health care law by altering the individual mandate via executive order. On Tuesday two federal appeals courts took opposing views on whether Obama illegally ignored the language of the Obamacare law to give federal subsidies to people who are not entitled to them. Despite one court ruling that says he did, the White House announced subsidies will continue.

Forty-one percent of voters approve of how Obama is handling health care, while 54 percent disapprove. That’s a bit of an improvement from last month’s 41-56 percent rating. It also makes health care his best issue, topping the job performance ratings he receives on the economy (40-57 percent), foreign policy (36-56 percent) and immigration (34-58 percent).

Pollpourri

Obama has the most powerful job in the world -- and all the perks that go with that. Yet he’s been criticized by some for seeming disengaged and frustrated with his job. What does the public think? The poll finds a large 41-percent minority thinks Obama doesn’t even want to be president anymore. Still, just over half of voters think he does (52 percent).

Forty-seven percent of independents, 44 percent of Republicans and 37 percent of Democrats think Obama is tired of being president.

The Fox News poll is based on landline and cell phone interviews with 1,057 randomly chosen registered voters nationwide and was conducted under the joint direction of Anderson Robbins Research (D) and Shaw & Company Research (R) from July 20-22, 2014. The full poll has a margin of sampling error of plus or minus three percentage points.

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2014/07/23/fox-news-poll-voters-say-obama-exceeded-authority-but-oppose-impeachment/?intcmp=trending


Title: Re: Impeachment
Post by: RRKore on July 24, 2014, 12:34:46 AM
...
Obama has the most powerful job in the world -- and all the perks that go with that. Yet he’s been criticized by some for seeming disengaged and frustrated with his job. What does the public think? The poll finds a large 41-percent minority thinks Obama doesn’t even want to be president anymore.
...

WWSPD? 

(What Would Sarah Palin Do?)


Title: Re: Impeachment
Post by: Dos Equis on July 28, 2014, 12:01:59 PM
ISTOOK: Obama wants to be impeached
By Ernest Istook
Friday, July 25, 2014

President Obama insists on flirting with impeachment even as House Republican leaders insist there’s no such possibility.

Obama uses a passive-aggressive strategy that can be judged as a political maneuver, a personality disorder, or both.

Secure in the knowledge that impeachment is not the same as removal from office, Mr. Obama brings up the topic on his own and with bold defiance. Martyrdom goes well with a Messiah complex and Mr. Obama’s speeches are a non-stop litany of depicting himself as a victim of Republicans.

Already operating beyond the constitutional bounds of presidential power, Mr. Obama’s strategy is to push the bounds further rather than pulling back. He dares political foes to make his day.

Impeachment would be his crowning badge of victimhood, the ultimate symbol to rally his base, asking that they protect him by guaranteeing a Democrat majority in the U.S. Senate. A simple Republican majority would lack the necessary two-thirds required to remove an impeached president from office, but that nicety of arithmetic would get lost in the political rhetoric.

Barack Obama Bill Clinton illustration
Enlarge Photo

Barack Obama Bill Clinton illustration more >
As the president told his always-handpicked audience in Austin, Texas, “You hear some of them: ‘Sue him! Impeach him!’ ” He paused to mime incredulity. “Really? For what, doing my job?”

His every speech aims to mock Republicans while he projects serenity in the face of adversity, such a calm that he need not engage personally with any crisis, not even the human flood he created on our southern border. He pretends to watch neither polls nor television even as he claims he learns about scandals only from TV. He golfs. His upcoming 16 days in Martha’s Vineyard will bring his vacation days to 141 during his time in office. That rate is almost a full month’s vacation each year.

His behavior matches the American Psychiatric Association’s definition of passive-aggressive behavior, “a habitual pattern of passive resistance to expected work requirements, opposition, stubbornness, and negativistic attitudes in response to requirements for normal performance levels expected of others.” Often, such persons see themselves as blameless victims, projecting fault onto others. Commonly, they follow erratic paths and cause constant conflicts.

But if not a personality disorder, such behavior can also be deliberately used to assert power, as described in one Psychology Today article, “By denying feelings of anger, withdrawing from direct communication, casting themselves in the role of victim, and sabotaging others’ success, passive aggressive persons create feelings in others of being on an emotional roller coaster. Through intentional inefficiency, procrastination, allowing problems to escalate, … makes the passive aggressive person feel powerful. He/she becomes the puppeteer—the master of someone else’s universe and the controller of their behavior.”

Compare this with Mr. Obama’s words this week to an audience of political donors:

“[A]ll we hear about is gridlock, and all we hear about is posturing, and all we hear about are phony scandals. … because the Republican Party has been taken over by people who just don’t believe in government; people who think that the existing arrangements where just a few folks who are doing well, and companies that pollute should be able to pollute, and companies that want to cheat you on your credit card should be able to do that, and that anything goes — that’s their philosophy  … they obfuscate, and they bamboozle, and they sometimes don’t tell exactly what’s true. And people grow cynical, and people grow discouraged.”

By setting himself up as a victim, Mr. Obama attempts to rally his base to rescue him by voting for Democrats. White House senior adviser Dan Pfeiffer told reporters the White House takes the prospect of impeachment seriously, linking it to the House lawsuit against Mr. Obama. But White House Press Secretary Josh Earnest, when asked, was unable to identify any major GOP leaders other than Sarah Palin who publicly support impeachment. Republican leaders recognize the downside all too well, but are resisting pressure from their own base.

CNN’s pollsters find that 57 percent of Republicans support impeachment, compared with 33 percent of Americans overall. The border crisis undoubtedly will cause those strong GOP numbers to increase further.

Mr. Obama’s actions and inactions definitely merit impeachment, but that does not make it prudent to pursue impeachment. The backlash would embolden Mr. Obama all the more and produce other negative consequences but certainly he would not be removed from office. There is no scenario for a two-thirds removal vote in the Senate.

The tarnish of the process certainly is weighed by Mr. Obama against the gains of keeping the Senate in Harry Reid’s hands. And is impeachment truly a disgrace in progressive circles? Certainly Bill Clinton has sought to convert his impeachment into a badge of honor. The rising generation knows only the glowing press coverage given to Mr. Clinton now and not the story of his scandals. Mr. Obama would claim the charges against him were based solely on his efforts to help people, not personal failings as with Mr. Clinton.

. . .

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2014/jul/25/istook-obama-wants-be-impeached/#ixzz38nMq6l1x


Title: Re: Impeachment
Post by: Soul Crusher on July 28, 2014, 12:06:25 PM
Impeachment is the only way for failbama to take the spot light off of his failed presidency


Title: Re: Impeachment
Post by: 240 is Back on July 28, 2014, 12:49:01 PM
Impeachment is the only way for failbama to take the spot light off of his failed presidency

LOL!

"Arrest for bank robbery is the only way people will forget about that bank robbery I committed"

Impeachment is 100% the biggest way to put the spotlight ON his failures.  I'm not sure what you're saying here man lol.


Title: Re: Impeachment
Post by: Soul Crusher on July 28, 2014, 12:51:34 PM
LOL!

"Arrest for bank robbery is the only way people will forget about that bank robbery I committed"

Impeachment is 100% the biggest way to put the spotlight ON his failures.  I'm not sure what you're saying here man lol.

Impeachment will be turned into nothing more than the Rasis GOP lynching a brotha. 

Instead - its better to leave him dangling in failure right now until the mid terms


Title: Re: Impeachment
Post by: 240 is Back on July 28, 2014, 02:43:25 PM
Impeachment will be turned into nothing more than the Rasis GOP lynching a brotha. 

By a media that nobody watches, right?  I mean, nobody watches cnn or msnbc... but somehow they have the power to make every brave member of the repub party just put away the "I" word, right?

And "it's better to let him dangle in failure" - I hope you gag on those words when he issues the next 3, or 4, or 20 executive orders.   cause you'll put "obama dangling" ahead of "actually stopping him from issuing exec orders".

It's like saying you're okay with a gunman continuing his shooting spree at the mall because, well, you really want everyone to know what a dick he was.   yes, he'll go from super-dick to uber-dick with another few mags, but he'll also leave another 2 dozen bodies while doing so.  But hey, he's "dangling", let's allow him to continue his rampage.


Title: Re: Impeachment
Post by: Soul Crusher on July 29, 2014, 08:50:52 AM
 Im getting my oe, biscuits, gravy, pork grinds, fried chicken, grape juice abd popcorn ready. 

Watcjing the hearings on tv gonna be a hootin old time


Title: Re: Impeachment
Post by: Dos Equis on July 29, 2014, 12:02:42 PM
Impeachment Chatter: Why a top Republican ducked but the Democrats keep invoking the I-word
By Howard Kurtz
Published July 29, 2014
FoxNews.com

Chris Wallace kept asking the question, and the No. 3 Republican in the House kept evading it.

It was a classic example of a politician who doesn’t want to answer a question and keeps dancing around it.

There weren’t 50 shades of gray in this “Fox News Sunday” question: “Will you consider impeaching the president?”

Rep. Steve Scalise tried to turn the tables: “You know, this might be the first White House in history that's trying to start the narrative of impeaching their own president. Ultimately, what we want to do is see the president follow his own laws.”

Wallace tried again: “But impeachment is off the table?”

Scalise deflected again: “Well, the White House wants to talk about impeachment, and, ironically, they're going out and trying to fundraise off that, too.”

And again: “I'm asking you, sir.”

Scalise stuck to his talking point: “Look, the White House will do anything they can to change the topic away from the president's failed agenda…”

In other words, a senior member of the House leadership repeatedly refused to rule out launching impeachment proceedings against President Obama—but didn’t want a headline saying he was considering it or dismissing it.

This is risky political business. I’d agree with most political analysts that this is a dangerous path for the Republicans that makes them look more extreme and consumed by anti-Obama fervor.

Of course, this riles up the part of the Republican base that is most fervently opposed to the president, which is exactly why the Louisiana congressman, who has strong Tea Party backing, refused to rule it out.

At the same time, Scalise was right that the White House is loving this impeachment talk. First Obama mockingly said that the Republicans want to sue him (a sort of Impeachment Lite) or impeach him for doing his job. (And the media love the story line as well.)

Then White House counselor Dan Pfeiffer told reporters that impeaching his boss was “a very serious thing”: “I would not discount that possibility. I think that Speaker Boehner, by going down this path of this lawsuit, has opened the door to Republicans possibly considering impeachment at some point in the future."

Sure, the Democrats would like nothing more than to run against the GOP as the Party of Impeachment, the party that wielded that weapon against the last Democratic president. This puts the focus on the Republicans rather than on having to defend ObamaCare, the Obama economy and the Obama foreign policy.

Much of the GOP establishment, of course, wants no part of this. The I-talk surfaced in a big way when Sarah Palin (who has just launched her own subscriber-based Internet channel) urged the impeachment of the president, without offering a bill of particulars. John Boehner couldn’t have dismissed the idea any more quickly.

In fact, after Pfeiffer’s comments, a Boehner spokesman shot back that “it is telling, and sad, that a senior White House official is focused on political games, rather than helping these kids and securing the border.”

Now the narrative has been complicated because Scalise is part of Boehner’s leadership team, elected in the shakeup that followed Eric Cantor’s primary defeat. But we’ve learned in recent years that Boehner doesn’t always control his fractured caucus.

The bottom line: Republicans aren’t going to jeopardize their edge heading into the midterms by throwing down an impeachment wild card. But the media are happy to keep covering it when either side raises the prospect.

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2014/07/29/impeachment-chatter-why-top-republican-ducked-but-democrats-keep-invoking-word/?intcmp=latestnews


Title: Re: Impeachment
Post by: Dos Equis on July 29, 2014, 12:06:06 PM
Democrats Have Million-dollar Day on Impeachment
Tuesday, 29 Jul 2014

Chatter about impeaching President Barack Obama helped House Democrats' campaign committee raise $1 million online in one day.

Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee chief Rep. Steve Israel said Tuesday the specter of impeachment helped his political arm raise $1 million from donors on Monday, a day when the committee's fundraising featured the issue. The New York congressman says House Republicans' lawsuit against Obama and rumors the president might face impeachment are galvanizing Democratic donors. House Speaker John Boehner  says his party has no plans to open impeachment proceedings.

The Democrats' House campaign committee has been a fundraising powerhouse this election cycle, out-raising its GOP rival in 16 of the last 18 months. Although House Democrats face an uphill climb to take the majority, their fundraising operation has raised almost $125 million since January 2013.

http://www.newsmax.com/Politics/democrats-impeachment/2014/07/29/id/585536#ixzz38tEXqHdd


Title: Re: Impeachment
Post by: Dos Equis on July 30, 2014, 01:18:49 PM
Newt: Obama Might Grant Amnesty To Provoke Impeachment Calls
07/29/2014

WASHINGTON — Former House Speaker Newt Gingrich said Tuesday that if President Obama moves forward with a rumored executive order to legalize five million illegal immigrants, he will be trying to provoke Republicans to impeach him because that would help Democrats in the midterm elections.

“There is a rumor that the president, around Labor Day, may use executive action to legalize five million people who are here outside the law,” Gingrich said during a speech Tuesday, sponsored by the Young America’s Foundation. “And I think if they do it, it will be trying to provoke the Republicans to institute impeachment.”

Asked if Republicans should impeach Obama, Gingrich replied: “No.”

“It won’t succeed in impeaching Obama,” Gingrich said. “It’s the Democrats who want to talk about it because they raise money off of it.”

Gingrich, speaking at the 36th Annual National Conservative Student Conference at George Washington University, explained that Democrats are able to increase fundraising numbers by making their base think impeachment is a real possibility. But Speaker of the House John Boehner ruled out the possibility of that happening on Tuesday.

Obama is considering legalizing five million illegal immigrants who are parents of American-born children, according to reports. “The country would go crazy if the president were to do something so stupid,” Gingrich said.

The plan could backfire politically on Democrats, he said. The right move for Republicans if Obama issues such an executive action, Gingrich said, would be to move a bill in the House saying it’s illegal. As that bill would move to the Senate, it would put Senate Democrats in an awkward position, he theorized.

“And the Democrats running for re-election even in seats that look like they’re not in trouble would be in trouble overnight,” he said.

Democrats have been frantically pushing the idea that Obama could be impeached over the last week.

Senior Obama aide Dan Pfeiffer has warned reporters not to “discount” the possibility of impeachment. In recent days, Democrats have been begging donors to give money to their campaign committees, citing the chance of impeachment.

“These people are pretty desperate,” Gingrich said. “Nothing is working. And so they are looking for some fight that allows them to re-polarize the country in terms that help them in the election.

Continuing, Gingrich said: “I think we ought to laugh at them and say ‘if the best you can do after six years of the presidency is to yell impeachment and hope that you can raise money, it is a pretty pathetic presidency.’ And by the way, it is a pretty pathetic presidency.”

http://dailycaller.com/2014/07/29/newt-obama-might-grant-amnesty-to-provoke-impeachment-calls/#ixzz38zNJb3At


Title: Re: Impeachment
Post by: Dos Equis on July 30, 2014, 01:21:49 PM
Krauthammer’s Take: Amnesty via Executive Order an Impeachable Offense, but Impeachment Would Still Be Political Suicide
By NRO Staff
July 29, 2014

Talk of impeachment is a “concoction of Democrats,” but that doesn’t mean there isn’t a grander strategy by the White House and its congressional allies, Charles Krauthammer warned.

On Tuesday’s Special Report, he speculated that the Obama administration may be trying to exhaust the idea of impeachment and “softening people up for” when the president uses executive action to grant legal status and work authorization to millions of immigrants in the country illegally. Such an action would be “clearly lawless and it would be biggest domestic overreach of a president in memory” and “an impeachable offense,” he said.

But if Obama did go ahead with his amnesty-by-fiat plan, Krauthammer still thinks impeachment wouldn’t work. “I would be 100 percent against impeachment because it’s political suicide,” he said.

http://www.nationalreview.com/corner/384089/krauthammers-take-amnesty-executive-order-impeachable-offense-impeachment-would-still


Title: Re: Impeachment
Post by: 240 is Back on July 30, 2014, 01:28:18 PM
Newt: Obama Might Grant Amnesty To Provoke Impeachment Calls

This is Newt telling the Repubs it's okay to stand by idly and do nothing while amnesty arrives.

Of course, the Rush listeners will now fall right in line and agree with amnesty because, well, the radio told them to.

Krauthammer agrees.  They're all falling in line.   Amnesty is okay, Impeachment is a word we don't use.

Now, you repub sheep, go ahead and repeat it lol. 


Title: Re: Impeachment
Post by: headhuntersix on July 30, 2014, 01:52:22 PM
A Rush aint hoping for amnesty. If they can fuck around til after Nov then Obama has a problem. This is a legitimate presidential overreach.


Title: Re: Impeachment
Post by: 240 is Back on July 30, 2014, 02:11:50 PM
GOP is a confused mess right now.

If Rush, Kraut, and Newt have to go on TV on the same day and proclaim, "Please don't impeach obama after we've been talking about his crimes for 6 years", there's a huge problem lol.

If you can't narrow down the GOP position on amnesty to one sentence, there's a huge problem.


Title: Re: Impeachment
Post by: headhuntersix on July 30, 2014, 02:19:49 PM
Yeah Krauts position is that he/they don't want to jeopardize controlling Congress. To which I say fuck it...that's your job. If you have Barry cold on facts and the law...go after his ass and make the dems accountable to the voters.


Title: Re: Impeachment
Post by: flipper5470 on July 30, 2014, 02:20:47 PM
240...I don't think you understand how impeachment works...if you did you'd STFU about it.....


Title: Re: Impeachment
Post by: Dos Equis on July 30, 2014, 02:57:18 PM
240...I don't think you understand how impeachment works...if you did you'd STFU about it.....

Truth.


Title: Re: Impeachment
Post by: LurkerNoMore on July 30, 2014, 04:10:17 PM
240...I don't think you understand how impeachment works...if you did you'd STFU about it.....

I don't think the brain dead right wingers know how impeachment works.  Or else THEY would STFU about it.

But as stupid as they are, they probably think Biden would be an improvement.   ::)


Title: Re: Impeachment
Post by: 240 is Back on July 30, 2014, 04:22:05 PM
Yeah Krauts position is that he/they don't want to jeopardize controlling Congress. To which I say fuck it...that's your job. If you have Barry cold on facts and the law...go after his ass and make the dems accountable to the voters.

100% correct. 

But Rush yells repubs what to support and they obey.  They've been demanding accountability for 5 years and finally have a chance.  They blinked. 


Title: Re: Impeachment
Post by: Dos Equis on July 31, 2014, 01:11:26 PM
I find this very funny and very sad at the same time.  The people we put in DC.  Sheesh. 

Democratic Rep Who Co-Sponsored Bush Impeachment Bill: We Didn’t Try To Impeach Bush
By Mike Miller 

Texas Democrat Rep. Sheila Jackson Lee, who often has an arm’s length relationship with the truth, told a “whopper” Wednesday, as she excoriated House Republicans for voting to sue Barack Obama for executive overreach.

As reported by Buzzfeed’s Katherine Miller, Lee not only claimed that the effort was little more than a precursor to impeaching Obama, but that she and her Democrat colleagues never considered impeaching George W. Bush:

” I ask my colleagues to oppose this resolution for it is in fact a veiled attempt at impeachment and it undermines the law that allows a president to do his job.
 
A historical fact: President Bush pushed this nation into a war that had little to do with apprehending terrorists.
 
We did not seek an impeachment of President Bush, because as an executive, he had his authority. President Obama has the authority.”
Whoops. Not only did House Democrats indeed introduce a resolution to impeach President Bush in 2008 – Sheila Jackson Lee co-sponsored it.
Hey, maybe she just “forgot,” right?

UPDATE:
According to Yahoo!, Rep. Sheila Jackson’s office says she ‘misspoke’:
“She misspoke,” Jackson Lee’s spokesman Mike McQuerry told Yahoo News on Thursday morning. He declined to elaborate on what she meant to say.

http://www.ijreview.com/2014/07/163157-dem-rep-co-sponsored-bush-impeachment-bill-didnt-try-impeach-bush/


Title: Re: Impeachment
Post by: 240 is Back on July 31, 2014, 02:34:11 PM
A historical fact: President Bush pushed this nation into a war that had little to do with apprehending terrorists.

I disagree with what you posted here.


Title: Re: Impeachment
Post by: GigantorX on July 31, 2014, 07:12:19 PM
I think impeachment should be done more often.


Title: Re: Impeachment
Post by: flipper5470 on July 31, 2014, 07:17:55 PM
I don't think the brain dead right wingers know how impeachment works.  Or else THEY would STFU about it.

But as stupid as they are, they probably think Biden would be an improvement.   ::)

I'm fairly certain you have actual...honest to goodness...shit for brains


Title: Re: Impeachment
Post by: 240 is Back on July 31, 2014, 07:30:59 PM
I think impeachment should be done more often.

honestly, if you impeach one president, the next one will be walking on eggshells.

Even if it doesn't reach that point, or if the votes aren't there... it'll sure keep the next prez on their toes. 

As it is, obama knows... he can let terror attacks happen, he can hand over guns, he can spy on anyone he wants... and nobody will do anything about it.

And the "off the table" thing - pelosi did it, and now boehnner is doing it - tells the 2016 president "do whatever you want".


Title: Re: Impeachment
Post by: Dos Equis on November 04, 2014, 11:40:24 AM
Rachel Maddow Calls Out Conservative Right For Plotting Obama Impeachment
The Huffington Post    | By Ryan Grenoble
Posted: 11/04/2014

Rachel Maddow thinks conservative America might be counting impeachment chickens before they hatch.

During her show Monday, the MSNBC host took a look at two-term U.S. Presidents who served their last two years in office dealing with unified opposition in congress, as Obama could if Republicans take the Senate and hold onto the House in Tuesday's mid-term elections. If the historical trends hold, and the GOP does take over the legislative branch, says Maddow, we should expect another round of conservative activists calling for impeachment.

How does Maddow know this? Because the election isn't over yet, and the calls -- however off-base and out of touch -- have already begun.

(http://media2.s-nbcnews.com/j/MSNBC/Components/Video/__NEW/n_maddow_afix_141103.nbcnews-video-reststate-640.jpg)

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/11/04/rachel-maddow-obama-impeachment_n_6101350.html


Title: Re: Impeachment
Post by: 240 is Back on November 04, 2014, 11:58:59 AM
Perkins is RIGHT!

Impeachment could happen now.  The base certainly wants it.  But the RINOs won't allow it.

It reflects perfectly on getbig too - the "repubs" that love the RINO candidates are against impeachment.  But the "conservatives" that love the Rand/Cruz kind of candidates - they want impeachment.


Title: Re: Impeachment
Post by: Soul Crusher on November 04, 2014, 12:00:04 PM
If Obama would agree to resign and exile to Africa - I would agree to waive trial for impeachment


Title: Re: Impeachment
Post by: Vince G, CSN MFT on November 04, 2014, 09:07:56 PM
Perkins is RIGHT!

Impeachment could happen now.  The base certainly wants it.  But the RINOs won't allow it.

It reflects perfectly on getbig too - the "repubs" that love the RINO candidates are against impeachment.  But the "conservatives" that love the Rand/Cruz kind of candidates - they want impeachment.


Obama has not broken any laws which is what impeachment is for.  Even with a GOP Senate Majority, there's still not enough votes to impeach him....not even enough to remove Obamacare.  However, an attempt at it will really drive more people away.


Title: Re: Impeachment
Post by: Soul Crusher on November 06, 2014, 08:55:08 AM
http://thehill.com/blogs/blog-briefing-room/222248-reid-warns-of-impeachment-threat



 :D


Title: Re: Impeachment
Post by: 240 is Back on November 06, 2014, 08:59:43 AM
http://thehill.com/blogs/blog-briefing-room/222248-reid-warns-of-impeachment-threat



 :D

yeah budday!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Reid KNOWS that Cruz is SALIVATING at the idea of impeachment!

(http://stream1.gifsoup.com/view4/1195621/ronnie-coleman-dance-o.gif)


Title: Re: Impeachment
Post by: Soul Crusher on November 06, 2014, 09:02:16 AM
At this point would anyone really care?   No one likes Obama - even the democrats are starting to loathe this fool for the damage he is doing and has done. 


Title: Re: Impeachment
Post by: 240 is Back on November 06, 2014, 09:09:00 AM
At this point would anyone really care?   No one likes Obama - even the democrats are starting to loathe this fool for the damage he is doing and has done. 

the only people who would care are die-hard libs that are voting dem in 2016 anyway.

I'm more shocked than ever that some moderate Repubs/chickenhawk dems are still against the idea of impeachement.


Title: Re: Impeachment
Post by: 240 is Back on November 14, 2014, 10:00:47 AM
obama should be impeached for standing by and putting on a tux for a fundraiser while they fought at benghazi for 7+ hours... with help only 1 hour away, begging for permission...

he didn't want the world to know what was going on there, he didn't want a big massacre of bad guys just 2 months before the election.

Any republican who doesn't call for impeachment, based upon this - well, you truly endorse obama and you deserve every single executive order he writes.  Period.  I'll give 3333Soulcrusher & coach credit, as they call for impeachment.  I dont know of any other "repubs" here that support it.  They roll eyes at such a thought. 

This is nov 2013 - a YEAR AGO.   


Title: Re: Impeachment
Post by: Dos Equis on November 14, 2014, 10:11:35 AM
 ::)


Title: Re: Impeachment
Post by: Dos Equis on November 14, 2014, 10:12:36 AM
Krauthammer: Obama immigration action 'impeachable'
By Jeremy Diamond, CNN
Fri November 14, 2014

Washington (CNN) -- Conservative columnist Charles Krauthammer called President Barack Obama's planned executive action on immigration "impeachable."
"I believe it is an impeachable offense," Krauthammer said Wednesday night on Fox News, when asked about Obama's reported proposals to use executive orders to make changes to the immigration system.

Krauthammer added that Obama's plans to shield certain undocumented immigrants from deportation via executive order would be a "flagrant assault on the Constitution."

Krauthammer's remarks could revive talk of impeachment in conservative circles, months after former Gov. Sarah Palin sparked a firestorm this summer when she called for Obama's impeachment after he first announced his plans to use his executive order power to act on immigration reform.
"It's time to impeach," Palin wrote in a Breitbart op-ed in July. "The many impeachable offenses of Barack Obama can no longer be ignored. If after all this he's not impeachable, then no one is."

Democrats jumped on those comments this summer to force GOP leaders to address the possibility of impeachment and, ultimately, reject that possibility. The House of Representatives instead voted this summer to approve plans for a lawsuit against Obama for overreaching on changes to the Affordable Care Act.

Even Krauthammer conceded this summer that impeachment would be "political suicide" for Republicans.

For many tea party conservatives, Obama's executive action plans on immigration reform were the last straw in a long line of grievances of what they claim to be executive overreach since Obama has been in office.

Others who have called for Obama's impeachment or said it should be strongly considered include conservative firebrand Minnesota Rep. Michele Bachmann and tea party favorite Rep. Steve King of Iowa among others.

http://www.cnn.com/2014/11/14/politics/charles-krauthammer-obama-immigration-action-impeachable/index.html?hpt=po_c2


Title: Re: Impeachment
Post by: 240 is Back on November 14, 2014, 10:28:27 AM
Krauthammer: Obama immigration action 'impeachable'
By Jeremy Diamond, CNN

LOL!  I know what you're doing.  You're doing that passive-aggressive thing.  Your leaders, the people who form your opinion, the GOP pundits like Krauthammer, are starting to get on board. 

So will you.  I like it!  :)  You don't have to say anything, but I think deep down, you're getting on board.


Title: Re: Impeachment
Post by: Dos Equis on November 14, 2014, 10:33:12 AM
LOL!  I know what you're doing.  You're doing that passive-aggressive thing.  Your leaders, the people who form your opinion, the GOP pundits like Krauthammer, are starting to get on board. 

So will you.  I like it!  :)  You don't have to say anything, but I think deep down, you're getting on board.

Shut up troll.   ::)


Title: Re: Impeachment
Post by: 240 is Back on November 14, 2014, 10:38:05 AM
Shut up troll.   ::)

Oh, you're getting on board,I can feel it!  Love it.  Welcome aboard.

(http://mrwgifs.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/11/Walter-Whites-Smooth-Wink-On-Breaking-Bad.gif)


Title: Re: Impeachment
Post by: Dos Equis on November 14, 2014, 10:42:40 AM
Oh, you're getting on board,I can feel it!  Love it.  Welcome aboard.

(http://mrwgifs.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/11/Walter-Whites-Smooth-Wink-On-Breaking-Bad.gif)

Quote
My whole family - all Republicans - are voting Obama.  i'm driving them to the station later - buying everyone dinner - making it a real family event.


(http://homepage.nusens.net/pictures/troll/hey-you-you-look-like-a-troll.jpg)


Title: Re: Impeachment
Post by: Soul Crusher on November 14, 2014, 11:13:49 AM
Obama needs to be tried for treason at thispoint. 


Title: Re: Impeachment
Post by: 240 is Back on November 14, 2014, 11:42:56 AM
Obama needs to be tried for treason at thispoint. 

But you know very well - He can only be tried for any crime AFTER impeachment.  That's why RINOs and LIBs are standing in his way. 


Title: Re: Impeachment
Post by: Soul Crusher on November 14, 2014, 11:49:00 AM
Other than a few far left types like Option Fat, Straw, Andreisadouche,  etc - would anyone really give a damn at this point?   

Failure in Chief has pissed off so many people and done so much damage I can only imagine it would be a snooze fest if they got rid of him and his Kenyan ways


Title: Re: Impeachment
Post by: 240 is Back on November 14, 2014, 11:53:21 AM
Other than a few far left types like Option Fat, Straw, Andreisadouche,  etc - would anyone really give a damn at this point?   

There are actually some RINOs that would prefer obama stay in office.  They don't care about the destruction he'll deliver to USA in the next 728 days.   Shaking my head.


Title: Re: Impeachment
Post by: Soul Crusher on November 14, 2014, 12:47:24 PM
Skip to comments.
Obama is angling to get impeached
Flopping Aces ^  | 11-14-14 | DrJohn

Posted on ‎11‎/‎14‎/‎2014‎ ‎2‎:‎50‎:‎20‎ ‎PM by Starman417

br-er barack

What to do with a President who toils against the will of the American people?

Approval ratings of Barack Obama's handling of immigration reached a low not long ago, reaching a 65% disapproval. Americans overwhelmingly oppose Obama's current threats of unilateral action on immigration and overwhelmingly prefer that Obama work with Congress.

The GOP is now poised to control both the House and the Senate come January, so why not wait a few months to try to work with the new Congress?

I think it's because he has no interest in cooperation. I think he wants to be impeached and there are two primary reasons. One, he doesn't give a rip what anyone other than Valerie Jarrett thinks and two, any impeachment effort will be immediately characterized as a lynching- a lynching of the first black President.

For his entire career Obama has been described as a "loner" and "aloof." despite his numerous policy failures he really does think he is the smartest man in the world. The only person to whom he listens is Valerie Jarrett, the Iranian slumlord.



The problem is, the truth is always the opposite of what he says. About the only honest thing Obama has ever said was his desire to fundamentally transform this country. As far as I am concerned he cemented it later by trying to walk it back. It is no different with immigration. He once said that he couldn't bypass Congress:



“And so what we need to do going forward is to address some of the broader problems in our immigration system. And that means changing minds and changing votes, one at a time. I know there are some folks who wish I could just bypass Congress. I can’t. But what I can do is sign a law. What you can do is champion a law. What we can do together is make comprehensive immigration reform the law of the land.”

Let's put that through Official Barack Obama Bull***t Decoder Ring and see what we get:

Defiant Obama: I will use my power



President Barack Obama on Friday defended his plans to use executive power to bypass Congress...

Americans don't want Obama to act alone. They don't want a rogue President.

Following the mid term election pounding, Obama said "I hear you." The useful idiots at WaPo put it this way:

(Excerpt) Read more at floppingaces.net...


Title: Re: Impeachment
Post by: Soul Crusher on November 14, 2014, 12:50:14 PM


Defiant Obama: I will use my power


President Barack Obama on Friday defended his plans to use executive power to bypass Congress…

Americans don’t want Obama to act alone. They don’t want a rogue President.

Following the mid term election pounding, Obama said “I hear you.” The useful idiots at WaPo put it this way:

After midterm rout, Obama says he got nation’s message

Uh, no he didn’t. Immediately after he said that:

Obama veers left after red wave

Charles Krauthammer has said that Obama acting alone would be an “impeachable offense.” He’s right, of course, but I suspect that that’s exactly what Obama wants as he seeks a legacy. To Obama, everything is about Obama. The fist black President impeached? Now that would be quite a legacy. Impeachment of the first black President would be memorable and the effects lasting and could rescue the democrat party from its own stupidity. The good news is that left to his own devices, Obama could unilaterally lead to the extinction of the democrat party. The bad news is that, since the law and Constitution are being so greatly diminished, there might not be much of a functional country left when he’s done. The proper course is to sit back, let Obama continue to harm the Republic and then financially starve his initiatives.

Impeachment? No.

Over at The Daily Beast, Doug McIntyre asks

“Didn’t Obama Hear Oregon’s Warning Shot on Immigration?”

That assumes Obama gives a damn what anyone else thinks. He does not care what you think, he does not care what I think and he does not care what America thinks.

Call his bluff
 
 


 




 
 

About DrJohn
DrJohn has been a health care professional for more than 30 years. In addition to clinical practice he has done extensive research and has published widely with over 70 original articles and abstracts in the peer-reviewed literature. DrJohn is well known in his field and has lectured on every continent except for Antarctica. He has been married to the same wonderful lady for over 30 years and has three kids- two sons, both of whom are attorneys and one daughter on her way into the field of education. DrJohn was brought up with the concept that one can do well if one is prepared to work hard but nothing in life is guaranteed. Except for liberals being foolish.
 View all posts by DrJohn →   
   
This entry was posted in Barack Obama, Culture of Corruption, Deception and Lies, Disasters, Immigration, Impeachment Proceedings, Liberal Idiots, Politics, Uncategorized, WtF? and tagged immigration reform, Obama, Obama lies, Politics. Bookmark the permalink. Friday, November 14th, 2014 at 5:42 am
| 282 views


Title: Re: Impeachment
Post by: Dos Equis on November 17, 2014, 10:59:23 AM
He must have been reading the board.   :)

GOP Rep. Trey Gowdy Dismisses Impeaching Obama: ‘Have You Met Joe Biden?’
by Andrew Kirell November 16th, 2014

 GOP Congressman Trey Gowdy is certain that impeaching President Barack Obama over a potential immigration executive order would be ill-advised. Why? Because that would make Vice President Joe Biden the new president.

Asked Friday evening by Bill O’Reilly whether impeachment felt like a viable option for Republicans outraged by the president’s executive lawmaking, Gowdy was dismissive, delivering a pithy one-liner in response: “Have you met Joe Biden?”

The lawmaker continued: “Nobody’s discussing impeachment. First of all, impeachment is a punishment, not a remedy. Second of all, the only people who want to talk about impeachment are the president’s allies.”

O’Reilly suggested the impeachment talks are just “bait” Republicans like Gowdy intend not to take.

“I’m not going to take it because I’ve met Joe Biden,” reiterated the congressman.

The eponymous O’Reilly Factor host apparently didn’t get the joke the first two times, asking Gowdy to “explain the Biden reference.” He chuckled when he learned what the lawmaker meant by his joke.

http://www.mediaite.com/tv/gop-rep-trey-gowdy-dismisses-impeaching-obama-have-you-met-joe-biden/


Title: Re: Impeachment
Post by: Dos Equis on August 01, 2016, 03:01:03 PM
Someone mentioned to me today that they are not overly concerned about Trump, because if he does anything crazy he can be impeached and Pence would take over.  That gives me a little comfort, but my fear is if he commits an impeachable offense, the damage will be done already by the time we get him out of office. 


Title: Re: Impeachment
Post by: 240 is Back on August 01, 2016, 03:09:30 PM
Someone mentioned to me today that they are not overly concerned about Trump, because if he does anything crazy he can be impeached and Pence would take over.  That gives me a little comfort, but my fear is if he commits an impeachable offense, the damage will be done already by the time we get him out of office. 

eh, impeachment is probably off the table for all future presidents, unless they do something insane.

it just damages the nation too much, gives our enemies an advantage.   presidents will get away with whatever they do.


Title: Re: Impeachment
Post by: Dos Equis on November 03, 2016, 02:11:57 PM
How crazy is it that we are talking about impeaching someone who hasn't even been elected? 

Gregg Jarrett: An "avalanche of evidence" may now bury Hillary
By  Gregg Jarrett 
Published November 03, 2016
FoxNews.com

Americans who lived through the nightmares of both the Watergate and Lewinsky scandals recall vividly how every day seemed to produce new evidence of wrongdoing. The drip, drip of deceptions and lies finally overflowed into a cascading pool of criminality and disgust.     

The first scandal culminated in Articles of Impeachment.  The other an impeachment trial.  Is America now hurtling toward the same political abyss? It looks like it. So, fasten your seat belts and brace for impact.

Sources tell Fox News’s Bret Baier that the FBI has uncovered an “avalanche of evidence” in the Clinton Foundation investigation.

Agents are “actively and aggressively pursuing this case,” calling it a “very high priority.”

Armed with newly discovered email evidence and additional documents revealed by WikiLeaks, these sources say that agents will likely try to get Huma Abedin and others to cooperate in an effort to bring criminal charges against Hillary Clinton.

It is a stunning development. But that’s how avalanches happen. Suddenly, you’re buried before you know it.

If this is true, and if Clinton is elected president in a few days but thereafter indicted, several scenarios could unfold.

She could resign before or after inauguration, leaving President Tim Kaine sitting behind a desk in the Oval Office.

President Obama could pardon her before he departs that same office.

Clinton, as president, could try to invoke broad constitutional immunity from prosecution, delaying her criminal trial until after she leaves office.  Or she could pardon herself. 

However, all of that may not matter much if a Republican House of Representatives moves to impeach her. Neither immunity nor pardons apply to the ultimate constitutional remedy of impeachment.

Thus, Americans will again be forced to suffer through another impeachment horror show. But Hillary may not be able to beat the rap the way her husband did back in 1999 when he was impeached for perjury and obstruction of justice.       

What began as an investigation into the mishandling of classified documents… has now morphed into suspicions of rampant corruption involving Clinton’s charity. Specifically, that she used her position as Secretary of State to confer benefits to donors who lavished money on her foundation and personally enriched the Clintons.  And the case against her is accelerating.   

It was inevitable, I suppose, that her emails would intersect somehow with the incredible wealth amassed by the Clintons since they left the White House. There’s always a paper trail. Or pesky emails.   

Or, in the case of Richard Nixon, those damnable tapes.

Two Investigations Merge

Hillary Clinton used her unauthorized, private email server not only to conduct State Department business involving thousands of classified documents, but it appears she also used the server for some of her foundation’s communications. The FBI has devoted more than a year to investigating whether the Clintons illegally leveraged their foundation for personal gain -- that is into tens of millions of dollars in potential self-dealing and so-called “pay-to-play”.

As I pointed out in a previous column, all of this, if proved, could constitute bribery, fraud, and illegal use of a non-profit charity which smacks of racketeering.

What’s that? Operating a criminal enterprise.  It is often associated with organized crime.  (See “mafia”)  There is also the related matter of perjury.  And obstruction of justice.  The same charges that were leveled against Bill Clinton back in the day. 

Importantly, the newly discovered Weiner/Abedin electronic devices appear to contain email evidence relevant to both the classified documents case and the Clinton Foundation case. In addition, sources confirm that laptops belonging to Clinton’s top aides, Cheryl Mills and Heather Samuelson, are now in the possession of the FBI and are being “exploited for more evidence.” The floodgates are open.

While the foundation probe is now center stage, a reinvigorated look at whether Clinton mishandled classified documents has obviously been resurrected. It is possible that FBI Director Comey could reconsider his opinion of Clinton’s legal “intent” under the Espionage Act and reverse himself in his recommendation on prosecuting Clinton.  Sources say there is a 99 percent chance that up to 5 foreign intelligence agencies may have accessed Clinton’s emails and stolen them, putting a lie to President Obama’s claim that Clinton did not jeopardize national security. 

The Clinton Foundation

As "Fox News Sunday" anchor Chris Wallace pointed out in the final debate, “emails show that donors got special access”  to Clinton while Secretary of State. While that is surely unseemly or improper, it is illegal only if Clinton used her position to confer a benefit in exchange for money. That is, if donors rewarded Clinton with cash.   

So, here is an example of what might be illegal.  It has been reported that Clinton helped UBS avoid the IRS. Bill then got paid $ 1.5 million dollars and their foundation received a ten-fold increase in donations by the bank.  If the money was a reward for Clinton’s work on behalf of UBS, then that could be considered bribery under federal law. And racketeering. 

Another example: it has been reported that Clinton’s state department approved billions of dollars in arms sales to several nations whose governments gave money to the Clinton Foundation.  Again, if it can be proven there was a quid-pro-quo, it would be illegal.

This is where the WikiLeaks hacked emails come into play.  Messages show that charity official Doug Band, while raising money for the foundation, also steered millions of dollars to Bill Clinton. The cash came from foundation donors who had business before Hillary’s state department.  Band’s emails, in which he brags about his prowess in funneling up to $66 million to Bill, make explicit how the Clintons appear to have used their foundation for personal profit.

Organized crime and Illegal syndicates tend to use legitimate-looking businesses as a “front” to try to fool law enforcement.  Often, they devise a “dual purpose” company -- one which operates lawfully from the front door, but unlawfully out the backdoor. There is little doubt that the Clinton Foundation operated as a charity. But if there was a secondary, hidden purpose devoted to self-dealing and personal enrichment, and if the foundation was merely a conduit, then prosecution could be pursued under federal anti-corruption statutes.

Did DOJ Obstruct The FBI?

It’s beginning to look that way. Even after Comey announced in July that he would not recommend prosecuting Clinton, the investigation into her foundation was still being actively pursued by some agents within the FBI. According to the Wall Street Journal, the Justice Department became angry over this and agents were told to “stand down.”  Whether that happened is disputed.

However, it appears that FBI agents wanted to examine emails on non-government laptops that were part of the Clinton classified documents case. They felt there might be evidence that the foundation was being used illegally by the Clintons, as noted above. But Justice Department prosecutors allegedly stopped them from doing it.   

Why? Was Justice protecting Clinton? Can we be assured that the renewed investigation of Clinton won’t be obstructed by an attorney general with allegiances to both Hillary and Bill Clinton?   

Time For an Independent Counsel   

Given these reports of DOJ’s interference, there are serious and legitimate doubts about the integrity of the government’s ability to investigation Clinton.

Attorney General Loretta Lynch was compromised from the beginning. She was first elevated to the position of U.S. Attorney by Bill Clinton. She met privately with him just days before a decision was made as to whether his wife would be prosecuted.

As if that were not enough, Lynch’s boss, President Obama, defended Clinton publicly last April on "Fox News Sunday" by declaring, in essence, she did not break the law. He made the same argument during an earlier “60 Minutes” interview.  He prejudged the outcome of the case.

This sent a pretty clear message to those in charge of just how the president wanted the question of prosecution to turn out.  Now, it appears that Lynch’s Department is heeding that message by actively obstructing the FBI’s investigation.

The attorney general has failed or refused to appoint a Special Prosecutor to ensure that these investigations are fair and impartial. President Obama could demand one, as well. He likely will not. His conflict of interest is as glaring as Lynch’s.

After all, the president has been campaigning vigorously for Clinton to succeed him. Why would he now jeopardize the chance of preserving or even burnishing his legacy? Donald Trump is vowing, if elected, to unwind much of what Mr. Obama has accomplished. 

Therefore, it is up to Congress to reauthorize the Independent Counsel Act to accomplish the same. It would direct the attorney general to petition the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit to appoint one. No choice.

Sadly, this may be the only way the public’s trust can be restored.

http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2016/11/03/gregg-jarrett-avalanche-evidence-may-now-bury-hillary.html


Title: Re: Impeachment
Post by: SOMEPARTS on November 03, 2016, 06:41:48 PM
Much of the paid for press is trying to smear the last honest FBI people behind this as vindictive against Hilllary. Like there's no proof mounting...


Title: Re: Impeachment
Post by: Dos Equis on December 27, 2016, 01:18:23 PM
How long after Trump takes office does someone in Congress introduce articles of impeachment?  I say inside of a year. 


Title: Re: Impeachment
Post by: Yamcha on December 27, 2016, 01:18:42 PM
How long after Trump takes office does someone in Congress introduce articles of impeachment?  I say inside of a year. 

First 100 days


Title: Re: Impeachment
Post by: Dos Equis on December 27, 2016, 01:27:16 PM
First 100 days

Definitely possible. 


Title: Re: Impeachment
Post by: Primemuscle on December 27, 2016, 03:06:50 PM
Definitely possible. 

With so many of his former detractors cozying up to him and with Republican's in control of Congress, impeachment proposals may not come as quickly as some think. He'd have to do or have done something pretty drastic to institute the impeachment process.


Title: Re: Impeachment
Post by: Dos Equis on December 27, 2016, 03:23:23 PM
With so many of his former detractors cozying up to him and with Republican's in control of Congress, impeachment proposals may not come as quickly as some think. He'd have to do or have done something pretty drastic to institute the impeachment process.

Nah.  They're gong to come from Democrats, not Republicans. 


Title: Re: Impeachment
Post by: Primemuscle on December 27, 2016, 03:39:40 PM
Nah.  They're gong to come from Democrats, not Republicans. 

You're probably right about this. How Democrats can get with a Republican dominated congress is dubious. If you're speaking of a public outcry, which is more likely, I'm not so sure that will get anywhere either.

Has a President ever resigned? Congress may impose so many limitations on Trump's proposals, damaging his credibility with his supporters because nothing he promised them actually come to fruition, he'll have no other option than to resign or be assassinated.

I'm not sure he knows yet just what his ego got him into. He was probably better off if he'd stuck with his business dealings. 


Title: Re: Impeachment
Post by: Dos Equis on December 27, 2016, 03:51:18 PM
You're probably right about this. How Democrats can get with a Republican dominated congress is dubious. If you're speaking of a public outcry, which is more likely, I'm not so sure that will get anywhere either.

Has a President ever resigned? Congress may impose so many limitations on Trump's proposals, damaging his credibility with his supporters because nothing he promised them actually come to fruition, he'll have no other option than to resign or be assassinated.

I'm not sure he knows yet just what his ego got him into. He was probably better off if he'd stuck with his business dealings. 

Oh I'm sure Democrats will be crying and complaining for at least the next two years.  But public outcry?  He has to actually do something that's an impeachable offense first.  Even if he does something unconstitutional, like President Obama did more than once, he will get checked by the courts.  Not going to stop some dummy from introducing articles of impeachment. 

You talking about assassination?  Really? 

Actually, now that I think about, a lot of liberals are creating a climate of hate . . . .


Title: Re: Impeachment
Post by: Primemuscle on December 27, 2016, 04:56:11 PM
Oh I'm sure Democrats will be crying and complaining for at least the next two years.  But public outcry?  He has to actually do something that's an impeachable offense first.  Even if he does something unconstitutional, like President Obama did more than once, he will get checked by the courts.  Not going to stop some dummy from introducing articles of impeachment. 

You talking about assassination?  Really? 

Actually, now that I think about, a lot of liberals are creating a climate of hate . . . .

You mean like Trump did at his rallies on the campaign trail and by keeping it going while doing his "victory lap."

As for him actually being assassinated, one would hope there is optimum security preventing this.




Title: Re: Impeachment
Post by: Primemuscle on December 27, 2016, 05:19:52 PM
I've read where Melania isn't too happy with her hubby right now. What evil plans lurk behind that look in her eyes? Okay, in the last one her eyes are covered....just thought it was funny (could be a photoshop by Fitnessfrenzy).  :D


Title: Re: Impeachment
Post by: Primemuscle on December 27, 2016, 05:32:22 PM
Melania.....my how she's changed. She was a very pretty young woman, sans make-up and plastic surgery.
(http://www.nmws.us/wp-content/uploads/2016/11/1.png)

Today she's exotic looking, but the sweetness seems to be gone.


Title: Re: Impeachment
Post by: Dos Equis on December 27, 2016, 06:44:57 PM
You mean like Trump did at his rallies on the campaign trail and by keeping it going while doing his "victory lap."

As for him actually being assassinated, one would hope there is optimum security preventing this.




Don't confuse the liberal plants who incited violence at Trump rallies with Trump.  


Title: Re: Impeachment
Post by: Dos Equis on February 02, 2017, 10:10:25 AM
How long after Trump takes office does someone in Congress introduce articles of impeachment?  I say inside of a year. 

First 100 days

Democrat Rep. Joaquin Castro: Impeach Trump over Refugee Order
Mike Segar / ReutersMike Segar / Reuters
by JEROME HUDSON
1 Feb 2017

Texas Democratic Representative Joaquin Castro says Congress should draw up “articles of impeachment” against President Donald Trump over his executive order, which temporarily prohibits the arrival of Syrian refugees into the United States and halts entry of citizens from Somalia, Sudan, Yemen, Iran, Iraq, Syria, and Libya.

Castro’s concerns, he says, stem from a fear that Trump will order the Customs and Border Protection Agency (CBP) to ignore a federal judge’s emergency stay, issued during the weekend, blocking the implementation of certain parts of the temporary refugee travel ban.

“There should be a resolution of censure,” Castro told BuzzFeed. “And if he does it again, there should be articles of impeachment.”

On Saturday, a federal judged issued an emergency stay on deportations of detainees under the executive order.

The Texas lawmaker has joined Senate Democrats calling on Congress to “investigate whether President Trump intentionally exceeded his constitutional authority.”

If Trump flat-out ignores the court-ordered stay, Castro warns, the President would turn the country into a “military junta.”

But CBP spokesperson Gillian Christensen has rebuked the claims that her agency is ignoring the emergency stay.

“CBP officers are not detaining anyone. Green card holders who arrive in the U.S. have to go through secondary screening but that process is working smoothly and relatively quickly,” Christensen told BuzzFeed.

Nevertheless, Castro, who is considering running for the Senate against Senator Ted Cruz in 2018, will not let up.

“There’s no longer any checks and balances,” Castro said.

Despite the intense pushback, from Hollywood to Capitol Hill, a majority of Americans agree with President Trump’s temporary halt on refugees from terror-prone countries.

http://www.breitbart.com/big-government/2017/02/01/dem-rep-castro-impeach-trump-refugee-order/?utm_source=facebook&utm_medium=social


Title: Re: Impeachment
Post by: Dos Equis on February 07, 2017, 09:52:14 AM
Maxine Waters: ‘Eventually,’ We’ll Have To Impeach Trump [VIDEO]
CHRISTIAN DATOC
Reporter
02/06/2017

Rep. Maxine Waters reiterated calls for President Trump’s impeachment during House Democrats’ Monday morning press conference.
 
When pressed by a reporter, the California Democrat stated she isn’t calling for POTUS’ impeachment, but “he is doing it himself.”

“I have not called for his impeachment,” she claimed. “The statement I made was a statement in response to questions and pleas that I’m getting from many citizens across this country. What are we going to do?” (VIDEO: Waters Struggles To Explain Why Trump Should Be Impeached)

Waters then embarked on a lengthy rant about Trump, devoid of any semblance of traditional grammatical structure.

“How can a president, who is acting in the manner that he is acting, whether he is talking about the travel ban, the way he is talking Muslims, or whether he’s talking about his relationship to Putin and the Kremlin — knowing that they have hacked our DCCC and DNC and knowing that he is responsible for supplying the bombs that killed innocent children and families in Aleppo — the fact that he is wrapping his arms around Putin while Putin is continuing to advance into Korea?”

“I think that he is leading himself into that ind of position where folks begin to ask, ‘what are we we going to do?’ and the answer is going to be, eventually, we’ve got to do something about him,” she continued.

“We cannot continue to have a president who is acting in this manner. It is dangerous to the United States of America.”

http://dailycaller.com/2017/02/06/maxine-waters-eventually-well-have-to-impeach-trump-video/#ixzz4Y1UMski7


Title: Re: Impeachment
Post by: Yamcha on February 07, 2017, 09:58:11 AM
Maxine Waters: ‘Eventually,’ We’ll Have To Impeach Trump [VIDEO]
CHRISTIAN DATOC
Reporter
02/06/2017

Rep. Maxine Waters reiterated calls for President Trump’s impeachment during House Democrats’ Monday morning press conference.
 
When pressed by a reporter, the California Democrat stated she isn’t calling for POTUS’ impeachment, but “he is doing it himself.”

“I have not called for his impeachment,” she claimed. “The statement I made was a statement in response to questions and pleas that I’m getting from many citizens across this country. What are we going to do?” (VIDEO: Waters Struggles To Explain Why Trump Should Be Impeached)

Waters then embarked on a lengthy rant about Trump, devoid of any semblance of traditional grammatical structure.

“How can a president, who is acting in the manner that he is acting, whether he is talking about the travel ban, the way he is talking Muslims, or whether he’s talking about his relationship to Putin and the Kremlin — knowing that they have hacked our DCCC and DNC and knowing that he is responsible for supplying the bombs that killed innocent children and families in Aleppo — the fact that he is wrapping his arms around Putin while Putin is continuing to advance into Korea?”

“I think that he is leading himself into that ind of position where folks begin to ask, ‘what are we we going to do?’ and the answer is going to be, eventually, we’ve got to do something about him,” she continued.

“We cannot continue to have a president who is acting in this manner. It is dangerous to the United States of America.”

http://dailycaller.com/2017/02/06/maxine-waters-eventually-well-have-to-impeach-trump-video/#ixzz4Y1UMski7

sigh...  :-\



Title: Re: Impeachment
Post by: GigantorX on February 07, 2017, 02:30:18 PM
What a dumb bitch. She's black, though, so the Left sends her out to talk nonsense. It isn't working anymore. By the way....How does she feel about Libya and our support of the Saudi Arabia and their war in Yemen? I'm not sure she even knows what those places are. What an expert on the Syrian conflict, though. Which reminds me....How does anyone know anything about what went on inside Aleppo? There isn't a single NGO on the ground and no, the White Hats don't count.


Title: Re: Impeachment
Post by: Yamcha on February 07, 2017, 04:52:48 PM
What a dumb bitch. She's black, though, so the Left sends her out to talk nonsense. It isn't working anymore. By the way....How does she feel about Libya and our support of the Saudi Arabia and their war in Yemen? I'm not sure she even knows what those places are. What an expert on the Syrian conflict, though. Which reminds me....How does anyone know anything about what went on inside Aleppo? There isn't a single NGO on the ground and no, the White Hats don't count.

Amen brother.


Title: Re: Impeachment
Post by: Dos Equis on February 20, 2017, 02:17:36 PM
Democrats seek to quell Trump impeachment talk
Party leaders caution against rushing into a political trap.
By Gabriel Debenedetti
Updated 02/19/17
 
They call it the ‘I’ word.

Just a month into Donald Trump’s presidency, Democratic Party leaders are trying to rein in the talk of impeachment that’s animating the grass roots, the product of a restive base demanding deeper and more aggressive investigations into Trump’s ties to Russia.

Democratic officials in Republican-dominated Washington view the entire subject as a trap, a premature discussion that could backfire in spectacular fashion by making the party appear too overzealous in its opposition to Trump. Worse, they fear, it could harden Republican support for the president by handing his party significant fundraising and political ammunition when the chances of success for an early impeachment push are remote, at best.

“We need to assemble all of the facts, and right now there are a lot of questions about the president’s personal, financial and political ties with the Russian government before the election, but also whether there were any assurances made,” said California Rep. Eric Swalwell, a member of the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence. “Before you can use the ‘I’ word, you really need to collect all the facts."

“The ‘I’ word we should be focused on,” added Pennsylvania Rep. Brendan Boyle, “is 'investigations.'"

The problem for party lawmakers is that the hard-to-placate Democratic base has assumed a stop-Trump-at-all-costs posture. At a recent town hall in Albany, Oregon, Sen. Ron Wyden faced three questions about the issue. Rep. Jim McGovern, who was also confronted with the impeachment question at an event in Northampton, Mass., told his constituents it's not the right strategy for the moment, according to local reports. In California, a real estate broker has launched a challenge to Republican Rep. Dana Rohrabacher using a new “Impeach Trump Leadership PAC.”
 
But it’s not just furious rank-and-file Democrats who are raising the idea. A handful of Democratic House progressives — among them California Rep. Maxine Waters, Maryland Rep. Jamie Raskin and Texas Rep. Joaquin Castro — have already publicly raised the specter of impeachment.

Waters has said she thinks Trump is marching himself down the path to impeachment, while Raskin — whose office was presented last week with a petition carrying more than 850,000 signatures calling for impeachment — has repeatedly brought up the prospect of voting for impeachment "at some point" in rallies and interviews. Castro has said Trump should be impeached if the president repeatedly instructs Customs and Border Protection officials to ignore federal judges' orders.

Some have read New York Rep. Jerry Nadler’s “resolution of inquiry” that could force the Department of Justice to share information about Trump’s Russian ties and conflicts of interest as a way to further lay the groundwork for impeachment.

“You see immense energy from people who want to resist the president. And that’s affecting the Congress,” said California Rep. Ted Lieu, who has said that a Democratic-controlled House of Representatives would impeach Trump. "A recent poll came out saying that 46 percent of Americans want the president impeached, and certainly members of Congress take notice."

Still, most congressional Democrats insist on drawing a line that stops far short of using the loaded term. Responding to Waters' impeachment chatter this month, Democratic Leader Nancy Pelosi said, "When and if he breaks the law, that is when something like that would come up. But that's not the subject of today."

They believe that even if they did have enough evidence to start impeachment proceedings — which they don’t, since a number of investigations are still in their early stages, and Democrats can’t just impeach a president because they don’t like him — they wouldn’t have anywhere near enough votes as long as Trump-sympathetic Republicans control the majority.

Neither party leadership nor the campaign committees have circulated talking points or suggested ways to respond to impeachment questions that are starting to appear. But they are already aware of the potential electoral blowback to the party.

The mere mention of impeachment on the left has already kicked off a fundraising frenzy on the Republican side, with both the GOP House and Senate campaign wings raising cash off it — much like Democrats did under President Barack Obama when Republicans speculated about the prospect.

“No president has EVER endured the level of disrespect shown to President Trump. (It’s sickening) Unprecedented obstruction from the left on his cabinet nominees. Mockery and scorn from the liberal media. And now the liberal elite are calling for his impeachment … IN HIS FIRST MONTH,” reads a National Republican Senatorial Committee email from last week.

Since 12 House Democrats sit in seats won by Trump while 23 House Republicans serve districts won by Hillary Clinton, party operatives eyeing gains in the chamber fear that crossover voters could turn against Democrats if their party is perceived as reckless in its pursuit of Trump.

Nonetheless, the pressure to stand in Trump’s way has amped up on the ground in the days since the resignation of national security adviser Michael Flynn, say party officials, and Democratic voters appear poised to pounce on any further revelations.

“The energy right now is really on Congress and trying to get some Republicans to find some backbone. As we see the Flynn stuff and the question of who asked him to make the call, that could change as it develops,” said Ohio Democratic Party Chairman David Pepper, who’s been touring his state in a series of town hall meetings. “But for the moment people are focused on the most productive avenues for their frustrations, like ‘Call Pat Tiberi’ or 'Tell Rob Portman to vote against Scott Pruitt.’"

Rather than pursuing impeachment, most Hill Democrats are focusing their energies on persuading colleagues across the aisle to publicly support or join their investigations, viewing that as the most productive path forward. The brewing voter anger can only help them reach that goal, they believe.

“Both Democrats and Republicans are going home for the next 10 days for our district work period, and I suspect Republicans are going to hear a lot from home, from their constituents,” said Swalwell. “Before Flynn resigned, as this was boiling up over the weekend, Republicans I would run into in town would start to say, ‘What is going on?’ Even those who were willing to give him the benefit of the doubt."

Senate Democratic leadership is for now content with the Republican-led Senate Intelligence Committee taking the lead, while others have called for an independent, 9/11-style commission looking into Trump’s Russian ties. Urging the creation of such a group, the Democratic National Committee proclaimed that the scandal was already “bigger than Watergate."

Those ever-more-popular comparisons to Richard Nixon, accordingly, are as close to impeachment talk as most Democrats will get.

“There are eerie parallels,” said Boyle, "between the 1972 campaign going into ’73 and the beginning of the Watergate hearings, and the experience of 2016 going into 2017."

http://www.politico.com/story/2017/02/trump-impeachment-democrats-235184


Title: Re: Impeachment
Post by: TheGrinch on February 20, 2017, 04:33:21 PM
I'm lost...


If the POTUS makes decisions that you don't agree with because you didn't vote for him = impeachment?




Title: Re: Impeachment
Post by: Primemuscle on February 20, 2017, 05:06:52 PM
I'm lost...


If the POTUS makes decisions that you don't agree with because you didn't vote for him = impeachment?




Absolutely not! However, if Trump violates the very laws he swore to uphold as President of the U.S. he should be impeached. Ever heard of the three branches of government? Despite his ironic name, the President doesn't have absolute power over the other two. https://www.usa.gov/branches-of-government


Title: Re: Impeachment
Post by: Dos Equis on February 20, 2017, 05:14:18 PM
Absolutely not! However, if Trump violates the very laws he swore to uphold as President of the U.S. he should be impeached. Ever heard of the three branches of government? Despite his ironic name, the President doesn't have absolute power over the other two. https://www.usa.gov/branches-of-government

Actually if Trump violates the Constitution, he gets checked by the courts, which happened to Obama several times.  Trump has been checked twice now (even though I disagree with the decisions).  The system of checks and balances works. 

TheGrinch is absolutely right:  people are trying to criminalize political disagreements.   


Title: Re: Impeachment
Post by: Primemuscle on February 20, 2017, 05:41:33 PM
Actually if Trump violates the Constitution, he gets checked by the courts, which happened to Obama several times.  Trump has been checked twice now (even though I disagree with the decisions).  The system of checks and balances works. 

TheGrinch is absolutely right:  people are trying to criminalize political disagreements.   

I can't disagree with this. Not only that the news is all over Trump and his people for shit that doesn't make a hill of beans. For example, Kellyanne Conway's hyped promotion of Ivanka's clothing line seemed innocent enough to me. Condemning her for it seems unnecessary. Moreover, when the press focuses on little stuff like this, it just makes them seem more like the "fake news" and biased lefties the right like to accuse them of being.

Left, right, up or down, we are all just people. Most of us just want to survive another day without any major crap happening. So far the first 30 days of the Trump administration has had it's pluses and minuses. The best thing I can say about the current political scene is that a lot of folks seem more invested than in the past. This is good. Political apathy is never good.


Title: Re: Impeachment
Post by: Las Vegas on February 20, 2017, 05:47:39 PM
I can't disagree with this. Not only that the news is all over Trump and his people for shit that doesn't make a hill of beans. For example, Kellyanne Conway's hyped promotion of Ivanka's clothing line seemed innocent enough to me. Condemning her for it seems unnecessary. Moreover, when the press focuses on little stuff like this, it just makes them seem more like the "fake news" and biased lefties the right like to accuse them of being.

Left, right, up or down, we are all just people. Most of us just want to survive another day without any major crap happening. So far the first 30 days of the Trump administration has had it's pluses and minuses. The best thing I can say about the current political scene is that a lot of folks seem more invested than in the past. This is good. Political apathy is never good.

It was asking for trouble and I'm very surprised she did that.  These people normally have an autocheck running in their mind about stuff like that and they steer clear of it.


Title: Re: Impeachment
Post by: Dos Equis on February 20, 2017, 05:49:37 PM
I can't disagree with this. Not only that the news is all over Trump and his people for shit that doesn't make a hill of beans. For example, Kellyanne Conway's hyped promotion of Ivanka's clothing line seemed innocent enough to me. Condemning her for it seems unnecessary. Moreover, when the press focuses on little stuff like this, it just makes them seem more like the "fake news" and biased lefties the right like to accuse them of being.

Left, right, up or down, we are all just people. Most of us just want to survive another day without any major crap happening. So far the first 30 days of the Trump administration has had it's pluses and minuses. The best thing I can say about the current political scene is that a lot of folks seem more invested than in the past. This is good. Political apathy is never good.

I agree with this.  Well said.   

Only minor bone I'd pick is your last sentence.  I think political apathy is better than passing bad laws. 


Title: Re: Impeachment
Post by: Skeletor on February 20, 2017, 05:54:45 PM
I can't disagree with this. Not only that the news is all over Trump and his people for shit that doesn't make a hill of beans. For example, Kellyanne Conway's hyped promotion of Ivanka's clothing line seemed innocent enough to me. Condemning her for it seems unnecessary. Moreover, when the press focuses on little stuff like this, it just makes them seem more like the "fake news" and biased lefties the right like to accuse them of being.

Left, right, up or down, we are all just people. Most of us just want to survive another day without any major crap happening. So far the first 30 days of the Trump administration has had it's pluses and minuses. The best thing I can say about the current political scene is that a lot of folks seem more invested than in the past. This is good. Political apathy is never good.

I assume you mean that some people are grasping at straws by presenting this as some sort of a huge scandal of national security importance, however, if she broke any laws she should face the consequences. The laws should apply equally to everyone and no one should be above the law or have special protections and immunity-even if they are "extremely careless".


Title: Re: Impeachment
Post by: Dos Equis on February 20, 2017, 06:07:54 PM
I assume you mean that some people are grasping at straws by presenting this as some sort of a huge scandal of national security importance, however, if she broke any laws she should face the consequences. The laws should apply equally to everyone and no one should be above the law or have special protections and immunity-even if they are "extremely careless".

And the punishment needs to fit the crime.


Title: Re: Impeachment
Post by: Skeletor on February 20, 2017, 06:11:44 PM
And the punishment needs to fit the crime.

Yes.


Title: Re: Impeachment
Post by: Primemuscle on February 20, 2017, 06:13:56 PM
I agree with this.  Well said.   

Only minor bone I'd pick is your last sentence.  I think political apathy is better than passing bad laws. 

I can mostly agree, but who determines what is a bad law or a good one?


Title: Re: Impeachment
Post by: TuHolmes on February 20, 2017, 06:15:19 PM
Actually if Trump violates the Constitution, he gets checked by the courts, which happened to Obama several times.  Trump has been checked twice now (even though I disagree with the decisions).  The system of checks and balances works. 

TheGrinch is absolutely right:  people are trying to criminalize political disagreements.   

I agree with all of this.


Title: Re: Impeachment
Post by: Dos Equis on February 20, 2017, 06:16:00 PM
I can mostly agree, but who determines what is a bad law or a good one?

The public.  Common sense.  The courts.  It's sort of like porn:  you know it when you see it.   :)


Title: Re: Impeachment
Post by: Primemuscle on February 20, 2017, 06:17:35 PM
I assume you mean that some people are grasping at straws by presenting this as some sort of a huge scandal of national security importance, however, if she broke any laws she should face the consequences. The laws should apply equally to everyone and no one should be above the law or have special protections and immunity-even if they are "extremely careless".

True, but laws and their violation are open to interpretation. If the law was "black or white" we wouldn't need attorneys or judges.


Title: Re: Impeachment
Post by: Primemuscle on February 20, 2017, 06:26:48 PM
It was asking for trouble and I'm very surprised she did that.  These people normally have an autocheck running in their mind about stuff like that and they steer clear of it.

Apparently this isn't the case with the current administration....specia lly when it comes to monitoring Trump's off the wall comments....Trump asked people to ‘look at what’s happening … in Sweden.’

When called on his comments, he essentially blamed FOX News by saying he got his information there. My question is when is the news fake and when is it real, in Trump's mind?



Title: Re: Impeachment
Post by: Las Vegas on February 20, 2017, 06:51:03 PM
Apparently this isn't the case with the current administration....specia lly when it comes to monitoring Trump's off the wall comments....Trump asked people to ‘look at what’s happening … in Sweden.’

When called on his comments, he essentially blamed FOX News by saying he got his information there. My question is when is the news fake and when is it real, in Trump's mind?



IDK but everything is filtered through too few who make up our media, and these are the problems we're asking for, by allowing it.  This is the result.


Title: Re: Impeachment
Post by: Dos Equis on February 24, 2017, 12:24:13 PM
Richmond City Council unanimously approves Trump impeachment resolution
By Lilian Kim
Thursday, February 23, 2017
RICHMOND, Calif. --

The first 100 days of the Trump administration aren't even over yet, and the president is already facing calls for impeachment, but it's not from Congress. Instead, a Bay Area city made a bold move.

Richmond City Council says it has become the first city in the country to go on record in support of impeachment hearings for President Donald Trump.

The council acknowledged how unusual it was to call for the president's impeachment. He's been in office for only a month, but the vote was unanimous.

"Unfortunately with this president it's oddly appropriate," said Richmond City Councilmember Jael Myrick.

Councilmember Gayle McLaughlin spearheaded the resolution, which calls Congress to investigate the president's business holdings, something his critics believe are grounds for impeachment.

"This is our voice," she said. "This is our country. We have a right to speak up."

Even in this progressive city, there was one vocal Trump supporter who was eventually thrown out for swearing at the council.

"Actually you don't have a voice because the GOP controls Congress, and you people are stupid enough to think Congress will impeach Trump," said Richmond resident Mark Wassberg.

Supporters of the resolution, however; remain undeterred.

"A lot of politicians aren't willing to go on the record to do this because it can go against them," said Richmond resident Ellen Faden. "But as grass roots, as Bernie said, we have to start from the grass roots."

By passing this resolution, the Richmond City Council is now hoping it'll inspire other cities to do the same.

http://abc7.com/politics/richmond-unanimously-approves-trump-impeachment-resolution/1769214/


Title: Re: Impeachment
Post by: Las Vegas on February 24, 2017, 01:41:51 PM
^ Unfortunately for them, I don't think anyone takes Richmond CA very seriously.  It's a violent mess, with their citizens getting mowed down by drug dealers at breakneck speed.  Maybe they should fix that little issue that before they devote a single thought to Trump.


Title: Re: Impeachment
Post by: Dos Equis on March 01, 2017, 05:25:45 PM
Democrats talk up impeachment on eve of Trump address
By Susan Ferrechio (@susanferrechio) • 2/27/17

The top Democratic leaders in Congress condemned the presidency of Donald Trump on Tuesday at a National Press Club Forum, where they hinted they might eventually seek to impeach him and they predicted his address to the House and Senate on Tuesday would be full of empty promises.
 
House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif., said Trump has misled the public to a degree that "there are plenty of grounds right now for the current president" to be impeached. But the public is not fully on board yet, Pelosi said, because "many of the president's supporters are not ready to accept the fact that their judgement may not have been so great in voting for him."
 
Pelosi said by the time the case is made for impeachment, "perhaps they will be ready to accept that."
 
Stay abreast of the latest developments from nation's capital and beyond with curated News Alerts from the Washington Examiner news desk and delivered to your inbox.

She added, "It's very hard, impeachment."
 
Pelosi appeared alongside Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer, D-N.Y., where the two eviscerated Trump's first month in office, and compared it unfavorably to President Obama's quick passage of a $1 trillion stimulus bill shortly after he became president in 2009. They also downplayed Trump's planned joint address on Tuesday night as, essentially, a big lie.
 
"It will be the usual bluster and blame," predicted Senate Minority Leader Charles Schumer, D-N.Y. "Populist platitudes will be a dime a dozen, but the focus should be on the president's actions rather than his empty words."
 
Schumer and Pelosi accused Trump of formulating an agenda to benefit the rich at the expense of the working class.

Earlier Monday, the White House signaled it would propose a budget that increases defense spending by $54 billion and makes cuts in domestic spending to make up the difference.
 
House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif., suggested Republicans would simply make a 10 percent cut across the entire budget, which isn't likely. Such a move, Pelosi calculated, would result in cuts to job training, the National Institutes of Health and early childhood education, among other vital programs.
 
She took another jab at Trump's competency in running the country.
 
"I don't even know if the President understands the ramifications of the cuts that he is proposing," Pelosi said.
 
Democrats and Republicans have in the past agreed to equal spending on both the domestic and defense budgets, Pelosi said.

"We have to see more about this budget but hopefully it will honor the 50-50 we had before," Pelosi said. "Any cuts had to be shared equally."
 
A reporter asked Pelosi why she has not called for impeachment proceedings against Trump when some scholars have suggested there is enough evidence to begin the Congressional process of ousting a president. Democrats want an independent commission to be appointed to investigate Trump's so-called connections with the Russian government, though the FBI has found no direct link.
 
Pelosi said she "never recovered with the left on this subject for not impeaching President Bush," over the war in Iraq.
 
She even though she is not currently demanding impeachment of Trump, "that doesn't mean nobody is listening to the cases being made, in a very scientific and methodical way, as to whether there are grounds for impeachment."

http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/democrats-talk-up-impeachment-on-eve-of-trump-address-to-congress/article/2615914


Title: Re: Impeachment
Post by: Soul Crusher on March 01, 2017, 06:04:25 PM
We should impeach cuntlosi and wasaman shitz along w the entire CBC


Title: Re: Impeachment
Post by: Dos Equis on March 21, 2017, 12:07:37 PM
Rep. Maxine Waters to Trump: 'Get Ready for Impeachment'
By Joe Crowe   |    Tuesday, 21 Mar 2017

A Democratic congresswoman issued a warning about impeachment to President Donald Trump in a tweet on Tuesday.

Maxine Waters
✔  ‎@MaxineWaters 
Get ready for impeachment.
2:56 AM - 21 Mar 2017

Rep. Maxine Waters has called on Congress to impeach the president if evidence appears that proves collusion with the Russian government during his presidential campaign, according to The Hill.

No evidence has appeared that ties members of Trump's campaign to officials in the Kremlin.

The California Democrat has not minced words when discussing issues about Trump and members of his campaign. Pinned to the top of her Twitter account is an image depicting what she calls Trump's "Kremlin Klan."

Maxine Waters‏Verified account
@MaxineWaters 
Meet @realDonaldTrump's #KremLINKlan:

(https://pbs.twimg.com/media/C7DHIetWsAE5MpN.jpg)

And in February, she said his advisers who have Russia ties are "a bunch of scumbags … who are all organized around making money."

http://www.newsmax.com/Politics/maxine-waters-trump-ready-impeachment/2017/03/21/id/779969/


Title: Re: Impeachment
Post by: TuHolmes on March 21, 2017, 01:13:26 PM
You know what I never understood about people? Talking up shit before they have an actual case.

If you really think that Trump has done some colluding with a foreign power, why would you go around announcing it before you have a solid case?

Are people really that moronic?


Title: Re: Impeachment
Post by: Dos Equis on March 21, 2017, 01:20:59 PM
You know what I never understood about people? Talking up shit before they have an actual case.

If you really think that Trump has done some colluding with a foreign power, why would you go around announcing it before you have a solid case?

Are people really that moronic?

Yes, unfortunately.  And Trump has put himself in the same boat with loonies like Waters and Pelosi. 


Title: Re: Impeachment
Post by: TuHolmes on March 21, 2017, 01:22:30 PM
Yes, unfortunately.  And Trump has put himself in the same boat with loonies like Waters and Pelosi. 

Sad... Truly sad.

Clowns the lot of them.

We get the government we deserve.  :'(


Title: Re: Impeachment
Post by: mass243 on March 21, 2017, 01:26:38 PM
Rep. Maxine Waters to Trump: 'Get Ready for Impeachment'
By Joe Crowe   |    Tuesday, 21 Mar 2017

A Democratic congresswoman issued a warning about impeachment to President Donald Trump in a tweet on Tuesday.

Maxine Waters



Isn't that the demented fucktard who said "Putin is advancing in Korea" ?
And swore "USA would stand by Limpopo" when Russian pranksters called her presenting themselves Ukrainian officials worried about Putin hacking elections in Limpopo  ;D

Amazing if someone puts any weight on what she is saying.


Title: Re: Impeachment
Post by: Nick Danger on March 21, 2017, 01:29:04 PM
Rep. Maxine Waters to Trump: 'Get Ready for Impeachment'
By Joe Crowe   |    Tuesday, 21 Mar 2017

A Democratic congresswoman issued a warning about impeachment to President Donald Trump in a tweet on Tuesday.

Maxine Waters
✔  ‎@MaxineWaters 
Get ready for impeachment.
2:56 AM - 21 Mar 2017

Rep. Maxine Waters has called on Congress to impeach the president if evidence appears that proves collusion with the Russian government during his presidential campaign, according to The Hill.

No evidence has appeared that ties members of Trump's campaign to officials in the Kremlin.

The California Democrat has not minced words when discussing issues about Trump and members of his campaign. Pinned to the top of her Twitter account is an image depicting what she calls Trump's "Kremlin Klan."

Maxine Waters‏Verified account
@MaxineWaters 
Meet @realDonaldTrump's #KremLINKlan:

(https://pbs.twimg.com/media/C7DHIetWsAE5MpN.jpg)

And in February, she said his advisers who have Russia ties are "a bunch of scumbags … who are all organized around making money."

http://www.newsmax.com/Politics/maxine-waters-trump-ready-impeachment/2017/03/21/id/779969/

Her comments make her sound like a loon. As TuHolmes said, if you're going to make accusations, show something to backs up your claims.


Title: Re: Impeachment
Post by: TuHolmes on March 21, 2017, 01:29:23 PM

Isn't that the demented fucktard who said "Putin is advancing in Korea" ?
And swore "USA would stand by Limpopo" when Russian pranksters called her presenting themselves Ukrainian officials worried about Putin hacking elections in Limpopo  ;D

Amazing if someone puts any weight on what she is saying.


I do recall the pranks, I think it's the same person.

She's definitely not the brightest bulb in the box and I think I recall her being charged with some kind of house ethics violation some years back?


Title: Re: Impeachment
Post by: Dos Equis on March 21, 2017, 01:29:28 PM
Sad... Truly sad.

Clowns the lot of them.

We get the government we deserve.  :'(

Yep.  Voter apathy.  Our turnout stinks.  And we keep electing and reelecting duds.    


Title: Re: Impeachment
Post by: Dos Equis on April 04, 2017, 04:36:22 PM
(http://i3.cpcache.com/product/273941623/looney_tunes_screw_ball_rectangle_magnet.jpg?height=460&width=460&qv=90)

Maxine Waters: Let’s talk about Trump’s impeachment (again)
April 3, 2017 by John Sexton
 
You have to give her credit for consistency. Rep. Maxine Waters has been talking about impeaching President Trump since before he was President. Over the weekend Waters appeared on CNN and once again said she is eager to talk about impeachment.

“Most people believe that he’s about diversion, that he’s about keeping people from really dealing with the issue,” Waters said. “We want to know whether or not there was collusion. We want to know about the hacking into the DNC and the interference with our elections,” she continued.

“And I really want to know because I know if we can prove collusion that he is impeachable,” she said. “Lot of people don’t want to talk about that but I do,” Waters continued. “I want to talk about him. I want to talk about this Kremlin clan that’s around him.”

Waters claimed earlier this month that the “sex actions” in a dossier about Trump which was published by Buzzfeed were “supposed to be true.” In fact, no one has shown any proof those accusations are true.

I’ve suggested before that it seems as if Rep. Waters is one-half of a good cop/bad cop routine with the Democratic leadership. She has been all over television making this claim for nearly three months. In February she even had Nancy Pelosi correct her in person and clarify that nothing Trump had done thus far was impeachable. Rep. Waters didn’t take the hint and was back on MSNBC the next day talking about impeachment again.

In the short run, this sort of talk certainly keeps the base energized and gives The Resistance hope that something will be found to undo the results of the last election. But in the longer run, this strategy seems pretty ill-advised. Having been promised impeachment from the very start, it may be hard for progressive partisans to settle for anything less than Trump’s removal from office.

And yet, they keep talking about it. Today, Fox News’ Juan Williams joins the impeachment bandwagon with a piece that concludes, “it is no liberal fantasy to say the odds of a Trump resignation or impeachment before 2020 are looking better by the day.”

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1oPDJE1YeaQ
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1oPDJE1YeaQ

http://hotair.com/archives/2017/04/03/maxine-waters-lets-talk-about-trumps-impeachment/


Title: Re: Impeachment
Post by: Slapper on April 05, 2017, 05:41:14 PM
My previous 8 (ex) wives are still asking what  they did to deserve being married to me ???

Wow.

You don't like women, you like PAIN.

8x? Really?


Title: Re: Impeachment
Post by: Dos Equis on May 16, 2017, 06:54:55 PM
Tin foil hats for everyone.

Congressional Dems making early calls for Trump's impeachment

By Brooke Singman
Published May 16, 2017
Fox News

That didn't take long.

A small group of President Trump's most outspoken critics has seized on the James Comey controversy to make a — very — early push for impeachment.

The latest call came from Rep. Al Green, D-Texas, who released a statement suggesting Comey’s ouster from atop the FBI was an obstruction of the investigation “of the president’s campaign ties to Russian influence in his 2016 presidential election.” He said Trump has committed acts that “amount to intimidation and obstruction.”

“Our mantra should be I.T.N—Impeach Trump Now,” Green wrote in an email, which included a line in red pushing those who received the email to “forward this email to others who may be interested.”

 Scott Wong ✔ @scottwongDC
.@RepAlGreen (D-Texas) calls for impeachment of President Trump
6:36 AM - 15 May 2017
  499 499 Retweets   819 819 likes
The White House has defended the decision to fire Comey. The president's team last week cited a DOJ memo castigating his handling of the Hillary Clinton email probe, though Trump himself has since said he would have fired Comey regardless of any recommendation.

Most Democrats are fighting back by calling for a special prosecutor to probe Russian meddling in the 2016 campaign, worried Comey's firing was meant to blunt that investigation.

But a handful of Democrats want to go the distance, and are openly using the "I" word.

Green joined other Democratic lawmakers like Rep. Maxine Waters, D-Calif., who has been discussing impeachment for months. Waters took to Twitter in April saying that she would “fight every day until he’s impeached.”

She later denied calling for impeachment, but on Thursday renewed her push during an interview with MSNBC’s Chris Hayes.

“I’ve said all along that he will lead us to impeachment, and he’s doing just that,” Waters said on MSNBC. “We’re fiddling while Rome is burning. This president needs to be impeached.”

Waters has received her fair share of impeachment backlash from Trump supporters. Most recently, Waters was greeted by pro-Trump protesters before a town hall on Saturday, with some holding signs calling for her impeachment.

Others Democratic lawmakers who have brought up the topic of impeachment include Reps. John Yarmuth, D-Ky., who told a local news station last week that Democrats were “actually pretty close to considering impeachment,” and Mark Pocan, D-Wis., who said on local radio that if there was an “impeachment clock,” Comey’s ouster would have moved it an “hour closer.” 

Rep. Jared Huffman, D-Calif., also joined the discussion, tweeting last week that “Impeachment will happen if a handful of Republicans in Congress join Dems to put country above party. Or in 2019 after Dems win the House.”

 Follow
 Rep. Jared Huffman @JaredHuffman
Impeachment will happen if handful of Republicans in Congress join Dems to put country above party. Or in 2019 after Dems win the House. https://twitter.com/kylegriffin1/status/862882938219888640 …
7:51 PM - 11 May 2017
  227 227 Retweets   409 409 likes
But one former Democratic lawmaker told Fox News that even suggesting impeachment is "dangerous" for the American people.

 Follow
 Hakeem Jeffries ✔ @RepJeffries
Evidence of Trump's effort to obstruct justice continues to emerge. Lock HIM up? https://nyti.ms/2pDnN9G
5:04 PM - 11 May 2017
President Trump and James B. Comey during a reception at the White House for law enforcement officials days after the inauguration.
In a Private Dinner, Trump Demanded Loyalty. Comey Demurred.
James B. Comey’s associates say he now believes his unwillingness to pledge personal loyalty led President Trump to fire him as the F.B.I. director.
nytimes.com
  337 337 Retweets   636 636 likes
Dennis Kucinich, former Ohio congressman and a Fox News contributor, told Fox News on Tuesday that there was a “danger in engaging in compulsive opposition.”

Kucinich, who called for the impeachment of President George W. Bush and Vice President Dick Cheney over the decision to go to war in Iraq, told Fox News that this is only an option “after exhausting a number of other options.”

“It is destructive to America to proceed with an impeachment at this stage of the presidency,” Kucinich said. “This is not the first thing you reach for, because when the first big move a party makes is towards impeachment, it’s very difficult for the American people to conclude that it is anything but a partisan issue.”

In order to impeach the president of the United States, the House of Representatives must have the support of the majority of members. At this point, no Republicans have voiced support, or even made the suggestion to begin the impeachment process.

While Rep. Tulsi Gabbard, D-Hawaii, has said she is doing her “homework” on the issue, she also took a shot at the vice president suggesting he wouldn’t be much better.

“I will just say I understand the calls for impeachment, but what I am being cautious about and what I give you food for thought about is that if President Trump is impeached, the problems don’t go away, because then you have a Vice President Pence who becomes President Pence,” Gabbard said at a town hall last month.

Kucinich told Fox News that while he is aware of the extreme opposition to President Trump’s policies, Democrats should focus on their ability to impact policy, which could be “attractive” to Americans in 2018.

“It’s far better to offer alternatives to the policies of this president," Kucinich said. "Otherwise, this is a grim partisan effort which inevitably will go nowhere.”

In the wake of a New York Times report on Tuesday evening suggesting that Mr. Trump asked Comey to end the probe into former National Security Advisor Gen. Michael Flynn, former Republican Rep. David Jolly, R-Fla., jumped on the bandwaggon suggesting the Trump family may not be in Washington for long.

Jolly tweeted: "Hope that private school tuition in Maryland this Fall for the POTUS family is refundable."

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2017/05/16/congressional-dems-making-early-calls-for-trumps-impeachment.html


Title: Re: Impeachment
Post by: Straw Man on May 16, 2017, 07:04:25 PM
If everything were identical except with Hillary as POTUS I have zero doubt that the Republicans would have impeached her by now

We're starting to see some fissures with Republicans and I think if this train wreck continues on the same course it's only a matter of time until these people start to realize it's time to put their country before their party loyalty


Quote
The only honest answer is that an impeachable offense is whatever a majority of the House of Representatives considers [it] to be at a given moment in history; conviction results from whatever offense or offenses two-thirds of the other body considers to be sufficiently serious to require removal of the accused from office.
Gerald Ford, remarks in the House (April 15, 1970), Congressional Record, vol. 116, p. 11913.


Title: Re: Impeachment
Post by: Soul Crusher on May 17, 2017, 02:21:44 AM
If everything were identical except with Hillary as POTUS I have zero doubt that the Republicans would have impeached her by now

We're starting to see some fissures with Republicans and I think if this train wreck continues on the same course it's only a matter of time until these people start to realize it's time to put their country before their party loyalty

Gerald Ford, remarks in the House (April 15, 1970), Congressional Record, vol. 116, p. 11913.

Liberals should love this - nothing is gettimg done on his agenda .   It's chaos 24/7 - and you could have a Pence in there getting his whole agenda rammed through congress.   


Title: Re: Impeachment
Post by: Dos Equis on May 17, 2017, 02:03:02 PM
Worried about fallout, Dems poised to poll-test impeachment
BY ALEX ROARTY
aroarty@mcclatchydc.com
May 16, 2017

Democratic strategists are racing to figure out whether it’s politically wise to call for President Donald Trump’s impeachment, as one bombshell revelation after another about his ties to Russia is forcing candidates for the Senate and House of Representatives to consider the question far sooner than anyone had expected.

In a significant development, party operatives say they expect Democrats to poll-test the public’s views on impeachment, trying to acquire hard data about an issue that until now has not been seriously analyzed. Other strategists say that candidates and party organizations will begin conducting focus groups on the question.

These operatives acknowledge they’ve been caught off guard by the speed with which impeachment has become a relevant issue – and are wary of the political damage it could cause if not handled correctly.

Even 10 days ago, before Trump fired FBI Director James Comey, few party officials had even considered such a dramatic move, which has happened only twice in American history.

“I mean, Jesus, it’s not even Memorial Day!” said one Democratic operative.

Only after testing the question with voters will the party have a firmer sense of how it should act.

“I have no clue, to be honest,” another Democratic operative said when asked what party strategists made of the politics of impeachment after The New York Times reported on a Comey memo that alleges Trump asked the then-FBI director to drop his probe of the president’s first national security adviser. “Still processing what we’re reading in The Times.”

So far, only a handful of Democratic lawmakers have outright called for impeachment. Most have preferred a more cautious approach, calling for a special prosecutor to oversee the investigation into Trump officials’ possible ties to Russia.

Democratic strategists emphasized that they expect that questions of independent investigations – and not calls for impeachment – will be the overwhelming focus for the party in the coming days.

But on Tuesday night, CNN reported that even Republican lawmakers are now debating whether to support an independent prosecutor or independent commission after the latest round of revelations.

And some Democrats are starting to at least entertain the possibility of impeachment.

“If it is, in fact, true, then yes, that is an impeachable offense,” said Rep. Joaquin Castro, D-Texas, on CNN.

Last week, Democratic Rep. Mark Pocan of Wisconsin suggested the country needed an “impeachment clock” to track how close the president was to being removed from office.

Pressure might also mount from the party’s liberal base, which has grown in size and relevance since Trump’s election, to call for impeachment.

One progressive leader called impeachment a “no-brainer.”

“Impeachment is the only way to stop Donald Trump, whose corruption and incompetence is placing our country in greater danger with each passing day,” said Charles Chamberlain, executive director of Democracy for America.

Still, some Democrats expressed skepticism that impeachment is the right move for the party. Tom Perez, chairman of the Democratic National Committee, stuck to his message that a special, independent investigation is needed.

“This is why we need a special prosecutor,” he said. “The evidence is mounting by the day. But as long as Republicans continue putting party over country, justice will never be served. Make no mistake: Their complacency is complicity, and history will remember them as cowards.”

The problem, these more wary Democrats argue, is that so much of the playing field during next year’s midterm elections is in states or districts favorable to Trump.

Senate Democrats must defend 10 states that Trump won during last year’s election.

“Voting for a check on Trump is one thing,” said one national Democratic strategist, granted anonymity to speak candidly about party strategy. “But if a vote for a check on the president . . . becomes a de facto vote for an impeachment trial, the task in front of us will only get more difficult.”

Another operative said he expects that the House GOP’s health care bill – the American Health Care Act – still would play a bigger role in next year’s midterm elections.

“Health care remains the most personal issue facing voters,” he said. “Until that’s taken off the table completely, it’s hard to see how that doesn’t motivate the backlash.”

http://www.mcclatchydc.com/news/nation-world/national/article150938202.html#storylink=cpy


Title: Re: Impeachment
Post by: Coach is Back! on May 17, 2017, 02:19:07 PM
Worried about fallout, Dems poised to poll-test impeachment
BY ALEX ROARTY
aroarty@mcclatchydc.com
May 16, 2017

Democratic strategists are racing to figure out whether it’s politically wise to call for President Donald Trump’s impeachment, as one bombshell revelation after another about his ties to Russia is forcing candidates for the Senate and House of Representatives to consider the question far sooner than anyone had expected.

In a significant development, party operatives say they expect Democrats to poll-test the public’s views on impeachment, trying to acquire hard data about an issue that until now has not been seriously analyzed. Other strategists say that candidates and party organizations will begin conducting focus groups on the question.

These operatives acknowledge they’ve been caught off guard by the speed with which impeachment has become a relevant issue – and are wary of the political damage it could cause if not handled correctly.

Even 10 days ago, before Trump fired FBI Director James Comey, few party officials had even considered such a dramatic move, which has happened only twice in American history.

“I mean, Jesus, it’s not even Memorial Day!” said one Democratic operative.

Only after testing the question with voters will the party have a firmer sense of how it should act.

“I have no clue, to be honest,” another Democratic operative said when asked what party strategists made of the politics of impeachment after The New York Times reported on a Comey memo that alleges Trump asked the then-FBI director to drop his probe of the president’s first national security adviser. “Still processing what we’re reading in The Times.”

So far, only a handful of Democratic lawmakers have outright called for impeachment. Most have preferred a more cautious approach, calling for a special prosecutor to oversee the investigation into Trump officials’ possible ties to Russia.

Democratic strategists emphasized that they expect that questions of independent investigations – and not calls for impeachment – will be the overwhelming focus for the party in the coming days.

But on Tuesday night, CNN reported that even Republican lawmakers are now debating whether to support an independent prosecutor or independent commission after the latest round of revelations.

And some Democrats are starting to at least entertain the possibility of impeachment.

“If it is, in fact, true, then yes, that is an impeachable offense,” said Rep. Joaquin Castro, D-Texas, on CNN.

Last week, Democratic Rep. Mark Pocan of Wisconsin suggested the country needed an “impeachment clock” to track how close the president was to being removed from office.

Pressure might also mount from the party’s liberal base, which has grown in size and relevance since Trump’s election, to call for impeachment.

One progressive leader called impeachment a “no-brainer.”

“Impeachment is the only way to stop Donald Trump, whose corruption and incompetence is placing our country in greater danger with each passing day,” said Charles Chamberlain, executive director of Democracy for America.

Still, some Democrats expressed skepticism that impeachment is the right move for the party. Tom Perez, chairman of the Democratic National Committee, stuck to his message that a special, independent investigation is needed.

“This is why we need a special prosecutor,” he said. “The evidence is mounting by the day. But as long as Republicans continue putting party over country, justice will never be served. Make no mistake: Their complacency is complicity, and history will remember them as cowards.”

The problem, these more wary Democrats argue, is that so much of the playing field during next year’s midterm elections is in states or districts favorable to Trump.

Senate Democrats must defend 10 states that Trump won during last year’s election.

“Voting for a check on Trump is one thing,” said one national Democratic strategist, granted anonymity to speak candidly about party strategy. “But if a vote for a check on the president . . . becomes a de facto vote for an impeachment trial, the task in front of us will only get more difficult.”

Another operative said he expects that the House GOP’s health care bill – the American Health Care Act – still would play a bigger role in next year’s midterm elections.

“Health care remains the most personal issue facing voters,” he said. “Until that’s taken off the table completely, it’s hard to see how that doesn’t motivate the backlash.”

http://www.mcclatchydc.com/news/nation-world/national/article150938202.html#storylink=cpy

Personally I don't think it matters. Even they do impeach Trump (for absolutely nothing) it will politically backfire on them BIG TIME. We just saw it with the last election. The people will speak even louder in 2018.


Title: Re: Impeachment
Post by: TuHolmes on May 17, 2017, 09:07:26 PM
Personally I don't think it matters. Even they do impeach Trump (for absolutely nothing) it will politically backfire on them BIG TIME. We just saw it with the last election. The people will speak even louder in 2018.

Didn't hurt the Republicans when they impeached Clinton. Got GWB two terms after that.

Besides. So what? It just brings in Pence, who is much better equipped to do the job.


Title: Re: Impeachment
Post by: Dos Equis on May 18, 2017, 03:19:00 PM
Embarrassing. 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3xFVZx1p8Pc


Title: Re: Impeachment
Post by: Dos Equis on May 29, 2017, 12:46:44 PM
Maxine Waters: American Public ‘Getting Weary’ That Trump Not Impeached Yet
by PAM KEY
28 May 2017

Sunday on MSNBC’s “AM Joy,” Rep. Maxine Waters (D-CA) said the public was “getting weary” that Democrats have not done enough to begin the process of impeaching President Donald Trump.

Partial transcript as follows:

REID: Congresswoman, on the subject of being more aggressive, you have openly talked about the fact that this president has put himself in a position where impeachment is on the table but your party, the Democratic party is very reluctant, The New York Times has an article out last week about how hesitant Democratic leadership, in particular, are to call for Donald Trump’s impeachment. In closing, why do you suppose that is?

WATERS: I don’t know what the reticent is but I know this, that the American public is getting weary of all of these actions without enough being done by the elected officials who they elected to represent them. I believe that this man has done enough for us to determine that we can connect the dots, that we can get the facts that will lead to impeachment. I believe there was collusion. I think we have enough information about the meetings, the about the lying about those meetings to help us to understand that something was going on. There was an interaction there. And certainly I believe it was collusion, but if they just do their work and do their job, they will find out it was collusion. And I believe this president should be impeached. I don’t care what others say about ‘it’s too soon, we don’t know, we think.’ I think that they’re letting the American public down by not delving deeper into what is going on with Jared Kushner and this back channeling, about the lies and his failure to disclose he had had these meetings, the same thing with sessions, failure to disclose about the meetings. What more do we need?

http://www.breitbart.com/video/2017/05/28/maxine-waters-american-public-getting-weary-that-trump-not-impeached-yet/


Title: Re: Impeachment
Post by: Soul Crusher on May 30, 2017, 02:51:52 AM
Senile old bag



Maxine Waters: American Public ‘Getting Weary’ That Trump Not Impeached Yet
by PAM KEY
28 May 2017

Sunday on MSNBC’s “AM Joy,” Rep. Maxine Waters (D-CA) said the public was “getting weary” that Democrats have not done enough to begin the process of impeaching President Donald Trump.

Partial transcript as follows:

REID: Congresswoman, on the subject of being more aggressive, you have openly talked about the fact that this president has put himself in a position where impeachment is on the table but your party, the Democratic party is very reluctant, The New York Times has an article out last week about how hesitant Democratic leadership, in particular, are to call for Donald Trump’s impeachment. In closing, why do you suppose that is?

WATERS: I don’t know what the reticent is but I know this, that the American public is getting weary of all of these actions without enough being done by the elected officials who they elected to represent them. I believe that this man has done enough for us to determine that we can connect the dots, that we can get the facts that will lead to impeachment. I believe there was collusion. I think we have enough information about the meetings, the about the lying about those meetings to help us to understand that something was going on. There was an interaction there. And certainly I believe it was collusion, but if they just do their work and do their job, they will find out it was collusion. And I believe this president should be impeached. I don’t care what others say about ‘it’s too soon, we don’t know, we think.’ I think that they’re letting the American public down by not delving deeper into what is going on with Jared Kushner and this back channeling, about the lies and his failure to disclose he had had these meetings, the same thing with sessions, failure to disclose about the meetings. What more do we need?

http://www.breitbart.com/video/2017/05/28/maxine-waters-american-public-getting-weary-that-trump-not-impeached-yet/


Title: Re: Impeachment
Post by: Primemuscle on May 30, 2017, 03:20:10 PM
Senile old bag




At 78 years of age senility is a possibility. Maxine has been in congress since 1991. Her constituency apparently likes her work and no doubt would disagree with your analysis. BTW, how many years have you been been involved in politics? You seem to think you know all about politicians. 


Title: Re: Impeachment
Post by: chaos on May 30, 2017, 03:25:33 PM
Politicians should have term limits at every level and quite possible age limits. At 78 years of age how could she possibly relate to the wants and needs of the 20 something crowd?


Title: Re: Impeachment
Post by: Primemuscle on May 30, 2017, 03:26:44 PM
Personally I don't think it matters. Even they do impeach Trump (for absolutely nothing) it will politically backfire on them BIG TIME. We just saw it with the last election. The people will speak even louder in 2018.

Initially some folks may have thought Pence would be a worse as President because he is very right wing conservative. It's now looking like nobody could be a worse President than Trump has been. If Trump is impeached, it won't be for nothing. You can bet on this.


Title: Re: Impeachment
Post by: chaos on May 30, 2017, 03:31:47 PM
Initially some folks may have thought Pence would be a worse as President because he is very right wing conservative. It's now looking like nobody could be a worse President than Trump has been. If Trump is impeached, it won't be for nothing. You can bet on this.
LMFAO!!! HAHahahaha!!!! How brainwashed are you? Go ahead and list the things Trump should be impeached for....I'll wait. :)


Title: Re: Impeachment
Post by: Primemuscle on May 30, 2017, 03:37:15 PM
Politicians should have term limits at every level and quite possible age limits. At 78 years of age how could she possibly relate to the wants and needs of the 20 something crowd?

So far term limits have been voted down. This may be because being a politician is a difficult enough job that qualified people don't want it.

I'm almost 73 years old and I relate to millennials, thanks to my four grandchildren plus other relatives in this age group and all those years working in education. That being said, many folks forget what is was like being a young adult so they cannot relate to their issues.


Title: Re: Impeachment
Post by: Primemuscle on May 30, 2017, 03:44:53 PM
LMFAO!!! HAHahahaha!!!! How brainwashed are you? Go ahead and list the things Trump should be impeached for....I'll wait. :)

Do you have reading compression issues? Let me try and make this easier for you; Trump will not be impeached if he's done nothing warranting his impeachment.

At the federal level, Article II of the United States Constitution states in Section 4 that "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."

What I think and what you think has no impact on Trump's possible impeachment.


Title: Re: Impeachment
Post by: chaos on May 30, 2017, 03:48:29 PM
Silly me, I somehow connected your "nobody could be worse than Trump" with your comment about him being impeached.
What has he done that was so bad ??? Do you honestly believe Killary would have been a better choice?


Title: Re: Impeachment
Post by: Primemuscle on May 30, 2017, 04:02:34 PM
Silly me, I somehow connected your "nobody could be worse than Trump" with your comment about him being impeached.
What has he done that was so bad ??? Do you honestly believe Killary would have been a better choice?

I don't know if Hillary would have been a better choice for President than Trump. In my opinion, voters had no great Presidential candidate in the last election.
 
Beyond what is reported in the news, I have no idea what Trump has done while in office. What I am sure about is that I don't like the man at all, never have and probably never will. When I wrote that nobody could be worse than Trump, I was stating a personal opinion and not declaring a fact.


Title: Re: Impeachment
Post by: Howard on May 30, 2017, 05:03:35 PM
Wow.

You don't like women, you like PAIN.

8x? Really?

LOL, fuk no !
It's a joke


Title: Re: Impeachment
Post by: Howard on May 30, 2017, 05:05:54 PM
Liberals should love this - nothing is gettimg done on his agenda .   It's chaos 24/7 - and you could have a Pence in there getting his whole agenda rammed through congress.   

I agree 100% and this is why I wish Pence was the current potus.


Title: Re: Impeachment
Post by: Yamcha on May 31, 2017, 04:29:32 AM
I agree 100% and this is why I wish Pence was the current potus.

At this point, I don't think the media would stop salivating even if Pence were POTUS.


Title: Re: Impeachment
Post by: Yamcha on May 31, 2017, 07:27:21 AM
(https://i.redd.it/vwqwzakfnu0z.jpg)


Title: Re: Impeachment
Post by: Howard on May 31, 2017, 07:52:07 AM
At this point, I don't think the media would stop salivating even if Pence were POTUS.

BOTH sides are ignoring the bigger issue here:

NOTHING gets done when a POTUS is in the midst of some major scandal.
To be fair, Hillary would have been mired in some scandal had she won .
Her experience with how gov works would have helped, but, she'd have been politically crippled ( like Trump now).

That's why I think character and ability/experience to work within government matters...a lot.
Reliable, experiences, decent pols like Pence, may lack the charisma of Trump.
BUT, they can get the job done once in office.

Men like Reagan are rare.


Title: Re: Impeachment
Post by: Yamcha on May 31, 2017, 09:06:38 AM


NOTHING gets done when a POTUS is in the midst of some major scandal.


Feel free to go to the "Trump=Winning" thread.

There is quite a bit going on...


Title: Re: Impeachment
Post by: Howard on May 31, 2017, 12:15:12 PM
Feel free to go to the "Trump=Winning" thread.

There is quite a bit going on...

I've yet to see him sign even ONE single pc of legislation , passed by congress.


Title: Re: Impeachment
Post by: Yamcha on May 31, 2017, 12:21:45 PM
I've yet to see him sign even ONE single pc of legislation , passed by congress.

Like I've said to you before: We aren't in need of any new legislation; quite the opposite.

Repeal and deregulate. Repeat.  ;)

Let healthcare implode. Focus on tax cuts. That's the only piece of legislation that needs to be attempted.


Title: Re: Impeachment
Post by: doison on May 31, 2017, 01:29:02 PM
I've yet to see him sign even ONE single pc of legislation , passed by congress.

A government that doesn't continually pass new laws/legislation = winning in my book


Title: Re: Impeachment
Post by: mazrim on May 31, 2017, 02:03:00 PM
Like I've said to you before: We aren't in need of any new legislation; quite the opposite.

Repeal and deregulate. Repeat.  ;)

Let healthcare implode. Focus on tax cuts. That's the only piece of legislation that needs to be attempted.
Exactly!


Title: Re: Impeachment
Post by: chaos on May 31, 2017, 02:35:30 PM
I've yet to see him sign even ONE single pc of legislation , passed by congress.
So we gauge a presidents success by how many new laws he can pass? How about gauging a president on how well he can enforce the current laws before making more unnecessary bullshit laws?


Title: Re: Impeachment
Post by: Soul Crusher on June 01, 2017, 11:46:10 AM
30 Chicago Alderman Sign Letter to Impeach Trump – While City Records 236th Homicide
GP ^ | June 1,2017 | Jim Hoft
Posted on 6/1/2017, 3:27:54 PM by Hojczyk

30 Chicago Alderman Sign Letter to Impeach Trump – While City Records 236th Homicide and Suffers Near Junk Bond Rating

Jim Hoft Jun 1st, 2017 1:38 pm 30 Comments

You just can’t make this stuff up. On Wednesday, 30 Chicago alderman signed a resolution to have Trump impeached.

This is both amusing and concerning.

These aldermen were elected in order to work on issues that are impacting the city.

They need to worry about about what is going on in our back yard instead of the Fake News media conspiracy theories..

Here are the most recent Chicago stats:

1. 236 homicides year to date 2. City employees retirement funds short $20 billion 3. Credit rating near junk bond status 4. Public School pensions skyrocketing – concern with keeping schools open 5. Worst financial shape than any other major city 6. Sanctuary City 7. Person is shot ever 2 hours and 38 minutes in Chicago

And they want to impeach Trump?

(Excerpt) Read more at thegatewaypundit.com ...


Title: Re: Impeachment
Post by: Dos Equis on June 01, 2017, 12:38:02 PM
OK, fair enough.

But he campaigned on doing all kinds of things right after he got into office.
Here's what he's failed to delivery despite promising:

1. Repeal/replace Obama-care   Nope, not yet. Claimed we'd have "something great" for health care.
2. Tax cuts - Nope, not yet
3. Obliterate ISIS - Nope, not yet
4. Have the treasury sec label China a "currency manipulator" and apply tariffs .  Nope and may have reversed himself
5. Get 25% profit deal for Keystone pipeline.  Nope, and required Canada to resubmit permits.
6. Executive order for cop killers to get death penalty . Signed some exec order on this but the death penalty was not in it
7. Claimed he'd never settle the Trump U law suit . Nope, paid a 25 mil settlement
8. Promised to cut ties from his company. Nope , he still retains ownership and gets financial reports .
9. Said several times he would fully fund and save Medicaid . Nope, latest house bill cuts it.
10 Claimed as POTUS he'd apologize when wrong. LOL ::)

Ok, no question that Trump talks a good game , but had no idea HOW he would do it.
THAT was my main problem with Trump , not his stated views or policies.
He had no experience with getting things done within government.

In fairness to the President, he may still make some things happen.
To do so, he needs to learn from his previous mistakes and take a new direction.

I honestly think he CAN do that.
The bigger question is, WILL he do it?
Time will tell...tick tock

This is absolutely absurd.  He has been president for five months.  He hasn't failed at anything yet.  You evaluate success and failure at the end of his term. 


Title: Re: Impeachment
Post by: Yamcha on June 01, 2017, 01:16:03 PM
OK, fair enough.

But he campaigned on doing all kinds of things right after he got into office.
Here's what he's failed to delivery despite promising:

1. Repeal/replace Obama-care   Nope, not yet. Claimed we'd have "something great" for health care.
2. Tax cuts - Nope, not yet
3. Obliterate ISIS - Nope, not yet
4. Have the treasury sec label China a "currency manipulator" and apply tariffs .  Nope and may have reversed himself
5. Get 25% profit deal for Keystone pipeline.  Nope, and required Canada to resubmit permits.
6. Executive order for cop killers to get death penalty . Signed some exec order on this but the death penalty was not in it
7. Claimed he'd never settle the Trump U law suit . Nope, paid a 25 mil settlement
8. Promised to cut ties from his company. Nope , he still retains ownership and gets financial reports .
9. Said several times he would fully fund and save Medicaid . Nope, latest house bill cuts it.
10 Claimed as POTUS he'd apologize when wrong. LOL ::)

Ok, no question that Trump talks a good game , but had no idea HOW he would do it.
THAT was my main problem with Trump , not his stated views or policies.
He had no experience with getting things done within government.

In fairness to the President, he may still make some things happen.
To do so, he needs to learn from his previous mistakes and take a new direction.

I honestly think he CAN do that.
The bigger question is, WILL he do it?
Time will tell...tick tock

You took quite a bit of time to type all that out.

240-esque


Title: Re: Impeachment
Post by: Howard on June 01, 2017, 01:34:39 PM
This is absolutely absurd.  He has been president for five months.  He hasn't failed at anything yet.  You evaluate success and failure at the end of his term. 

There are 1000's of videos and articles of what he PROMISED for the first 100 days during the campaign.
I guess he finally understand running the US Government is tougher than her thought 'eh.
In my opinion, he was clueless about it actually takes to get things done as POTUS.

In fairness, you're  correct and he COULD get plenty of things done .
The bigger question is, will he change enough to actually do it?


Title: Re: Impeachment
Post by: Dos Equis on June 01, 2017, 03:59:46 PM
You took quite a bit of time to type all that out.

240-esque

Yep.


Title: Re: Impeachment
Post by: Dos Equis on June 01, 2017, 04:00:23 PM
There are 1000's of videos and articles of what he PROMISED for the first 100 days during the campaign.
I guess he finally understand running the US Government is tougher than her thought 'eh.
In my opinion, he was clueless about it actually takes to get things done as POTUS.

In fairness, you're  correct and he COULD get plenty of things done .
The bigger question is, will he change enough to actually do it?

And embellishing just like 240.  It's like he never left.   ::)


Title: Re: Impeachment
Post by: HockeyFightFan on June 01, 2017, 07:51:42 PM
There are 1000's of videos and articles of what he PROMISED for the first 100 days during the campaign.
I guess he finally understand running the US Government is tougher than her thought 'eh.
In my opinion, he was clueless about it actually takes to get things done as POTUS.

In fairness, you're  correct and he COULD get plenty of things done .
The bigger question is, will he change enough to actually do it?

The Macedonians kept Hillary out of the White House.

I shit you not, that is what that dumb kunt claimed and idiots like this Howard clown still dream she was the better candidate


Title: Re: Impeachment
Post by: Primemuscle on June 03, 2017, 02:03:34 PM
Like I've said to you before: We aren't in need of any new legislation; quite the opposite.

Repeal and deregulate. Repeat.  ;)

Let healthcare implode. Focus on tax cuts. That's the only piece of legislation that needs to be attempted.

Congress is not helping Trump with these issues. His budget which includes big tax breaks for the wealthy is all but dead in Congress.


Title: Re: Impeachment
Post by: Primemuscle on June 03, 2017, 02:04:56 PM
This is absolutely absurd.  He has been president for five months.  He hasn't failed at anything yet.  You evaluate success and failure at the end of his term. 

Which might be sooner rather than later.


Title: Re: Impeachment
Post by: chaos on June 03, 2017, 05:22:12 PM
Which might be sooner rather than later.
Another 7 1/2 years..... :-*


Title: Re: Impeachment
Post by: HockeyFightFan on June 03, 2017, 06:43:54 PM
Which might be sooner rather than later.

Zero chance of impeachment, Trump will be an easy two-term President


Title: Re: Impeachment
Post by: mazrim on June 04, 2017, 03:17:30 AM
Congress is not helping Trump with these issues. His budget which includes big tax breaks for the wealthy is all but dead in Congress.
Danger, danger!!.......Talking point, talking point!


Title: Re: Impeachment
Post by: HockeyFightFan on June 04, 2017, 11:20:32 AM
Danger, danger!!.......Talking point, talking point!

His entire thought process is whatever Rachel Maddow and Chris Mathews tell him it is.

His posts have about as much thought behind them as Howard or Straw Manboylover 


Title: Re: Impeachment
Post by: Soul Crusher on June 07, 2017, 10:57:53 AM
http://thehill.com/homenews/house/336741-dem-leaders-reject-impeachment-push
 :o



Title: Re: Impeachment
Post by: Skeletor on June 07, 2017, 11:43:51 AM
http://thehill.com/homenews/house/336741-dem-leaders-reject-impeachment-push
 :o



(http://assets.thepoliticalinsider.com.s3.amazonaws.com/content/uploads/2017/05/801-maxine-waters-1200-730x480-1496193456.png)


Title: Re: Impeachment
Post by: Straw Man on June 07, 2017, 12:02:09 PM
His entire thought process is whatever Rachel Maddow and Chris Mathews tell him it is.

His posts have about as much thought behind them as Howard or Straw Manboylover 

pretty obvious what you spend time thinking about

definitely keep projecting your feelings on other people

that's the best way to repress what you obviously desire


Title: Re: Impeachment
Post by: Dos Equis on June 08, 2017, 11:08:59 AM
House Dem drafting articles of impeachment for Trump
BY MIKE LILLIS - 06/06/17

A House Democrat will soon launch an official attempt to impeach President Trump.

Rep. Al Green, a Texas Democrat and member of the Congressional Black Caucus (CBC), is readying the articles of impeachment that mark the first official step in any congressional bid to remove a sitting president.

The articles have little chance of seeing the light of day in a House chamber controlled by Republicans, who have rallied behind Trump amid multiple investigations into ties between Russia and members of the president’s inner circle. But Green’s gambit highlights the growing apprehension many Democrats have toward the president, and it’s sure to energize a liberal base that’s sounded the impeachment alarm with increasing volume as the Russian investigation saga has evolved.

Green’s criticisms focus on Trump’s firing of former FBI Director James Comey, who was leading the administration’s probe into Russia’s meddling in the 2016 election. Trump had reportedly pressured Comey earlier in the year to drop the investigation into Michael Flynn, Trump’s former national security adviser, who was fired after lying about the nature of his conversations with a Russian ambassador.

Comey’s firing brought accusations, primarily from Democrats, that Trump may have obstructed an ongoing Justice Department investigation — an impeachable offense, in the eyes of Green.

“The facts are simple and indisputable. The President fired the FBI Director because the Director was investigating the President’s campaign connections to Russian interference in the Presidential Election,” Green said Tuesday evening in a statement. “This is obstruction of justice.”

The episode will be front-and-center on Capitol Hill later this week. Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein, who was critical of Comey and had a hand in his firing, is set to appear Wednesday before the Senate Intelligence Committee. Comey himself is set to appear before the same panel the following day.

It’s unclear when Green will officially introduce the articles he’s currently drafting. It’s also unclear if he’ll have any co-sponsors, though Green has not been alone in his calls for impeaching Trump. California Democratic Rep. Maxine Waters, another CBC member, has also beaten that drum.

A spokesman said Green will provide more details Wednesday afternoon, when he’s scheduled a press briefing in the Capitol.

Green’s effort comes even as Democratic leaders are treading much more lightly in their approach to the Russia-Trump saga. With Trump’s approval rating underwater — and new details in the Russia probe emerging almost daily — party leaders sense an opportunity to make huge gains at the polls in 2018 and don’t want to overplay their hand. They’ve tamped down any talk of impeachment, calling instead for the creation of an independent, 9/11-style commission to investigate the Russia inquiry.

“What I've said to members [is] the only thing that matters are the facts — the facts and the law,” House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) said Tuesday on CNN’s “New Day” program, when asked about impeachment. “That's what [an] investigation will reveal to us.”

Green has rejected that argument, contending that Trump’s actions have already risen to a level demanding congressional intervention.

“This will remain obstruction of justice regardless of the findings of any investigation,” he said.

“Obstruction of justice by the President is the problem,” he added. “Impeachment by Congress is the solution.”

http://thehill.com/homenews/house/336677-house-dem-drafting-articles-of-impeachment-for-trump


Title: Re: Impeachment
Post by: Yamcha on June 08, 2017, 12:23:06 PM
House Dem drafting articles of impeachment for Trump
BY MIKE LILLIS - 06/06/17

A House Democrat will soon launch an official attempt to impeach President Trump.

Rep. Al Green, a Texas Democrat and member of the Congressional Black Caucus (CBC), is readying the articles of impeachment that mark the first official step in any congressional bid to remove a sitting president.

The articles have little chance of seeing the light of day in a House chamber controlled by Republicans, who have rallied behind Trump amid multiple investigations into ties between Russia and members of the president’s inner circle. But Green’s gambit highlights the growing apprehension many Democrats have toward the president, and it’s sure to energize a liberal base that’s sounded the impeachment alarm with increasing volume as the Russian investigation saga has evolved.

Green’s criticisms focus on Trump’s firing of former FBI Director James Comey, who was leading the administration’s probe into Russia’s meddling in the 2016 election. Trump had reportedly pressured Comey earlier in the year to drop the investigation into Michael Flynn, Trump’s former national security adviser, who was fired after lying about the nature of his conversations with a Russian ambassador.

Comey’s firing brought accusations, primarily from Democrats, that Trump may have obstructed an ongoing Justice Department investigation — an impeachable offense, in the eyes of Green.

“The facts are simple and indisputable. The President fired the FBI Director because the Director was investigating the President’s campaign connections to Russian interference in the Presidential Election,” Green said Tuesday evening in a statement. “This is obstruction of justice.”

The episode will be front-and-center on Capitol Hill later this week. Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein, who was critical of Comey and had a hand in his firing, is set to appear Wednesday before the Senate Intelligence Committee. Comey himself is set to appear before the same panel the following day.

It’s unclear when Green will officially introduce the articles he’s currently drafting. It’s also unclear if he’ll have any co-sponsors, though Green has not been alone in his calls for impeaching Trump. California Democratic Rep. Maxine Waters, another CBC member, has also beaten that drum.

A spokesman said Green will provide more details Wednesday afternoon, when he’s scheduled a press briefing in the Capitol.

Green’s effort comes even as Democratic leaders are treading much more lightly in their approach to the Russia-Trump saga. With Trump’s approval rating underwater — and new details in the Russia probe emerging almost daily — party leaders sense an opportunity to make huge gains at the polls in 2018 and don’t want to overplay their hand. They’ve tamped down any talk of impeachment, calling instead for the creation of an independent, 9/11-style commission to investigate the Russia inquiry.

“What I've said to members [is] the only thing that matters are the facts — the facts and the law,” House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) said Tuesday on CNN’s “New Day” program, when asked about impeachment. “That's what [an] investigation will reveal to us.”

Green has rejected that argument, contending that Trump’s actions have already risen to a level demanding congressional intervention.

“This will remain obstruction of justice regardless of the findings of any investigation,” he said.

“Obstruction of justice by the President is the problem,” he added. “Impeachment by Congress is the solution.”

http://thehill.com/homenews/house/336677-house-dem-drafting-articles-of-impeachment-for-trump

lol


Title: Re: Impeachment
Post by: Dos Equis on June 08, 2017, 03:16:34 PM
lol

These people are like cartoon characters. 


Title: Re: Impeachment
Post by: Dos Equis on July 04, 2017, 01:26:37 PM
What is the 25th Amendment?
Published July 04, 2017

A bill calling for a presidential oversight commission which could be used to evaluate President Donald Trump -- and possibly deem him unfit for office -- has gained the support of multiple Democrats.

In April, Rep. Jamie Raskin, D-Md., introduced a bill in April for the Oversight Commission on Presidential Capacity Act.  As part of the bill, an 11-member commission would include doctors and determine if the president "is mentally or physically unable to discharge the powers and duties of the office."

The bill says that the commission would "carry out section 4 of the 25th Amendment." Fox News breaks down what the constitutional amendment entails.

 Rep. Jamie Raskin ✔ @RepRaskin
.@POTUS' incapacity must be seriously addressed. Check out my bill, the Oversight Commission on Presidential Capacity Act, HR 1987. #OCPCAct
9:06 AM - 12 May 2017
  2,516 2,516 Retweets   3,690 3,690 likes

What is the 25th Amendment?

The amendment is made up of four sections, and lays out how the president would be succeeded in office. 

KUCINICH RIPS DEMS FOR PROPOSAL TO EXAMINE TRUMP'S MENTAL FITNESS

Why do we have the 25th Amendment?

Constitutional rules about presidential succession had been unclear before the amendment was ratified in 1967, the U.S. Senate's website says. The amendment, it says, was debated following President John F. Kennedy's 1963 assassination and during the time President Lyndon B. Johnson spent without a vice president.  The amendment was ratified in 1967.

What does the first section of the amendment say?
It says that if the president is removed from office, resigns, or dies, the vice president becomes president.

What about the 25th Amendment's second section?

The president will nominate someone "who shall take office upon confirmation by a majority vote of both Houses of Congress" if there isn't a vice president.

DEMS DRAFT BILL THAT COULD ACTIVATE 25TH AMENDMENT POWERS TO REMOVE TRUMP

What does the amendment's third section say?

30 Jun
 Rep. Jamie Raskin  ✔ @RepRaskin
Americans are talking about the #25thAmendment. Why do we have it and what did its Framers intend? https://www.yahoo.com/news/25th-amendment-used-remove-trump-215814401.html?soc_src=social-sh&soc_trk=tw …

 Rep. Jamie Raskin ✔ @RepRaskin
Section 4 of the #25thAmendment empowers Congress to create a body that can confront presidential incapacity. pic.twitter.com/RMBNa2BnsJ
5:18 AM - 30 Jun 2017
View image on Twitter
  816 816 Retweets   1,277 1,277 likes

The vice president will serve as acting president, if the president tells the President pro tempore and the Speaker of the House of Representatives that he cannot "discharge the powers and duties of his office." The vice president would continue in the role unless the president says that he can serve.

What about the fourth section?

The vice president would serve as acting president if he "and a majority of either the principal officers of the executive departments or of such other body as Congress may by law provide" tell the President pro tempore of the Senate and the Speaker of the House that the president is unable to do his job. The amendment says that Congress would convene if there was a dispute over the president's ability to serve.

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2017/07/04/what-is-25th-amendment.html


Title: Re: Impeachment
Post by: Dos Equis on July 12, 2017, 03:12:27 PM
Congressman Takes First Formal Step To Impeach Trump
Democratic California Rep. Brad Sherman believes the president obstructed justice.
By Ryan Grenoble
07/12/2017

On Wednesday, Rep. Brad Sherman (D-Calif.) introduced an article of impeachment in the House, seeking to remove President Donald Trump from office for obstruction of justice. Rep. Al Green (D-Texas) co-sponsored the article.

Sherman first raised the specter of impeachment in early June, basing his case on Trump’s apparent interference in an FBI investigation into his former national security advisor, Michael Flynn.

As Sherman sees it, Trump’s firing of FBI Director James Comey ― who says he was fired in retaliation for continuing to investigate Flynn ― constitutes obstruction of justice.

“Recent disclosures by Donald Trump Jr. indicate that Trump’s campaign was eager to receive assistance from Russia,” Sherman explained in a media release. “It now seems likely that the President had something to hide when he tried to curtail the investigation of National Security Advisor Michael Flynn and the wider Russian probe. I believe his conversations with, and subsequent firing of, FBI Director James Comey constitute Obstruction of Justice.”


While Sherman said Trump has also engaged in all manner of decidedly unpresidential conduct, he acknowledged that doesn’t constitute an impeachable offense.

“The Constitution does not provide for the removal of a President for impulsive, ignorant incompetence,” he wrote. “It does provide for the removal of a President for High Crimes and Misdemeanors.”

Sherman is under no illusion that House Republicans will move forward on impeachment, but he hopes formally raising the option might nonetheless spur them to action in one of two ways:

First, I have slight hope it will inspire an “intervention” in the White House.  If Impeachment is real, if they actually see Articles, perhaps we will see incompetency replaced by care.  Perhaps uncontrollable impulses will be controlled. And perhaps the danger our nation faces will be ameliorated.

Second, and more likely, filing Articles of Impeachment is the first step on a very long road.  But if the impulsive incompetency continues, then eventually—many, many months from now—Republicans will join the impeachment effort.
The White House did not immediately respond to a request from HuffPost for comment, but in a statement to Time correspondent Zeke Miller, called Sherman’s effort “utterly ridiculous” and “a political game at its worst.”

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/sherman-impeach-trump-article-obstruction_us_59666d71e4b0a0c6f1e5517f?4b&ncid=inblnkushpmg00000009


Title: Re: Impeachment
Post by: Dos Equis on July 17, 2017, 01:44:12 PM
Poll: More support impeaching Trump than Nixon at start of Watergate
BY JACQUELINE THOMSEN - 07/17/17

Impeaching President Trump is more popular now than impeaching President Richard Nixon was at the start of the Watergate scandal, according to a Monmouth University poll.

The poll, released Monday, found 41 percent of Americans support impeachment for Trump. In comparison, 26 percent supported Nixon’s impeachment six months into his second term, as the Watergate scandal was breaking.

Monmouth University Polling Institute director Patrick Murray said the higher percentage of Americans wanting impeachment is caused by “the current epidemic of hyper-partisanship that was simply not prevalent forty years ago.”

The poll also found that Trump has a 39 percent job approval rating. And 59 percent said the meeting between top Trump campaign officials — including Donald Trump Jr. — and a Russian lawyer last year was inappropriate.

Fifty percent said they believed the purposes of the meeting was to get negative information about Hillary Clinton, and 39 percent said Trump’s son-in-law and White House adviser Jared Kushner should be made to resign after attending the meeting.

The survey also found that nearly two-thirds think the Russian government definitely or probably tried to interfere in the election, and 54 percent believe Trump is too friendly toward Russia.

The Monmouth University poll surveyed 800 American adults from July 13 to 16 and has a margin of error of 3.5 percentage points.

http://thehill.com/homenews/administration/342359-poll-more-americans-support-impeaching-trump-than-nixon-at-the-start


Title: Re: Impeachment
Post by: Yamcha on July 17, 2017, 02:26:05 PM
Poll: More support impeaching Trump than Nixon at start of Watergate
BY JACQUELINE THOMSEN - 07/17/17

Impeaching President Trump is more popular now than impeaching President Richard Nixon was at the start of the Watergate scandal, according to a Monmouth University poll.

The poll, released Monday, found 41 percent of Americans support impeachment for Trump. In comparison, 26 percent supported Nixon’s impeachment six months into his second term, as the Watergate scandal was breaking.

Monmouth University Polling Institute director Patrick Murray said the higher percentage of Americans wanting impeachment is caused by “the current epidemic of hyper-partisanship that was simply not prevalent forty years ago.”

The poll also found that Trump has a 39 percent job approval rating. And 59 percent said the meeting between top Trump campaign officials — including Donald Trump Jr. — and a Russian lawyer last year was inappropriate.

Fifty percent said they believed the purposes of the meeting was to get negative information about Hillary Clinton, and 39 percent said Trump’s son-in-law and White House adviser Jared Kushner should be made to resign after attending the meeting.

The survey also found that nearly two-thirds think the Russian government definitely or probably tried to interfere in the election, and 54 percent believe Trump is too friendly toward Russia.

The Monmouth University poll surveyed 800 American adults from July 13 to 16 and has a margin of error of 3.5 percentage points.

http://thehill.com/homenews/administration/342359-poll-more-americans-support-impeaching-trump-than-nixon-at-the-start

(https://i.redd.it/n70fbo8uh6az.jpg)


Title: Re: Impeachment
Post by: Moontrane on July 17, 2017, 04:24:50 PM
(https://i.redd.it/n70fbo8uh6az.jpg)

(https://media.tenor.com/images/3fb980831f0eeac97b5abf25248f03f3/tenor.gif) (http://replygif.net/i/735.gif)(https://media3.giphy.com/media/nZ0tWDgS8ZgyI/200.webp#0-grid1)


Title: Re: Impeachment
Post by: Dos Equis on September 26, 2017, 12:12:56 PM
Dem lawmaker threatens to force Trump impeachment vote next week
BY CRISTINA MARCOS - 09/26/17
   
Dem lawmaker threatens to force Trump impeachment vote next week

Rep. Al Green (D-Texas) said Tuesday that he will move to force a House floor vote to impeach President Trump next week as he denounced Trump's attacks on NFL players protesting police brutality.

Green, a member of the Congressional Black Caucus, stood on the GOP side of the House chamber to announce his plans to file a resolution that will automatically trigger a floor vote.

“I rise today as a proud American. A person who believes in his country, who salutes the flag and says the Pledge of Allegiance and sings the national anthem,” Green said, wearing an American flag-themed tie.

“I will stand here in the well of the Congress, and I will call for the impeachment of the president of the United States of America,” he said.

Trump renewed the controversy over former San Francisco 49ers quarterback Colin Kaepernick’s kneeling protests at a rally in Alabama on Friday.

“Wouldn't you love to see one of these NFL owners, when somebody disrespects our flag, to say, 'Get that son of a bitch off the field right now. He is fired,’ ” Trump said.

Green denounced Trump’s comments, saying they amount to “a level of indecency that is unbecoming the presidency.”

“I rise to say to the world that this is not what America is all about,” Green said, hitting the podium for emphasis.

Under House rules, any member can file what is known as a “privileged” resolution that argues something goes against the dignity and integrity of the House.

Even if Republicans reject it, as expected, Green can still force a procedural vote on his resolution.

Green has called for Trump’s impeachment before. He signed on to an article of impeachment filed by Rep. Brad Sherman (D-Calif.) in July that argues Trump obstructed justice by firing James Comey as FBI director amid the agency’s investigation of whether his campaign colluded with the Russian government.

Green previously threatened to file a privileged resolution to impeach Trump in June if he ousted Robert Mueller, the special counsel now overseeing the FBI’s investigation.

“I think that would be a part of the last straw, if not the last straw, if he did that,” Green told The Hill at the time.

It's unclear if the latest privileged resolution on which Green is threatening to force a vote will also cite the Comey firing as justification for impeaching Trump. A spokesman didn't immediately return a request for comment.

http://thehill.com/blogs/floor-action/house/352456-dem-lawmaker-threatens-to-force-trump-impeachment-vote-next-week


Title: Re: Impeachment
Post by: TheGrinch on September 26, 2017, 06:32:35 PM
So you can now impeach a president because you don't like his views ??   ???


Title: Re: Impeachment
Post by: Dos Equis on October 03, 2017, 09:46:03 AM
President Trump must be breathing a sigh of relief.

Dem Rep Green: Trump Impeachment ‘Postponed’ in the Wake of Vegas Shooting

by PAM KEY
2 Oct 2017

Monday following the Las Vegas, NV shooting, Rep. Al Green (D-TX) announced on the House floor that his effort to impeach President Donald Trump was postponed.

Green said, “Mr. Speaker, our nation is in mourning. Many hearts are bleeding. Mr. Speaker, there is much suffering. Lives have been lost in a senseless, needless manner in Las Vegas. Mr. Speaker, there is a right time for all things. This is a time for our nation to mourn and for hearts to heal.”

He added, “Mr. Speaker, I announce that impeachment is postponed.”

http://www.breitbart.com/video/2017/10/02/dem-rep-green-trump-impeachment-postponed-wake-vegas-shooting/


Title: Re: Impeachment
Post by: Dos Equis on October 11, 2017, 02:56:23 PM
How the heck did this man get elected to Congress??

Dem Rep. Al Green introduces articles of impeachment against Trump
Alex Pappas By Alex Pappas, Fox News

Liberal Democratic Rep. Al Green on Wednesday followed through on threats to file articles of impeachment against President Trump, introducing the resolution in the House while delivering an anti-Trump tirade on the floor.

The Texas congressman's maneuver was short-lived. While Green could have forced a vote as early as Wednesday, he opted not to take further action and the articles effectively expired.

However, Green could reintroduce the measure at any time, and a spokesman for the lawmaker told Fox News he may do so.

“Today, I rise to use the constitutionally prescribed political process of impeachment to speak truth to the most powerful man on earth, the president of the United States of America,” Green said in a speech on the House floor.

Accusing Trump of betraying “his trust as president” by embracing racism, Green referenced Adolf Hitler and made the point that Trump can still be removed from office even if he didn’t commit a crime.

“The public has been led to believe that a president must commit a crime to be impeached, which is not true,” Green said. “If any president persisted with the lie that ‘Hitler was right,’ he would be, and should be, impeached not for a crime, but for betraying his trust as president.”

White House press secretary Sarah Huckabee Sanders speaks during the daily press briefing, Monday, July 31, 2017, in Washington. (AP Photo/Evan Vucci)
White House Press Secretary Sarah Sanders called the effort "pathetic" in a tweet Wednesday.  (AP Photo/Evan Vucci)
Green’s resolution covered four articles of impeachment.

One accused the president of “inciting white supremacy, sexism, bigotry, hatred, xenophobia, race-baiting, and racism by demeaning, defaming, disrespecting and disparaging women and certain minorities.” Another alleged Trump brought “shame and dishonor to the office of the presidency by associating the majesty and dignity of the presidency with causes rooted in white supremacy, bigotry, racism, anti-Semitism, white nationalism and neo-Nazism.”

Another still condemned Trump for saying “three to five million people voted illegally in the 2016 presidential election.”

The fourth article accused the president of “encouraging law enforcement officials to violate the Constitutional rights of the suspects in their case.”

 Follow
Sarah Sanders ✔ @PressSec
Dems response to historic stock market rally, 1m+ new jobs & middle class tax cut agenda under @POTUS. #OutofTouch #Pathetic https://twitter.com/jakesherman/status/918152862173138945 …
8:15 AM - Oct 11, 2017
 1,044 1,044 Replies   1,592 1,592 Retweets   4,002 4,002 likes
Twitter Ads info and privacy
White House Press Secretary Sarah Sanders called the effort "pathetic" in a tweet Wednesday.

Green initially said he planned to file the resolution last week, but he postponed it after the mass shooting in Las Vegas.

“Impeachment is postponed,” Green said last week. “Let us mourn. Let us heal.”

REP. GREEN SEEKS TRUMP IMPEACHMENT VOTE, PUTTING DEMS IN TIGHT SPOT

Green's push is not supported by many senior Democrats, even as they rail against the president.

New York Rep. Jerrold Nadler, a Democrat on the House Judiciary Committee, told The Hill in response to Green’s threat: “We’re not there yet,” despite Trump having done “really terrible things.”

If Green brings back the measure, it’s likely that lawmakers in the GOP-controlled House would vote to set aside his resolution. This could still put some Democrats in a bad spot, as they would likely face pressure from outside liberal groups to vote against tabling the articles.

The House Judiciary Committee did not consider Green’s articles for floor debate, as it did when then-President Bill Clinton was impeached in in 1998.

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2017/10/11/dem-rep-al-green-introduces-articles-impeachment-against-trump.html


Title: Re: Impeachment
Post by: Dos Equis on October 11, 2017, 03:37:53 PM
Congressman introduces articles to impeach Trump: What to know about the process
By Kaitlyn Schallhorn, Fox News

Raw video: Democratic representative from Texas takes to House floor to file articles of impeachment against Donald Trump, forcing vote

Rep. Al Green, D-Texas, filed articles of impeachment against President Donald Trump on Wednesday – but the move soon died as no action was taken.

Green offered four scathing articles of impeachment on the House floor. No action was taken, and Green forewent an opportunity to force action on them – letting the articles expire.

Read on for a look at how the impeachment process works – and just what that means for the president.

What does impeachment mean?
Congress has the ability to remove a sitting president from office before his term is finished – an authority granted by the Constitution.

Along with the president and vice president, all civil officers in the U.S. can be removed from office if they are impeached and convicted of bribery, treason or other high crimes and misdemeanors, according to the Constitution.

How does impeachment work?
Article One of the Constitution grants the House of Representatives the sole power of impeachment; the Senate has the sole authority to try all impeachments. If the president is being tried, the Chief Justice should preside over the trial.

The House must vote, requiring a simple majority vote to adopt the articles of impeachment. Before a vote, the House Judiciary Committee – or another special committee – may investigate the articles.

The House is able to vote to impeach even if the committee does not recommend doing so.

Should that vote be reached, then the House will appoint members – called managers – to act as “prosecutors” as the proceedings will then go to trial in the Senate. The president is able to have defense attorneys.

The Senate would need a two-thirds majority in order to find the president guilty. Should that happen, the president would be removed from and the vice president takes office.

Have other presidents been impeached?
Only two U.S. presidents have been impeached – and neither were removed from office.

Andrew Johnson was impeached in 1868 and Bill Clinton in 1998.

While an impeachment proceeding began against former President Richard Nixon, he was not actually impeached. Nixon was the only president to resign from office.

What is the White House’s response?
White House press secretary Sarah Sanders said the move was “pathetic” in a tweet Wednesday afternoon.

 Follow
Sarah Sanders ✔ @PressSec
Dems response to historic stock market rally, 1m+ new jobs & middle class tax cut agenda under @POTUS. #OutofTouch #Pathetic https://twitter.com/jakesherman/status/918152862173138945 …
8:15 AM - Oct 11, 2017
 1,098 1,098 Replies   1,718 1,718 Retweets   4,369 4,369 likes
Twitter Ads info and privacy
What do Green’s articles say?
Green’s impeachment articles covered a wide range of issues. One accused Trump of “inciting white supremacy, sexism, bigotry, hatred, xenophobia, race-baiting, and racism by demeaning, defaming, disrespecting and disparaging women and certain minorities.”

Another criticized the president for alleging that several million people illegally voted in the 2016 election.

One article said Trump has brought “shame and dishonor to the office of the presidency” because he has associated it with “causes rooted in white supremacy, bigotry, racism, anti-Semitism, white nationalism and neo-Nazism.”

And another article said Trump has “enourag[ed] law enforcement officials to violate the Constitutional rights of the suspect in their case.”

Since no action was immediately taken, the articles expired.

Green does have the ability to reintroduce his articles at a later date. A spokesperson for the congressman told Fox News that Green wanted to give his colleagues time to review what he’s put forth.

The Associated Press reported that Green’s articles did not accuse Trump of a crime, but the congressman said that was not needed to impeach.

Would impeachment work?
With a Republican-led House – and other Democratic congressmen who don’t support impeaching Trump – the lawmaker’s bid to remove Trump from office is considered to be a longshot.

Democratic leaders have distanced themselves from the efforts to impeach Trump, including Green’s, believing it serves only to energize the president's supporters.

Fox News’ Chad Pergram and The Associated Press contributed to this report.

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2017/10/11/congressman-introduces-articles-to-impeach-trump-what-to-know-about-process.html


Title: Re: Impeachment
Post by: Dos Equis on October 13, 2017, 02:46:34 PM
Porn King Larry Flynt Offers $10 Million for Information Leading to Trump Impeachment
October 13, 2017 by Jim Hoft

Porn King Larry Flynt and Hustler Magazine is offering $10 million for information leading to the impeachment of Donald J. Trump as president.

Flynt will advertise the offer this weekend in the Washington Post.

In October 2016 Larry Flynt offered $1 million for recordings of Donald Trump breaking the law or acting in sexually demeaning manner.

This week he upped his offer to $10 million for information that will impeach Trump.

Liz Claman ✔ @LizClaman
3:30p FBN EXCLSV: @washingtonpost will run a Sun.Hustler Mag's @ImLarryFlynt offers $10m 4 info on @realDonaldTrump
(https://pbs.twimg.com/media/DMCi3oYW4AMg6cp.jpg)
8:56 AM - Oct 13, 2017
Twitter Ads info and privacy

Class act.

http://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2017/10/porn-king-larry-flynt-offers-10-million-information-leading-trump-impeachment/


Title: Re: Impeachment
Post by: Las Vegas on October 13, 2017, 02:52:24 PM
I wonder how he makes his money these days.  Looks like he must've transitioned from paper to electronic pretty well.


Title: Re: Impeachment
Post by: Dos Equis on October 13, 2017, 04:22:48 PM
I wonder how he makes his money these days.  Looks like he must've transitioned from paper to electronic pretty well.

No idea.  He's reportedly worth $500 mil.  Seems low given his line of work and age.  But he is on his 5th wife . . . . .


Title: Re: Impeachment
Post by: jude2 on October 13, 2017, 08:55:14 PM
Love how some of the sissy asses try to stay relavent.


Title: Re: Impeachment
Post by: Primemuscle on October 13, 2017, 10:46:40 PM
I wonder how he makes his money these days.  Looks like he must've transitioned from paper to electronic pretty well.

Larry Flint has led a very colorful life. He's admitted that he is bi-polar. Over the years, Flint has taken an active role in politics. Physically he's not in great shape. As a result of being shot, he's been wheelchair bound for decades. He also suffered a stroke, which resulted in impaired speech. Nothing seems to hold him down though.


Title: Re: Impeachment
Post by: Las Vegas on October 14, 2017, 07:17:49 AM
No idea.  He's reportedly worth $500 mil.  Seems low given his line of work and age.  But he is on his 5th wife . . . . .

Just read a little bio on him and (if true) he's been a real slickster since the very beginning.  As for his initial break, though:

Quote
In July 1974, the first issue of Hustler was published. Although the first few issues went largely unnoticed, within a year the magazine became highly lucrative and Flynt was able to pay his tax debts.  Flynt's friend Al Goldstein said that Hustler took its inspiration from his own tabloid SCREW, but credited him with accomplishing what he had not: creating a national publication.  In November 1974, Hustler showed the first "pink-shots," or photos of open vulvas.  Flynt had to fight to publish each issue, as many people, including some at his distribution company, found the magazine too explicit and threatened to remove it from the market. Shortly thereafter, Flynt was approached by a paparazzo who had taken nude pictures of former First Lady Jacqueline Kennedy Onassis while she was sunbathing on vacation in 1971. He purchased them for $18,000 and published them in the August 1975 issue. That issue attracted widespread attention, and one million copies were sold within a few days.  Now a millionaire, Flynt bought a $375,000 mansion.


Title: Re: Impeachment
Post by: Las Vegas on October 14, 2017, 07:28:06 AM
Larry Flint has led a very colorful life. He's admitted that he is bi-polar. Over the years, Flint has taken an active role in politics. Physically he's not in great shape. As a result of being shot, he's been wheelchair bound for decades. He also suffered a stroke, which resulted in impaired speech. Nothing seems to hold him down though.

Hard to believe he's only a couple of years older than you, Prime.  He's busted apart, completely.  You have a lot to be thankful for.

Btw, turns out the guy who shot him was never brought to trial for that, but was executed just a few years ago in Missouri for something else.  He was a serial killer who got away with untold murder, and he also shot Vernon Jordan at one point and escaped conviction for that.  Quite a character.


Title: Re: Impeachment
Post by: Primemuscle on October 14, 2017, 02:16:36 PM
Hard to believe he's only a couple of years older than you, Prime.  He's busted apart, completely.  You have a lot to be thankful for.

Btw, turns out the guy who shot him was never brought to trial for that, but was executed just a few years ago in Missouri for something else.  He was a serial killer who got away with untold murder, and he also shot Vernon Jordan at one point and escaped conviction for that.  Quite a character.

Well, my life is incredibly tame and boring as compared to Larry Flynt.   


Title: Re: Impeachment
Post by: Yamcha on October 14, 2017, 02:47:42 PM
Well, my life is incredibly tame and boring as compared to Larry Flynt.   


Title: Re: Impeachment
Post by: Dos Equis on October 23, 2017, 03:59:12 PM
California billionaire launches ads urging Trump impeachment
By Kathleen Ronayne | AP October 20, 2017

SACRAMENTO, Calif. — California billionaire Tom Steyer announced Friday that he will dump at least $10 million into a national television advertising campaign calling for President Donald Trump’s impeachment.

In the ad, Steyer argues Trump should be ousted from office because he has edged the country toward nuclear war, obstructed justice at the FBI and threatened to shut down news organizations he does not like. He urges viewers to call their members of Congress and tell them to bring articles of impeachment.

“People in Congress and his own administration know this president is a clear and present danger who is mentally unstable and armed with nuclear weapons,” Steyer says in the ad. “And they do nothing.”

Steyer plans to spend eight figures to air the television ads nationally, but he would not give an exact amount. His investment comes as he considers running against U.S. Sen. Dianne Feinstein, a fellow Democrat, and as Democrats in Washington argue over whether efforts to impeach Trump are smart or worthwhile.

“If Democrats want to appease the far left and their liberal mega-donors by supporting a baseless, radical effort that the vast majority of Americans disagree with, then have at it,” said Michael Ahrens, a spokesman for the Republican National Committee.

Republicans will focus on “issues voters actually care about,” such as the economy and cutting taxes, he said.

The White House did not immediately respond to a request for comment.

Steyer also said he will spend seven figures on an accompanying digital ad campaign.

An impeachment resolution brought last week by Democratic U.S. Rep. Al Green of Texas died before coming up for a vote. Green has vowed to try again.

But Democrats such as House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi of California think impeachment attempts are not worthwhile because they will fail in the Republican-led Congress and could energize GOP voters heading into the next election.

Steyer has poured his wealth into a variety of political efforts, mostly focused on stopping climate change.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/national/california-billionaire-launches-ads-urging-trump-impeachment/2017/10/20/9b5d769a-b5b6-11e7-9b93-b97043e57a22_story.html?utm_term=.dbfac7edcdec


Title: Re: Impeachment
Post by: Dos Equis on October 31, 2017, 03:57:28 PM
What a monumental waste of money.

Trump responds to Calif. billionaire urging impeachment
By KEN THOMAS
Oct. 27, 2017
 
WASHINGTON (AP) — President Donald Trump is responding to a California billionaire who has vowed to spend at least $10 million in advertising calling for the president’s impeachment.

Trump is using Twitter to call Tom Steyer “wacky & totally unhinged.” He says Steyer “has been fighting me and my Make America Great Again agenda from the beginning,” adding the billionaire environmentalist “never wins elections!”

Steyer recently launched the advertising, which has been running on Fox News and other national outlets, arguing that Trump should be ousted from office. Steyer contends Trump is pushing the U.S. toward a nuclear war, is obstructing justice at the FBI and threatening to shut down news organizations he doesn’t like.

Steyer wants viewers to call their members of Congress and tell them to bring articles of impeachment.

https://www.apnews.com/577792f7374048e5ad35e79af61a5cac


Title: Re: Impeachment
Post by: Dos Equis on November 01, 2017, 03:04:48 PM
Gutiérrez Pushes Impeachment Day After NYC Terror Attack
PETER HASSON
Associate Editor
11/01/2017

Democratic Rep. Luis Gutiérrez is pushing full steam ahead with impeachment measures the day after an Islamist terrorist attack in New York City that left eight people dead.

House Democrats will file impeachment measures before Thanksgiving, Gutiérrez told The Hill on Wednesday. “It is clear to us that he is unfit to be president of the United States of America,” the Illinois congressman said.

Gutiérrez declined to say on what basis Democrats will make their impeachment case but told The Hill, “I assure you we will not leave you lacking for reason.”

Gutiérrez’s comments came the day after New York police officers arrested 29-year-old Sayfullo Saipov, originally from Uzbekistan, for mowing down New Yorkers in a rental truck. The terrorist attack, which Saipov dedicated to ISIS, left eight people dead.

Left-wing Democrats have been pushing for impeachment since before President Trump ever took office. (RELATED: Maxine Waters Pushes Trump Impeachment During Eulogy)

Democratic megadonor Tom Steyer recently launched a $10 million ad campaign in support of impeachment, while left-wing activists have been using the impeachment issue to energize the base and call for protests.

The impeachment push comes despite House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi’s repeated pleas for Democrats to hold their fire on the issue. (RELATED: Trump Impeachment Talk Started Before He Was Even Nominated)

Gutiérrez has had a heated relationship with the White House. The congressman previously sparked controversy after attacking Gen. John Kelly, Trump’s chief of staff, as a “disgrace to the uniform.”

Gutiérrez, who never served in the military, refused to apologize for his attack on Kelly.

http://dailycaller.com/2017/11/01/gutierrez-pushes-impeachment-day-after-nyc-terror-attack/


Title: Re: Impeachment
Post by: Top Poodle on November 01, 2017, 03:24:21 PM
Washington is eating itself, socialists dems are pathetic


Title: Re: Impeachment
Post by: Dos Equis on November 08, 2017, 02:56:13 PM
House Dem's new demand: Impeach Trump by Christmas
Fox News

Texas Democrat Al Green said Wednesday he’s giving his colleagues in the House a Christmas deadline to vote on impeaching President Trump.

“I now announce that before Christmas, there will be a vote on the chief inciter of racism, bigotry, hatred, xenophobia, sexism and ethnocentrism,” he said on the House floor, adding that he prayed the United States will “continue to reject what the inciter in chief, Donald J. Trump has been causing this country to have to endure.”

This is hardly the first time Green has called for impeaching the president, though he hasn't put a timeframe on it until now.

Last month, Green unveiled formal articles of impeachment, though it never made it to the House floor for a vote. At the time, Green said he wanted to give lawmakers extra time to read through the proposal.

Green’s resolution covered four articles of impeachment.

One accused the president of “inciting white supremacy, sexism, bigotry, hatred, xenophobia, race-baiting, and racism by demeaning, defaming, disrespecting and disparaging women and certain minorities.” Another alleged Trump brought “shame and dishonor to the office of the presidency by associating the majesty and dignity of the presidency with causes rooted in white supremacy, bigotry, racism, anti-Semitism, white nationalism and neo-Nazism.”

GREEN INTRODUCES ARTICLES OF IMPEACHMENT AGAINST TRUMP

While acknowledging conservatives aren’t likely to jump on board and kick Trump out of the Oval Office, Green said, “Whatever others will do is their choice. My conscience dictates that I will vote to impeach.”

There’s not much enthusiasm among most congressional Democrats to impeach.

House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi has repeatedly downplayed talk of impeachment and on Sunday told CNN it wasn’t one of her legislative priorities.

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2017/11/08/house-dems-new-demand-impeach-trump-by-christmas.html


Title: Re: Impeachment
Post by: Soul Crusher on November 09, 2017, 08:22:53 AM
Bunch of deranged mentally ill crack pots. 


Title: Re: Impeachment
Post by: Primemuscle on November 09, 2017, 03:34:36 PM
Gutiérrez Pushes Impeachment Day After NYC Terror Attack
PETER HASSON
Associate Editor
11/01/2017

Democratic Rep. Luis Gutiérrez is pushing full steam ahead with impeachment measures the day after an Islamist terrorist attack in New York City that left eight people dead.

House Democrats will file impeachment measures before Thanksgiving, Gutiérrez told The Hill on Wednesday. “It is clear to us that he is unfit to be president of the United States of America,” the Illinois congressman said.

Gutiérrez declined to say on what basis Democrats will make their impeachment case but told The Hill, “I assure you we will not leave you lacking for reason.”

Gutiérrez’s comments came the day after New York police officers arrested 29-year-old Sayfullo Saipov, originally from Uzbekistan, for mowing down New Yorkers in a rental truck. The terrorist attack, which Saipov dedicated to ISIS, left eight people dead.

Left-wing Democrats have been pushing for impeachment since before President Trump ever took office. (RELATED: Maxine Waters Pushes Trump Impeachment During Eulogy)

Democratic megadonor Tom Steyer recently launched a $10 million ad campaign in support of impeachment, while left-wing activists have been using the impeachment issue to energize the base and call for protests.

The impeachment push comes despite House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi’s repeated pleas for Democrats to hold their fire on the issue. (RELATED: Trump Impeachment Talk Started Before He Was Even Nominated)

Gutiérrez has had a heated relationship with the White House. The congressman previously sparked controversy after attacking Gen. John Kelly, Trump’s chief of staff, as a “disgrace to the uniform.”

Gutiérrez, who never served in the military, refused to apologize for his attack on Kelly.

http://dailycaller.com/2017/11/01/gutierrez-pushes-impeachment-day-after-nyc-terror-attack/

Using the recent terrorist attack in New York, to imply Trump should not be impeached is nonsense. No matter if the judicial system agreed with Trump's ban on immigrants, it will not decrease the likelihood of future terrorist attacks. Even if we could round up all immigrants from countries with terrorist ties, there will still be plenty of homegrown terrorists left to practice their insanity in the U.S.


Title: Re: Impeachment
Post by: Dos Equis on November 09, 2017, 03:35:45 PM
Using the recent terrorist attack in New York, to imply Trump should not be impeached is nonsense. No matter if the judicial system agreed with Trump's ban on immigrants, it will not decrease the likelihood of future terrorist attacks. Even if we could round up all immigrants from countries with terrorist ties, there will still be plenty of homegrown terrorists left to practice their insanity in the U.S.

Any and all talk about impeachment is nonsense. 


Title: Re: Impeachment
Post by: Primemuscle on November 09, 2017, 03:58:00 PM
Any and all talk about impeachment is nonsense. 

And yet, more and more folks are talking about it, Republicans as well as Democrats.


Title: Re: Impeachment
Post by: Dos Equis on November 09, 2017, 04:03:19 PM
And yet, more and more folks are talking about it, Republicans as well as Democrats.

O Rly?  Which Republicans are talking about impeaching Trump? 


Title: Re: Impeachment
Post by: Primemuscle on November 09, 2017, 05:51:28 PM
O Rly?  Which Republicans are talking about impeaching Trump? 

Are you expecting me to name them? There are approximately 880 million Republicans in the U.S. If you are asking only about Republicans in Congress, a few brave Republican souls have spoken out against Trump. They likely won't come forward until the grounds for his impeachment are established. To do otherwise at this point would be political suicide. Several Republican Congressmen announced they would not seek reelection, a few of these said they do not support Trump or are at odds with him and/or his policies.

The Senate probably needs only six votes from Republicans to impeach Trump. Ms Kamarck, who is director of the Centre for Effective Public Management, said 12 Republican Senators had "no fear of the President" and had indicated they could vote against him.

Look, I'm not saying Trump will be impeached. What I am saying is that it's a possibility. Just like it is possible he won't physically survive his term(s) in office. He's an overweight, hyper-A-type person, who is well past his prime. The odds are not in his favor.




Title: Re: Impeachment
Post by: Skeletor on November 09, 2017, 05:59:54 PM
Are you expecting me to name them? There are approximately 880 million Republicans in the U.S. If you are asking only about Republicans in Congress, a few brave Republican souls have spoken out against Trump. They likely won't come forward until the grounds for his impeachment are established. To do otherwise at this point would be political suicide. Several Republican Congressmen announced they would not seek reelection, a few of these said they do not support Trump or are at odds with him and/or his policies.

The Senate probably needs only six votes from Republicans to impeach Trump. Ms Kamarck, who is director of the Centre for Effective Public Management, said 12 Republican Senators had "no fear of the President" and had indicated they could vote against him.

Look, I'm not saying Trump will be impeached. What I am saying is that it's a possibility. Just like it is possible he won't physically survive his term(s) in office. He's an overweight, hyper-A-type person, who is well past his prime. The odds are not in his favor.




Where did you find 880 million Republicans? Are you counting the dead ones too?


Title: Re: Impeachment
Post by: Dos Equis on November 09, 2017, 06:22:35 PM
Are you expecting me to name them? There are approximately 880 million Republicans in the U.S. If you are asking only about Republicans in Congress, a few brave Republican souls have spoken out against Trump. They likely won't come forward until the grounds for his impeachment are established. To do otherwise at this point would be political suicide. Several Republican Congressmen announced they would not seek reelection, a few of these said they do not support Trump or are at odds with him and/or his policies.

The Senate probably needs only six votes from Republicans to impeach Trump. Ms Kamarck, who is director of the Centre for Effective Public Management, said 12 Republican Senators had "no fear of the President" and had indicated they could vote against him.

Look, I'm not saying Trump will be impeached. What I am saying is that it's a possibility. Just like it is possible he won't physically survive his term(s) in office. He's an overweight, hyper-A-type person, who is well past his prime. The odds are not in his favor.




Name one Republican in Washington that has called for Trump's impeachment. 


Title: Re: Impeachment
Post by: jude2 on November 09, 2017, 07:30:24 PM
Where did you find 880 million Republicans? Are you counting the dead ones too?
LMAO


Title: Re: Impeachment
Post by: Dos Equis on November 13, 2017, 10:11:41 AM
Tom Steyer‏Verified account
@TomSteyer
Follow Follow @TomSteyer
More
Replying to @davidaxelrod
Unhelpful to whom, David? Millions of Americans strongly disagree. 78% of Democratic primary voters support impeachment.
11:49 AM - 11 Nov
https://twitter.com/TomSteyer/status/929435991336554496


Title: Re: Impeachment
Post by: Soul Crusher on November 15, 2017, 08:36:24 AM
House Dems introduce articles of impeachment against Trump
MSN.com ^ | Nov. 15, 2017 | John Bowden
Posted on 11/15/2017, 11:06:09

Several House Democrats introduced articles of impeachment targeting President Trump on Wednesday, asserting that Trump has violated the Constitution.

Democratic Reps. Steve Cohen (Tenn.), Luis Gutiérrez (Ill.), Al Green (Texas), Adriano Espaillat (N.Y.), Marcia Fudge (Ohio) and John Yarmuth (Ky.) said the five articles of impeachment come out of concern for the country's national security.

"We believe that President Trump has violated the Constitution, and we've introduced five articles of impeachment," Cohen said at a press conference.

(Excerpt) Read more at msn.com ...


Title: Re: Impeachment
Post by: Kazan on November 15, 2017, 08:57:38 AM
House Dems introduce articles of impeachment against Trump
MSN.com ^ | Nov. 15, 2017 | John Bowden
Posted on 11/15/2017, 11:06:09

Several House Democrats introduced articles of impeachment targeting President Trump on Wednesday, asserting that Trump has violated the Constitution.

Democratic Reps. Steve Cohen (Tenn.), Luis Gutiérrez (Ill.), Al Green (Texas), Adriano Espaillat (N.Y.), Marcia Fudge (Ohio) and John Yarmuth (Ky.) said the five articles of impeachment come out of concern for the country's national security.

"We believe that President Trump has violated the Constitution, and we've introduced five articles of impeachment," Cohen said at a press conference.

(Excerpt) Read more at msn.com ...

This should be interesting, should they succeed, every POTUS after Trump is going to be fair game


Title: Re: Impeachment
Post by: Howard on November 15, 2017, 09:54:42 AM
Any and all talk about impeachment is nonsense. 
https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/six-democrats-introduce-trump-impeachment-articles/ar-BBF0e7K?li=BBmkt5R&ocid=spartanntp

Could be a political stunt, but these dems seem serious?


Title: Re: Impeachment
Post by: Howard on November 15, 2017, 09:55:34 AM
This should be interesting, should they succeed, every POTUS after Trump is going to be fair game

Exactly my concern.

They better do something very serious before we move to kick them out.


Title: Re: Impeachment
Post by: Soul Crusher on December 05, 2017, 10:29:39 AM
House Democrat will force vote to impeach Trump on Wednesday
washingtonexaminer.com ^ | 12/5/17 | Laura Barrón-López
Posted on 12/5/2017, 1:23:23 PM by ColdOne

The House is about to vote on impeachment articles against President Trump.

Democratic Rep. Al Green of Texas said he will force a vote on impeaching Trump as early as Wednesday. Republicans will easily table the symbolic vote, but it will put lawmakers on the record.

“Three prominent Democrats have asked to meet with me to discuss impeachment,” Green said on the floor Tuesday. Green appeared to be referring to members within his party’s leadership who have urged him to stop his campaign to force an impeachment vote.

“I will tell them I refuse to sit on the sidelines while the world is considering one of the great issues of our time,” Green said. “I will tell them that tomorrow we will bring articles of impeachment to the floor of the Congress of United States of America for a vote.”

(Excerpt) Read more at washingtonexaminer.com ...


Title: Re: Impeachment
Post by: Dos Equis on December 05, 2017, 02:58:19 PM
House Democrat will force vote to impeach Trump on Wednesday
washingtonexaminer.com ^ | 12/5/17 | Laura Barrón-López
Posted on 12/5/2017, 1:23:23 PM by ColdOne

The House is about to vote on impeachment articles against President Trump.

Democratic Rep. Al Green of Texas said he will force a vote on impeaching Trump as early as Wednesday. Republicans will easily table the symbolic vote, but it will put lawmakers on the record.

“Three prominent Democrats have asked to meet with me to discuss impeachment,” Green said on the floor Tuesday. Green appeared to be referring to members within his party’s leadership who have urged him to stop his campaign to force an impeachment vote.

“I will tell them I refuse to sit on the sidelines while the world is considering one of the great issues of our time,” Green said. “I will tell them that tomorrow we will bring articles of impeachment to the floor of the Congress of United States of America for a vote.”

(Excerpt) Read more at washingtonexaminer.com ...

But will his crackhead girlfriend be there? 


Title: Re: Impeachment
Post by: jude2 on December 05, 2017, 07:58:53 PM
But will his crackhead girlfriend be there? 
Is he retarded?


Title: Re: Impeachment
Post by: Dos Equis on December 05, 2017, 08:58:04 PM
Is he retarded?

I don't know, but he's certainly not the brightest bulb in Congress. 


Title: Re: Impeachment
Post by: Soul Crusher on December 06, 2017, 11:50:39 AM
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2017/12/06/us-rep-al-green-plans-trump-impeachment-resolution.html


Comical these libtwinks


Title: Re: Impeachment
Post by: Dos Equis on December 06, 2017, 02:09:16 PM
Who are the 58 dummies who voted to move this forward??

House rejects Trump impeachment resolution after Dem Rep. Al Green forces vote

By Alex Pappas   | Fox News

Republican Councilman Joe Borelli and Fox News contributor Jehmu Greene debate the merits on 'Fox & Friends First.'

The House of Representatives overwhelmingly rejected an attempt to impeach President Trump after a liberal Texas congressman forced a vote on his effort.

Democratic Rep. Al Green, who has repeatedly called for the president's removal, introduced two articles of impeachment against Trump on Wednesday.

But lawmakers immediately voted to effectively kill his resolution, with 364 voting to table it and 58 Democrats voting to move ahead.

In a dramatic speech on the floor ahead of the vote, Green called Trump “unfit” for office and accused him of "high misdemeanors."

The symbolic vote had been expected to fail in the Republican-controlled House. It put some lawmakers in competitive districts in a tough spot by forcing them on the record about impeachment.

Lawmakers did not actually vote on the actual articles of impeachment, but on a procedural measure that would have led to a vote on them.

“As I have said before, this is not about Democrats, it is about democracy,” Green wrote in a memo to his colleagues. “It is not about Republicans, it is about the fate of our Republic. May everyone vote their conscience knowing that history will judge us all.”

Green has discussed his intention to impeach Trump since last spring. In October, Green filed impeachment articles that nearly forced a vote -- until House Democratic leaders persuaded him to abandon the effort.

At the time, White House Press Secretary Sarah Sanders called the effort "pathetic.”

AL GREEN INTRODUCES ARTICLES OF IMPEACHMENT AGAINST TRUMP

In his memo to lawmakers, Green didn’t allege “obstruction of justice” or reference the ongoing investigation into the 2016 presidential campaign’s connection with Russia.

Instead, Green highlighted Trump’s supposed association with “White Nationalism, Neo-Nazism and Hate,” as well as “Inciting Hatred and Hostility,” as offenses worthy of impeachment.

“Friends, whether we like it or not, we now have a bigot in the White House who incites hatred and hostility,” Green wrote in a letter.

House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif., has insisted that any impeachment effort should be put on hold until there is evidence of an impeachable offense.

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2017/12/06/house-rejects-trump-impeachment-resolution-after-dem-rep-al-green-forces-vote.html


Title: Re: Impeachment
Post by: chaos on December 06, 2017, 04:29:30 PM
Can't stand Pelosi but she had some sense to realize that there is no impeachable offense.


Title: Re: Impeachment
Post by: Dos Equis on December 20, 2017, 07:59:44 AM
NBC/WSJ Poll: 41 Percent Support Impeachment Hearings
By Jeffrey Rodack    |   Wednesday, 20 Dec 2017

Forty-one percent of Americans want Congress to hold impeachment hearings to remove President Donald Trump from office, while 54 percent oppose the idea, according to a new NBC News/Wall Street Journal poll.

Here is how the poll, released Wednesday, breaks down:

38 percent believe the Trump presidential campaign colluded with Russia; 35 percent said it did not and 26 percent did not know enough to say.
36 percent said the indictments or guilty pleas by members of the Trump campaign suggest wrongdoing by the president; 28 percent said the alleged wrongdoing is limited to just those particular individuals and 34 percent did not know enough to say.
28 percent have a positive feeling about special counsel Robert Mueller; 21 percent are negative; 15 percent are neutral and 36 percent were uncertain.
26 percent said Trump will be a successful president; 44 percent say he will be unsuccessful and 29 percent are not ready to pass judgment.

The poll, conducted Dec. 13-15, surveyed 900 adults. It has a margin of error of plus or minus 3.3 percentage points.

https://www.newsmax.com/politics/poll-support-impeachment-hearings/2017/12/20/id/832807/


Title: Re: Impeachment
Post by: gh15 on December 20, 2017, 08:09:21 AM
president trump will never be impeached.. he put money in peoples pockets.. everyone get richer with president Donald trump.. will never be impeached.. probably the best president in history of the west,, defenitly top 3 when all said and done,,

gh15 approved
lion of Judah


Title: Re: Impeachment
Post by: Dos Equis on December 20, 2017, 08:12:05 AM
His goose is cooked when they find the smoking gun proving he conspired with Putin to get elected president so he could become Putin's puppet. 


Title: Re: Impeachment
Post by: Dos Equis on January 08, 2018, 09:43:57 AM
Dummies.  Of course they will.  They cannot run on ideas.  They have been intellectually bankrupt for years. 

Will Democrats run on impeachment in 2018 midterms? Don't count it out
By Fred Lucas | Fox News

If Democrats take back the House in 2018, they will likely face pressure from base to impeach President Trump; reaction and analysis from RNC spokeswoman Kayleigh McEnany and DNC Vice Chairman Michael Blake.

After months of shying away from the toxic topic, Democrats increasingly are embracing political rhetoric that flirts with the impeachment of President Trump – signaling a strategy that could work its way into the mainstream in the 2018 midterms.

From the base, the party sees encouragement. A petition with 4 million signatures demanding Trump’s impeachment and a survey showing 70 percent of Democrats backing at least hearings on the matter could nudge Democrats further into the impeachment camp in the new year.

The publication of the “Fire and Fury” tell-all, meanwhile, has only emboldened Trump’s critics, by seeming to raise questions about his stability – which the president openly confronted in a weekend tweet-storm declaring he is a “very stable genius.”

Democrats must win 24 House seats and two Senate seats to regain control of Congress in 2018, but have a historically tough time motivating their voters in non-presidential years.

'Smart Democrats know it’s a dumb idea.'

- legal commentator Andrew McCarthy, on impeachment push
Neil Sroka, spokesman for Democracy for America, a liberal activist group that endorses and raises money for Democratic candidates, claimed the impeachment push has public support.

“Democrats should run on an inclusive, populist agenda of free college and paid family leave, but shouldn’t shy away from supporting impeachment,” Sroka told Fox News.

HOUSE REJECTS TRUMP IMPEACHMENT RESOLUTION

“Millions of people around the country support impeaching the president. Democratic candidates in deep blue districts can and should be for impeachment,” Sroka continued. “It would be politically stupid for any Democrat to come out against impeachment.”

Last month, 58 House Democrats voted to bring an impeachment resolution up for debate. While party leadership has publicly shunned the idea, Democrats recently tapped Rep. Jerrold Nadler of New York to be ranking member of the House Judiciary Committee, replacing disgraced ex-Rep. John Conyers. Washington Post columnist Paul Kane described the choice as a move “to ready themselves for a battle with President Trump that could end with impeachment proceedings,” given Nadler’s expertise in constitutional law.

Rep. Al Green (D-TX), accompanied by Rep. Brad Sherman (D-CA), speaks with the media about his plans to draft articles of impeachment against President Donald Trump on Capitol Hill in Washington, D.C., U.S., June 7, 2017.  REUTERS/Aaron P. Bernstein     TPX IMAGES OF THE DAY - RTX39IQG
Reps. Brad Sherman, D-Calif., and Al Green, D-Texas, were the first to introduce an impeachment resolution in July.  (Reuters)

Some impeachment advocates say it doesn’t matter that Special Counsel Robert Mueller’s investigation into possible collusion between the Trump campaign and Russia isn’t complete.

In November, Rep. Steve Cohen, D-Tenn., and four other Democrats introduced five articles of impeachment against Trump. Reps. Brad Sherman, D-Calif., and Al Green, D-Texas, were the first to introduce an impeachment resolution in July, alleging obstruction of justice in the Russia investigation. Rep. Maxine Waters, D-Calif., ended one speech last year with an "impeach 45" chant.

Even Sherman, though, expressed caution against making impeachment a campaign issue.

“This is a matter of constitutional principal, not politics,” Sherman told Fox News. “Members should look at the actions of the president and determine whether they believe he obstructed justice or committed other acts warranting impeachment. … Talk of impeachment has already had an effect. Imagine how President Trump would behave if he thought there was absolutely no risk of impeachment. We need not wait until all the various investigations give us a complete catalog of all of Trump’s wrongdoings.”

The publication last week of Michael Wolff’s “Fire and Fury: Inside the Trump White House” fueled the impeachment fever.

Liberal billionaire Tom Steyer, who has spent $20 million to promote impeachment, sent a copy of the Wolff book to all 535 members of Congress. Steyer’s NeedToImpeach.com petition collected 4.1 million signatures. He told a California radio station KQED Friday: “It is an open-and-shut case, that he has met the criteria for impeachment. We're supportive of the Mueller investigation, he is investigating two out of the nine criteria that this president has met.”

Steyer has said in TV ads that past presidents have been impeached for lesser crimes.

But where Trump critics see an “open-and-shut” case, others see a major pitfall for the party.

“Steyer’s assumption is that Trump committed espionage with Putin. If proven, he would be quite right, but it hasn’t been proven,” conservative legal commentator and author Andrew McCarthy told Fox News. “The country will not broadly find it attractive if there is a lack of evidence. Fair-minded people will not want to impeach. Smart Democrats know it’s a dumb idea.”

McCarthy nevertheless believes Democrats will feel pressure from a rabid base to run on impeachment, and some members could fear a primary if they aren’t on board.

“The base can make Democrats do politically stupid things,” said McCarthy, former chief assistant U.S. attorney in New York. “If the Democrats’ front and center issue is impeachment, they will not win in the midterms. It would be a bad strategy to run on.”

A Wall Street Journal-NBC poll last month found 41 percent of Americans want Congress to hold impeachment hearings. Of that, 70 percent of Democrats, 40 percent of independents and 7 percent of Republicans back a House inquiry.

Only Presidents Andrew Johnson and Bill Clinton were impeached in the House, where it takes just a majority, and both were acquitted in the Senate, where it takes a two-thirds supermajority to remove. Clinton’s 1998 impeachment was for perjury and obstruction of justice in connection with the Monica Lewinsky scandal, while Johnson’s 1868 impeachment was about violating the Tenure of Office Act after he fired War Secretary Edwin Stanton. President Richard Nixon resigned after the House Judiciary Committee approved articles of impeachment over Watergate, to avoid impeachment and removal. Article II of the Constitution says impeachment can be based on "treason, bribery and other high crimes and misdemeanors."

“Many Democrats will want to impeach Trump even if they don’t have anywhere near the numbers in the Senate,” McCarthy said. “That’s in part because they hate Trump and in part because they’re still sore about the Clinton impeachment 20 years ago.”

But Sroka is taking a just-you-wait approach on the Senate numbers.

“We’ll see what two-thirds looks like,” Sroka said. “Given the range of impeachment-worthy offenses by Donald Trump, it’s difficult to compare with what Republicans tried to impeach Bill Clinton over, or what Andrew Johnson was impeached for.”

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2018/01/08/will-democrats-run-on-impeachment-in-2018-midterms-dont-count-it-out.html


Title: Re: Impeachment
Post by: Dos Equis on January 19, 2018, 08:45:08 PM
House rejects Democratic effort to impeach Trump as shutdown looms
BY CRISTINA MARCOS - 01/19/18

The House on Friday once again rejected an effort by Rep. Al Green (D-Texas) to impeach President Trump, in a sign of inflamed partisan tensions ahead of a midnight deadline to avoid a government shutdown.

Green, who has agitated for Trump’s impeachment for months, forced a procedural vote on articles of impeachment following Trump’s Oval Office comments last week describing some nations as “shithole countries” while expressing a preference for immigrants from places like Norway.

It failed by a 355-66 vote, with three Democrats voting "present."

Trump made the comments during a meeting with members of Congress about a potential deal to shield young immigrants brought to the U.S. illegally from deportation while enhancing border security. Those talks have been in limbo since that meeting, which in turn has led to an impasse over keeping the government open.

Green previously forced a vote on articles of impeachment last month, which failed due to most Democrats joining with Republicans to table it. House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) and Minority Whip Steny Hoyer (D-Md.) both oppose calling for impeachment at this point, citing the ongoing investigations of whether the Trump campaign coordinated with the Russian government during the 2016 presidential election.

Eight more Democrats voted in favor of impeaching Trump than a month ago, demonstrating the growing support on the left for pushing Trump out of office.

A total of 58 Democrats voted in favor of impeachment in December, primarily the most liberal lawmakers and fellow members of the Congressional Black Caucus (CBC).

Green’s latest articles of impeachment are similar to those he offered last month but updated with Trump’s “shithole” comment from last week.

Trump, Green alleges in the articles of impeachment, has “brought the high office of president of the United States in contempt, ridicule, disgrace and disrepute” and “has sown discord among the people of the United States.”

Aside from the latest controversy from Trump’s immigration meeting, the articles of impeachment cite Trump’s travel ban, push to prevent transgender people from serving in the military, attempts to cast equal blame on white supremacists and counter-protesters for violence in Charlottesville, Va., and attacks on NFL players kneeling during the national anthem to protest police brutality.

Most Democrats aren’t ready to support impeachment out of concerns that it would be premature.

Instead, Democratic leaders are endorsing an effort from members of the CBC and House Judiciary Committee to censure Trump for describing Haiti, El Salvador and African nations as “shithole countries.”

The censure resolution, unveiled Thursday, calls on Trump to apologize for remarks it describes as “hateful, discriminatory and racist, and cannot and should not be the basis of any American policy.”

CBC Chairman Cedric Richmond (D-La.) said that Democrats may try to force a vote on the censure resolution if GOP leaders don’t bring it up for consideration on the floor.

Some Republicans have joined with Democrats in criticizing Trump for the comments. Speaker Paul Ryan (R-Wis.) used milder language than Democrats, saying that Trump’s remarks were “very unfortunate” and “unhelpful.”

Despite breaking with Trump over the comments, GOP leaders are highly unlikely to support efforts to censure him.

Democrats also introduced a resolution to censure Trump over his handling of the Charlottesville violence, but Republicans similarly dismissed it.

http://thehill.com/blogs/floor-action/house/369730-house-rejects-democratic-effort-to-impeach-trump-as-shutdown-looms


Title: Re: Impeachment
Post by: Dos Equis on April 09, 2018, 01:22:14 PM
Media Pretending Democrats Don’t Want To Impeach Trump
JOE SIMONSON
Media Reporter
04/09/2018

Republicans around the country are warning voters that if Democrats win the House in 2018, it’s all but guaranteed they’ll impeach President Donald Trump — many in the media are treating it like a cynical political ploy.

Enter Esquire’s Charles P. Pierce, who called impeachment “the Republicans’ latest boogeyman for the 2018 elections.”

“So, when you hear Republican strategists talking about how the Democratic candidates are slavering at the chance to impeach this president*, know that these low moans are strategic in their purpose, disingenuous in their history, and almost utterly dishonest about the state of play in the 2018 midterm elections. Republicans create phantoms like this all the time to frighten their base voters,” Pierce wrote.

Pierce can’t find “a single Democratic candidate who is running specifically” on the issue of impeachment, he noted.

It’s unclear what exactly he’s talking about, considering Texas Republican Sen. Ted Cruz challenger Beto O’Rourke’s comments Monday suggested he’d like to see the president impeached.

Michigan Democratic primary candidate Rashida Tlaib made “impeachment” her “calling card,” according to an April 4 article in The Hill.

But let’s assume Pierce is technically right. After all, the Democratic Party has been hesitant in encouraging its candidates to run campaigns dedicated solely to opposing Trump. Even Obama presidential campaign chief strategist David Axelrod cautioned Democrats against running on an impeachment platform.

But don’t let that rhetorical sleight of hand fool you.

Beyond all the headlines acting like the GOP is manipulating its voters, like The New York Times’ decision to say Republicans “seize” on impeachment fears, is the Democrats’ real desire to bring charges against the president.

California Democratic Rep. Brad Sherman introduced articles of impeachment against Trump in July 2017.

“Donald John Trump has acted in a manner contrary to his trust as President and subversive of constitutional government, to the great prejudice of the cause of law and justice and to the manifest injury of the people of the United States,” Sherman wrote.

And he wasn’t the first. Six other Democratic House members introduced their own bill in November 2017 to impeach Trump, claiming he had “violated federal law, the public trust and should be charged with high crimes and misdemeanors,” according to The Daily Caller News Foundation’s Robert Donachie.

This isn’t the work of some rogue congressmen either: by January 2017, over a third of House Democrats — 66 — voted for impeachment proceedings.

Progressive activist groups and donors are going all in on impeachment as well. Anyone living in the New York City or Washington, D.C., areas has probably seen billionaire Tom Steyer’s pleads for Trump’s removals.

A majority of Americans don’t want to see Trump impeached, while Democrats do. Seven-in-10 Democrats want to see Congress bring up the vote, according to a December 2017 poll.

Some boogeyman.

Despite all the political nastiness that accompanied former President Bill Clinton’s impeachment, it’s hard not to think such a period was incredibly civil compared to now.

Considering many Democratic and liberal pundits have a hard time even acknowledging Trump won the election fairly, the idea the GOP is simply contriving the impeachment threat is laughable. Remember, Hillary Clinton has repeatedly questioned the legitimacy of Trump’s victory.

The Democratic party’s entire message since Trump was inaugurated has been “#Resist.” After they vote to repeal 2017’s tax cuts, what would be a grander act of resistance than kicking Trump out of office?

http://dailycaller.com/2018/04/09/esquire-trump-impeachment/


Title: Re: Impeachment
Post by: Dos Equis on April 25, 2018, 05:33:30 PM
Maxine Waters to Trump: ‘Please Resign’ so I Don’t Have to Impeach You
by KATHERINE RODRIGUEZ
25 Apr 2018

Rep. Maxine Waters (D-CA), in an interview at the Time 100 Gala on Tuesday, said her advice to President Trump is to “please resign.”
The interviewer asked Waters if she had any advice for the president, and the California Democrat did not mince words.

“Please resign,” said Waters, one of Trump’s most vocal critics, after being honored at the Time 100 Gala in New York. “So that I won’t have to keep up this fight of your having impeached because I don’t think you deserve to be there. Just get out.”

Waters made the 2018 list of Time 100’s “most influential people” along with the anti-gun Marjory Stoneman Douglas High School student activists, the Daily Show’s Trevor Noah, and Trump himself.

Actress Yara Shahidi wrote the tribute to Waters, praising her for leading the movement to “impeach” Trump.

“She is adored and admired by people who care about social justice and is oh so eloquent in letting the world, particularly the white men of Congress who dare test her acumen, know that she is not here for any nonsense,” Shahidi wrote.

Waters has made it a point as a congresswoman to criticize Trump or call for his resignation or impeachment.

In an interview with Bloomberg in November 2017, she said she “inspires” people by calling for Trump’s impeachment.

Waters has even resorted to personal attacks, calling the president a “racist” when she appeared on BET in February to give her response to Trump’s State of the Union address.

She also declined to attend this year’s State of the Union to protest Trump’s “character flaw.”

http://www.breitbart.com/big-government/2018/04/25/waters-trump-please-resign-dont-impeach/


Title: Re: Impeachment
Post by: Dos Equis on May 15, 2018, 10:19:57 AM
Sane, lucid comments from Pelosi??   :o

Dem blasts Pelosi for ‘trivializing’ impeachment
BY MIKE LILLIS - 05/14/18

The Democratic lawmaker leading the impeachment charge against President Trump went after House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) on Monday for “trivializing” the effort.

Pelosi and Democratic leaders have sought to tamp down the small impeachment push within their ranks, arguing the president hasn’t done anything to merit such a weighty response. Pelosi, a frequent critic of the president, said last week that “being a jerk” doesn’t rise to the level of seeking his ouster.

But Rep. Al Green (D-Texas), a member of the Congressional Black Caucus who introduced articles of impeachment last year accusing the president of inciting racial divisions, suggested it’s his patriotic duty to stand up to the president, despite leadership’s wishes.

“It is regrettable that Leader Pelosi would trivialize President Trump’s hateful discrimination against Jews, Latinos, Blacks, Women, and the LGBTQ community by reducing the president’s harmful bigotry to his ‘being a jerk,’ ” Green said Monday in a brief statement.

“Love for my country will not permit me to allow the president’s bigotry to be trivialized and minimized.”

The impeachment issue has divided Democrats since Trump took office, pitting a handful of liberals against party leaders who fear the issue could spark a political backlash at the polls in November when they’re hoping to win back the House. Pelosi has discouraged such talk, calling it “a gift” to Republicans in the midterms.

She’s putting a damper on the impeachment effort while awaiting the outcome of special counsel Robert Mueller’s investigation into whether the Trump campaign helped Russia swing the election against Democrat Hillary Clinton. Pushing to oust Trump beforehand, she’s said, risks politicizing the probe and undermining its conclusions.

“Impeachment is a distraction,” Pelosi said last week. “I’m not walking away from impeachment for political reasons, and I’m not walking toward it for political reasons. I just think it’s divisive.”

Meeting with The Dallas Morning News's editorial board on Friday, Pelosi amplified her position, arguing for Democrats to focus instead on the party’s economic message heading into the elections.

"We have elections. Go vote if it's a policy thing and a behavior thing,” she said. “I don't know if you can get impeached for being a jerk, but if we did, this guy would be long gone. But that's not unifying."

Pelosi went on to praise Green as “a wonderful person,” but warned against the political fallout if Democrats train their sights on Trump in lieu of bread-and-butter economic issues.

“It’s a total gift to the Republicans,” she said. “What people want to know is, what are you doing to help me in my life? How I’m going to educate my kids or pay the rent or mortgage, medical bills and the rest of that? They think it’s an excuse not to have solutions by talking about the rest of these other things.”

Her position has done little to dissuade Green, whose impeachment articles say Trump has “brought disrepute, contempt, ridicule and disgrace on the presidency” and “sown discord among the people of the United States.”

Among a litany of examples, he cites Trump’s criticism of the NFL players kneeling during the national anthem to protest police brutality and his equivocal response to last summer’s violent white supremacist marches in Charlottesville, Va.

Green has already forced two floor votes on the issue. The first, in December, was supported by 58 Democrats. The number rose to 66 in the second vote in January — a bump attributed to Trump’s reported derogatory comments about African nations, Haiti and El Salvador made just a week before.

http://thehill.com/homenews/house/387587-dem-blasts-pelosi-for-trivializing-impeachment


Title: Re: Impeachment
Post by: Soul Crusher on May 15, 2018, 10:26:34 AM
Bunch of mental patients


Title: Re: Impeachment
Post by: Primemuscle on May 15, 2018, 02:05:44 PM
Bunch of mental patients

Anyone interested in running for public office these days is mentally unbalanced, IMO. Incumbents are even more deluded when they seek reelection.


Title: Re: Impeachment
Post by: Yamcha on May 16, 2018, 03:28:07 AM
Anyone interested in running for public office these days is mentally unbalanced, IMO. Incumbents are even more deluded when they seek reelection.

 :o  :o  :o

I agree with Prime?!


Title: Re: Impeachment
Post by: Dos Equis on May 22, 2018, 04:39:07 PM
AL GREEN: DEMOCRATS WILL IMPEACH TRUMP IF WE RETAKE THE HOUSE
‘Every member of the House is accorded the opportunity to bring up impeachment’
May 22, 2018 

If Americans give the House of Representatives back to the Democratic Party this November, one of first things that will happen is the impeachment of President Trump, Rep. Al Green (D-Texas) said Tuesday.

"There’s a good likelihood there will be articles of impeachment” brought against Trump, Rep. Green said. “Here is a point that I think is salient, and one that ought to be referenced. Every member of the House is accorded the opportunity to bring up impeachment. This is not something the Constitution has bestowed upon leadership. It’s something every member has the right and privilege of doing.”

Rep. Green, who has been one of the most vocal proponents of impeaching Trump, made the comments during an appearance on CSPAN.

Here's a transcript:

ECHEVARRIA: “If Democrats take back the House in November, what is the likelihood that Speaker Nancy Pelosi bring up an impeachment charge?”

GREEN: “I’ll let Speaker Pelosi address her actions. But here is a point that I think is salient and one that ought to be referenced. Every member of the House is accorded the opportunity to bring up impeachment. This is not something that the Constitution has bestowed upon leadership. It is something that every member has the right and privilege of doing. I am not sure that there will be members who are going to wait for someone else if that someone else, doesn’t matter who it is, is declining to do it. We can all do it. And I think there is a good likelihood there will be Articles of Impeachment.”

ECHEVARRIA: “Have you heard directly from the Minority Leader about these efforts of yours, specifically asking you to stop or hold back? Anything along that line?”

GREEN: “Well, I don’t think you have to ask me what I’ve heard. If you have read publications, it is intuitively obvious to perhaps even the most casual observer that she and I are in different places on this. I respect her position.”

https://news.grabien.com/story-al-green-democrats-will-impeach-trump-if-we-retake-house


Title: Re: Impeachment
Post by: Yamcha on May 22, 2018, 04:41:35 PM
AL GREEN: DEMOCRATS WILL IMPEACH TRUMP IF WE RETAKE THE HOUSE
‘Every member of the House is accorded the opportunity to bring up impeachment’
May 22, 2018 

If Americans give the House of Representatives back to the Democratic Party this November, one of first things that will happen is the impeachment of President Trump, Rep. Al Green (D-Texas) said Tuesday.

"There’s a good likelihood there will be articles of impeachment” brought against Trump, Rep. Green said. “Here is a point that I think is salient, and one that ought to be referenced. Every member of the House is accorded the opportunity to bring up impeachment. This is not something the Constitution has bestowed upon leadership. It’s something every member has the right and privilege of doing.”

Rep. Green, who has been one of the most vocal proponents of impeaching Trump, made the comments during an appearance on CSPAN.

Here's a transcript:

ECHEVARRIA: “If Democrats take back the House in November, what is the likelihood that Speaker Nancy Pelosi bring up an impeachment charge?”

GREEN: “I’ll let Speaker Pelosi address her actions. But here is a point that I think is salient and one that ought to be referenced. Every member of the House is accorded the opportunity to bring up impeachment. This is not something that the Constitution has bestowed upon leadership. It is something that every member has the right and privilege of doing. I am not sure that there will be members who are going to wait for someone else if that someone else, doesn’t matter who it is, is declining to do it. We can all do it. And I think there is a good likelihood there will be Articles of Impeachment.”

ECHEVARRIA: “Have you heard directly from the Minority Leader about these efforts of yours, specifically asking you to stop or hold back? Anything along that line?”

GREEN: “Well, I don’t think you have to ask me what I’ve heard. If you have read publications, it is intuitively obvious to perhaps even the most casual observer that she and I are in different places on this. I respect her position.”

https://news.grabien.com/story-al-green-democrats-will-impeach-trump-if-we-retake-house

>Assuming that Pence would not carry out the rest of the agenda.

>Assuming that this would not result in a MASSIVE 2020 showing for the republican candidate.

Great Idea!


Title: Re: Impeachment
Post by: Dos Equis on May 22, 2018, 04:52:28 PM
>Assuming that Pence would not carry out the rest of the agenda.

>Assuming that this would not result in a MASSIVE 2020 showing for the republican candidate.

Great Idea!

I doubt they care that Pence would do exactly what Trump is doing.  They just want to tarnish Trump.  Pretty dumb political tactic.  They would be much better served coming up with some good, concrete policy positions to run on in 2018. 


Title: Re: Impeachment
Post by: Howard on May 23, 2018, 06:04:10 AM
I doubt they care that Pence would do exactly what Trump is doing.  They just want to tarnish Trump.  Pretty dumb political tactic.  They would be much better served coming up with some good, concrete policy positions to run on in 2018. 

I tend to agree with you on people's overall reaction IF he's impeached /convicted.

BUT c'mon, TRUMP engerized the right and got them out to vote.
Other candidates won't excite the same people within the Trump base.

If anything it would alienate them from voting and they'd think the system was rigged.
A lot of Trump supporters are loyal to HIM personally, not his policies.



Title: Re: Impeachment
Post by: Primemuscle on May 23, 2018, 12:48:16 PM
AL GREEN: DEMOCRATS WILL IMPEACH TRUMP IF WE RETAKE THE HOUSE
‘Every member of the House is accorded the opportunity to bring up impeachment’
May 22, 2018 

If Americans give the House of Representatives back to the Democratic Party this November, one of first things that will happen is the impeachment of President Trump, Rep. Al Green (D-Texas) said Tuesday.

"There’s a good likelihood there will be articles of impeachment” brought against Trump, Rep. Green said. “Here is a point that I think is salient, and one that ought to be referenced. Every member of the House is accorded the opportunity to bring up impeachment. This is not something the Constitution has bestowed upon leadership. It’s something every member has the right and privilege of doing.”

Rep. Green, who has been one of the most vocal proponents of impeaching Trump, made the comments during an appearance on CSPAN.

Here's a transcript:

ECHEVARRIA: “If Democrats take back the House in November, what is the likelihood that Speaker Nancy Pelosi bring up an impeachment charge?”

GREEN: “I’ll let Speaker Pelosi address her actions. But here is a point that I think is salient and one that ought to be referenced. Every member of the House is accorded the opportunity to bring up impeachment. This is not something that the Constitution has bestowed upon leadership. It is something that every member has the right and privilege of doing. I am not sure that there will be members who are going to wait for someone else if that someone else, doesn’t matter who it is, is declining to do it. We can all do it. And I think there is a good likelihood there will be Articles of Impeachment.”

ECHEVARRIA: “Have you heard directly from the Minority Leader about these efforts of yours, specifically asking you to stop or hold back? Anything along that line?”

GREEN: “Well, I don’t think you have to ask me what I’ve heard. If you have read publications, it is intuitively obvious to perhaps even the most casual observer that she and I are in different places on this. I respect her position.”

https://news.grabien.com/story-al-green-democrats-will-impeach-trump-if-we-retake-house

Al Green's comments and proposed impeachment seems premature. As much as I don't like Trump, I believe the conditions of his impeachment have not been met yet. It's more likely that Trump will be a one term president or he'll get fed up and resign.


Title: Re: Impeachment
Post by: Primemuscle on May 23, 2018, 12:51:00 PM
>Assuming that Pence would not carry out the rest of the agenda.

>Assuming that this would not result in a MASSIVE 2020 showing for the republican candidate.

Great Idea!

I've been told that Pence is ultra conservative....perhaps he'd be a worse choice for the more liberal minded.


Title: Re: Impeachment
Post by: Dos Equis on May 23, 2018, 12:51:51 PM
Al Green's comments and proposed impeachment seems premature. As much as I don't like Trump, I believe the conditions of his impeachment have not been met yet. It's more likely that Trump will be a one term president or he'll get fed up and resign.

Definitely premature.  

I don't think he quits and if he continues to perform the way he has, he is going to be reelected, particularly when you look at who the Democrats are lining up for 2020:  Bernie Sanders, Corey Booker, Kamala Harris, etc.  


Title: Re: Impeachment
Post by: Primemuscle on May 23, 2018, 12:57:13 PM
Definitely premature.  

I don't think he quits and if he continues to perform the way he has, he is going to be reelected, particularly when you look at who the Democrats are lining up for 2020:  Bernie Sanders, Corey Booker, Kamala Harris, etc.  

We will have a better idea of the future of the presidency on the second Tuesday in November or the day after that. Personally, I think his performance is lacking....mostly because I disagree with his policies and because he panders to his friends and families' interests.


Title: Re: Impeachment
Post by: Dos Equis on May 23, 2018, 01:05:33 PM
We will have a better idea of the future of the presidency on the second Tuesday in November or the day after that. Personally, I think his performance is lacking....mostly because I disagree with his policies and because he panders to his friends and families' interests.

Remember that saying "it's the economy stupid"?  The economic indicators are hardly lacking.  The economy has improved by leaps and bounds.  That's what will primarily propel him to a second term.  Taking back all the ground we lost from ISIS under Obama helps.  And if he is able to broker some kind of treaty between North and South Korea, it's over.  

And given his accomplishments, why wouldn't we want him to serve a second term? 


Title: Re: Impeachment
Post by: Howard on May 23, 2018, 01:22:48 PM
Remember that saying "it's the economy stupid"?  The economic indicators are hardly lacking.  The economy has improved by leaps and bounds.  That's what will primarily propel him to a second term.  Taking back all the ground we lost from ISIS under Obama helps.  And if he is able to broker some kind of treaty between North and South Korea, it's over.  

And given his accomplishments, why wouldn't we want him to serve a second term? 

Unlike some "never Trumpers" I try to deal with reality instead of wishful thinking.
Pres. Trump still has a solid 40% base of support that's stayed with him, regardless .
The tax cut was popular with his base and many on the right applauded his moving of the Israli embassy to Jeruselum .
It would be difficult to convict him, even if he was impeached . They need 67 senators to vote against him,
so that's a real long shot.

I've always thought he'd resign IF the dems take back the house.
With the Mueller / FBI investigations added to dems in charge of congress, he'll say fuk it.

Regardless of the evidence, he'll head out in disgust ,claiming he was sabotaged and ruined his plans to MAGA.

I know you and other Trump supporters think I'm crazy on this, but I honestly think it could happen.
Oh well, we'll know better in a few months.



Title: Re: Impeachment
Post by: Howard on May 23, 2018, 01:28:16 PM
I've been told that Pence is ultra conservative....perhaps he'd be a worse choice for the more liberal minded.
He is. But I'd take him over Trump any day.

VP Pence is a mature man of principles with a  measured, thoughtful TEMPERMENT.

Trump appears to have the temperament of a spoiled 12 yr old brat .

His tweeting and off the cuff insults make him appear juvenile and impulsive .


Title: Re: Impeachment
Post by: Primemuscle on May 23, 2018, 01:35:33 PM
Remember that saying "it's the economy stupid"?  The economic indicators are hardly lacking.  The economy has improved by leaps and bounds.  That's what will primarily propel him to a second term.  Taking back all the ground we lost from ISIS under Obama helps.  And if he is able to broker some kind of treaty between North and South Korea, it's over.  

And given his accomplishments, why wouldn't we want him to serve a second term? 

The economic recovery began in 2010.
https://www.thebalance.com/us-economic-outlook-3305669 (https://www.thebalance.com/us-economic-outlook-3305669)

ISIS, who deserves credit for their defeat?
https://www.vox.com/world/2018/1/30/16945312/state-of-the-union-2018-isis
 (https://www.vox.com/world/2018/1/30/16945312/state-of-the-union-2018-isis) https://www.newyorker.com/news/news-desk/trump-defies-his-generalson-isis-and-syria (https://www.newyorker.com/news/news-desk/trump-defies-his-generalson-isis-and-syria)

North Korea Summit is on hold at the moment,
http://www.newser.com/story/259613/trump-hedges-on-date-for-north-korea-summit.html (http://www.newser.com/story/259613/trump-hedges-on-date-for-north-korea-summit.html)


Title: Re: Impeachment
Post by: Primemuscle on May 23, 2018, 01:44:30 PM
He is. But I'd take him over Trump any day.

VP Pence is a mature man of principles with a  measured, thoughtful TEMPERMENT.

Trump appears to have the temperament of a spoiled 12 yr old brat .

His tweeting and off the cuff insults make him appear juvenile and impulsive .

And there are those hand gestures....

(https://qph.fs.quoracdn.net/main-qimg-5593bf9dc052d36a20cab0aac5519eda)

(https://qph.fs.quoracdn.net/main-qimg-4945a9c644b1a74002c06c3d29f8ff1e-c)

(https://fortunedotcom.files.wordpress.com/2016/04/525783312.jpg)

(https://images.theconversation.com/files/117230/original/image-20160404-6790-1pv9p0e.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=926&fit=clip)

His mother never taught him that it is impolite to point.  :)



Title: Re: Impeachment
Post by: Howard on May 23, 2018, 01:47:44 PM
The economic recovery began in 2010.
https://www.thebalance.com/us-economic-outlook-3305669 (https://www.thebalance.com/us-economic-outlook-3305669)

ISIS, who deserves credit for their defeat?
https://www.vox.com/world/2018/1/30/16945312/state-of-the-union-2018-isis
 (https://www.vox.com/world/2018/1/30/16945312/state-of-the-union-2018-isis) https://www.newyorker.com/news/news-desk/trump-defies-his-generalson-isis-and-syria (https://www.newyorker.com/news/news-desk/trump-defies-his-generalson-isis-and-syria)

North Korea Summit is on hold at the moment,
http://www.newser.com/story/259613/trump-hedges-on-date-for-north-korea-summit.html (http://www.newser.com/story/259613/trump-hedges-on-date-for-north-korea-summit.html)

Hey Prime, politics aside, how are you doing my friend?
 I know you to endure the toughest of personal loss and I trust this finds you doing well.

We all can be guilty of getting caught up in the daily news and forget what really matters to us.

God bless my friend.


Title: Re: Impeachment
Post by: Primemuscle on May 23, 2018, 01:57:17 PM
Hey Prime, politics aside, how are you doing my friend?
 I know you to endure the toughest of personal loss and I trust this finds you doing well.

We all can be guilty of getting caught up in the daily news and forget what really matters to us.

God bless my friend.

Thanks for asking. The honest answer is, not great, just so-so. Following the political news is mainly for distraction much like watching The Voice and other competition shows and spending time on Getbig are. This being said, I am thankful for my friends and family, my good health and relatively secure economic position.


Title: Re: Impeachment
Post by: mazrim on May 23, 2018, 02:07:09 PM
The economic recovery began in 2010.
https://www.thebalance.com/us-economic-outlook-3305669 (https://www.thebalance.com/us-economic-outlook-3305669)

ISIS, who deserves credit for their defeat?
https://www.vox.com/world/2018/1/30/16945312/state-of-the-union-2018-isis
 (https://www.vox.com/world/2018/1/30/16945312/state-of-the-union-2018-isis) https://www.newyorker.com/news/news-desk/trump-defies-his-generalson-isis-and-syria (https://www.newyorker.com/news/news-desk/trump-defies-his-generalson-isis-and-syria)

North Korea Summit is on hold at the moment,
http://www.newser.com/story/259613/trump-hedges-on-date-for-north-korea-summit.html (http://www.newser.com/story/259613/trump-hedges-on-date-for-north-korea-summit.html)

Please tell me you just skimmed that second link (first one I clicked on) and didn't actually use that as some sort of defense of your position. Just decided to throw it up. That is an embarrassing article. Filled with major stretches/misquotes/contradictions, etc.

Type of article that is turning the tide hopefully for the midterms due to its overt bias/lack of logic used.


Title: Re: Impeachment
Post by: Dos Equis on May 23, 2018, 03:54:47 PM
The economic recovery began in 2010.
https://www.thebalance.com/us-economic-outlook-3305669 (https://www.thebalance.com/us-economic-outlook-3305669)

ISIS, who deserves credit for their defeat?
https://www.vox.com/world/2018/1/30/16945312/state-of-the-union-2018-isis
 (https://www.vox.com/world/2018/1/30/16945312/state-of-the-union-2018-isis) https://www.newyorker.com/news/news-desk/trump-defies-his-generalson-isis-and-syria (https://www.newyorker.com/news/news-desk/trump-defies-his-generalson-isis-and-syria)

North Korea Summit is on hold at the moment,
http://www.newser.com/story/259613/trump-hedges-on-date-for-north-korea-summit.html (http://www.newser.com/story/259613/trump-hedges-on-date-for-north-korea-summit.html)

The recovery may have began in 2010 (I'm not sure if that's true), but the economic indicators have dramatically improved since Trump has been in office.  No reasonable person voting in 2020 is going to credit Obama for economic success between 2016 and 2020.

Who deserves the credit for the rise of ISIS after we pulled our troops from Iraq?  Obama, without question.  Who took back all of the ground we lost in Iraq in one year?  Trump, without question. 

I don't know what will happen with North Korea, but like I said, if Trump negotiates a treaty I don't see how he isn't reelected. 


Title: Re: Impeachment
Post by: Dos Equis on May 23, 2018, 03:56:22 PM
Unlike some "never Trumpers" I try to deal with reality instead of wishful thinking.
Pres. Trump still has a solid 40% base of support that's stayed with him, regardless .
The tax cut was popular with his base and many on the right applauded his moving of the Israli embassy to Jeruselum .
It would be difficult to convict him, even if he was impeached . They need 67 senators to vote against him,
so that's a real long shot.

I've always thought he'd resign IF the dems take back the house.
With the Mueller / FBI investigations added to dems in charge of congress, he'll say fuk it.

Regardless of the evidence, he'll head out in disgust ,claiming he was sabotaged and ruined his plans to MAGA.

I know you and other Trump supporters think I'm crazy on this, but I honestly think it could happen.
Oh well, we'll know better in a few months.



You're not dealing with reality.  If you were, you wouldn't be talking about that asinine Russia conspiracy theory.  And there is zero evidence Trump committed a crime. 


Title: Re: Impeachment
Post by: Primemuscle on May 23, 2018, 04:22:21 PM
The recovery may have began in 2010 (I'm not sure if that's true), but the economic indicators have dramatically improved since Trump has been in office.  No reasonable person voting in 2020 is going to credit Obama for economic success between 2016 and 2020.

Who deserves the credit for the rise of ISIS after we pulled our troops from Iraq?  Obama, without question.  Who took back all of the ground we lost in Iraq in one year?  Trump, without question. 

I don't know what will happen with North Korea, but like I said, if Trump negotiates a treaty I don't see how he isn't reelected. 

What you really have down pat is the fact that most people have short memories. Obama will likely take his place in history as the first African American U.S. President. History can be a good reference, but what happens in the here and now is more important. Trump will be reelected unless he falls from the grace of his support....that's a real possibility when someone is as unpredictable as he is. 


Title: Re: Impeachment
Post by: Dos Equis on May 23, 2018, 04:30:02 PM
What you really have down pat is the fact that most people have short memories. Obama will likely take his place in history as the first African American U.S. President. History can be a good reference, but what happens in the here and now is more important. Trump will be reelected unless he falls from the grace of his support....that's a real possibility when someone is as unpredictable as he is. 

People definitely have short memories. 

Love him or hate him, one thing Trump does is win.  I was a Never Trumper.  I was wrong about him. 


Title: Re: Impeachment
Post by: Primemuscle on May 23, 2018, 08:07:05 PM
People definitely have short memories. 

Love him or hate him, one thing Trump does is win.  I was a Never Trumper.  I was wrong about him. 

You continually amaze me. Keep me guessing, I love it. Now I really have to go.


Title: Re: Impeachment
Post by: Dos Equis on May 23, 2018, 10:52:58 PM
You continually amaze me. Keep me guessing, I love it. Now I really have to go.

 :)


Title: Re: Impeachment
Post by: Dos Equis on June 22, 2018, 12:10:01 PM
There's nearly a Nixon '74 level of public support for impeaching Trump
CNN ^ | June 22, 2018 | Byron Wolfe
Posted on 6/22/2018, 3:36:40 PM by Rennes Templar

(CNN)There is a truly remarkable number in the most recent CNN poll, conducted by SSRS and out this morning.

In it, 42% of Americans say President Donald Trump should be impeached and removed from office. What makes it remarkable is that he's on par with President Richard Nixon, who 43% of Americans said should be impeached and removed from office in a March 1974 Harris poll. That was after the scale of Watergate came to light, but months before the House started to move against Nixon, who would go on to resign in August 1974 rather than be impeached.

Impeachment requires "treason, bribery or other high crimes and misdemeanors," according to the Constitution, which also lists it as the the only thing for which a President can't issue a pardon. Trump has bragged that he certainly has the power to pardon himself but won't need to use it. Nixon got a pardon from Gerald Ford, the man to whom he gave the keys to the White House.

The 43% supporting Nixon's impeachment in that Harris poll, by the way, is much higher than the 29% who supported impeachment for President Bill Clinton in 1998. Or, for that matter, the similar number who wanted Presidents Barack Obama and George W. Bush impeached. As CNN's Grace Sparks writes, there's basically "a baseline of pro-impeachment sentiment for a modern president" and Trump far eclipses it. So why aren't top Democrats clamoring to impeach Trump? To be sure, there are efforts on the outskirts of the party and in Congress, but they do not have the backing of party big wigs.

Most Democrats in Congress, for the record, have opposed efforts by Rep. Al Green, a Texas Democrat, to bring the issue to the floor of the House.

(Excerpt) Read more at cnn.com ...


Title: Re: Impeachment
Post by: Las Vegas on June 22, 2018, 12:26:55 PM
Thanks for asking. The honest answer is, not great, just so-so. Following the political news is mainly for distraction much like watching The Voice and other competition shows and spending time on Getbig are. This being said, I am thankful for my friends and family, my good health and relatively secure economic position.

Then what are you missing, Prime?  And what are you distracting yourself from, would you say?


Title: Re: Impeachment
Post by: Primemuscle on June 22, 2018, 02:08:32 PM
Then what are you missing, Prime?  And what are you distracting yourself from, would you say?

My late wife and the loss of my very best friend in the world. Nothing will ever fill this void.


Title: Re: Impeachment
Post by: Dos Equis on June 22, 2018, 02:18:09 PM
My late wife and the loss of my very best friend in the world. Nothing will ever fill this void.

Sorry for your losses.  Death and dying suck. 


Title: Re: Impeachment
Post by: Primemuscle on June 22, 2018, 02:27:13 PM
Sorry for your losses.  Death and dying suck. 

Yes, death does suck. No one escapes it though.


Title: Re: Impeachment
Post by: Soul Crusher on June 22, 2018, 04:00:43 PM
My late wife and the loss of my very best friend in the world. Nothing will ever fill this void.

Sorry man.  We bust balls but we are also Getbiggrrs first.  Stay strong man


Title: Re: Impeachment
Post by: Las Vegas on June 22, 2018, 08:48:24 PM
My late wife and the loss of my very best friend in the world. Nothing will ever fill this void.

That's really sad, Prime.  But I'm sure you'd rather feel the sorrow, than some alternative to it -- meaning a positive truth about yourself can be found even in that gloom, and in the least selfish way.  

(Sometimes it helps to realize that when all else fails.)


Title: Re: Impeachment
Post by: Primemuscle on June 23, 2018, 01:31:07 PM
Thanks guys for your kind and thoughtful replies.

I'm afraid that I didn't make clear that my wife died in June 2015. After almost 30 years of increasingly poor health, her body finally gave up. Kidney failure was the cause of death, but everything else was failing too except her liver. Her condition was chronic to critical for the last three years during which she was hospitalized several times.

Getbig was a distraction for me during that time. It still is.


Title: Re: Impeachment
Post by: chaos on June 23, 2018, 02:00:47 PM
My late wife and the loss of my very best friend in the world. Nothing will ever fill this void.
Bashing Trump seems to pass your days now.


Title: Re: Impeachment
Post by: Primemuscle on June 23, 2018, 02:25:44 PM
Bashing Trump seems to pass your days now.

Sure seems like it.  :)  It's comforting to know that I have so much company.  I owe Trump a big thanks for setting it up and making it so easy to bash him.


Title: Re: Impeachment
Post by: Dos Equis on July 17, 2018, 05:46:29 PM
Bookmaker increases chances of Trump being impeached after Putin summit
BY JUSTIN WISE - 07/17/18
   
Bookmaker increases chances of Trump being impeached after Putin summit
The chances that President Trump will be impeached are rising, according to one Irish bookmaker, one day after Trump refused to denounce Russian meddling in the 2016 election following a meeting with Russian President Vladimir Putin.

Paddy Power increased the likelihood of Trump being impeached on Tuesday from 8-1 to 2-1, according to Yahoo News. The news outlet first reported that the betting company also increased the likelihood of Trump being impeached this year, from 12-1 to 8-1.

"After the carnage of the last few days, we’ve seen plenty of punters Putin money on Trump’s impeachment again — although I’m sure they’ll soon get a message, in Russian, urging them to stop," a Paddy Power spokesman told Yahoo News.

The odds of Trump's impeachment increasing comes after his high-stakes summit with Putin in Finland, where he drew widespread condemnation for the comments he made during a joint press conference.

Among other things, Trump slammed special counsel Robert Mueller's probe into Russian meddling in the 2016 election as a "disaster" and said he had no reason to think Moscow interfered — a comment that runs counter to the U.S. intelligence community's assessments.

Rep. Eric Swalwell (D-Calif.), a member of the House Judiciary Committee, told The Hill on Monday that it was "premature" to discuss Trump's impeachment.

"We should do all we can to make sure that he’s held accountable, that we conduct the investigations the Republicans have been unwilling to do.” Swalwell said. “If impeachment is the case, it’s because we found impenetrable evidence that we take to the American people and will be accepted by both Republicans and Democrats."

http://thehill.com/blogs/in-the-know/in-the-know/397431-bookmaker-increases-odds-of-trump-being-impeached-after-trump-putin-summit


Title: Re: Impeachment
Post by: Dos Equis on July 19, 2018, 03:32:29 PM
Trump impeachment push emerges as next Dem litmus test
Gregg Re By Gregg Re   | Fox News
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2018/07/19/trump-impeachment-push-emerges-as-next-dem-litmus-test.html


Title: Re: Impeachment
Post by: Dos Equis on August 24, 2018, 09:27:40 AM
L.A. Mayor Eric Garcetti, 2020 Presidential Contender: Impeach Trump!
24 Aug 2018

Los Angeles mayor Eric Garcetti, who is considering a run for president on the Democratic Party ticket in 2020, says that it is now time to talk about impeaching President Donald Trump.

Celebrity news TMZ caught up with Garcetti on the streets of the city this week and asked him if it was time to consider impeaching Trump, following the guilty plea of his former attorney, Michael Cohen, for campaign finance violations.

“I think it’s time to start talking about that, absolutely. We have a president who said, ‘I knew nothing,’ while he was on Air Force One, and who just yesterday said, ‘Of course I knew about it, and it’s not an offense.’ Gotta get your story straight.”
 
Garcetti continued: “Often times, it’s not even the offense, it’s the cover-up. And, you know, I think this is something that should inform people in November at the ballot. We don’t want a liar. We want somebody who can shoot straight [and] tell the truth.”

Asked whether Democrats should avoid the issue of impeachment during the 2018 campaign, Garcetti disagreed.

“It think it’s finally something big enough that we should talk about it.”

Garcetti added that if he were elected president, he would not pardon Trump.

Garcetti has been visiting key primary states, including Iowa, New Hampshire, and South Carolina. Critics say, however, that he has failed to deal with the homeless crisis in L.A.
 
On Thursday, the Los Angeles Times reports, an synagogue that was damaged in last year’s Skirball fire sued the City of Los Angeles, alleging that it failed to clear out a homeless encampment nearby, where the fire started.

https://www.breitbart.com/california/2018/08/24/l-a-mayor-eric-garcetti-2020-presidential-contender-impeach-trump/


Title: Re: Impeachment
Post by: Primemuscle on August 24, 2018, 02:27:52 PM
If there ever is a serious plan to impeach Trump, they better have all their ducks in a row because I've heard you only get one shot at it.

In times past when the crowd didn't like a performer they'd through rotten fruit at them. Do you suppose this is where the term impeach came from?  :D


Title: Re: Impeachment
Post by: Dos Equis on August 24, 2018, 02:37:35 PM
If there ever is a serious plan to impeach Trump, they better have all their ducks in a row because I've heard you only get one shot at it.

In times past when the crowd didn't like a performer they'd through rotten fruit at them. Do you suppose this is where the term impeach came from?  :D

Keep in mind it is a two-step process:  majority of the House must vote to impeach and, following a trial, two thirds of the Senate must vote to remove.  Never going to happen based on everything we know to do date, with the biggest problem being the lack of an impeachable offense. 


Title: Re: Impeachment
Post by: Primemuscle on August 24, 2018, 02:43:19 PM
Keep in mind it is a two-step process:  majority of the House must vote to impeach and, following a trial, two thirds of the Senate must vote to remove.  Never going to happen based on everything we know to do date, with the biggest problem being the lack of an impeachable offense. 

Are you speculating or do you really know there is no impeachable offense now or in the future?  Anyway, why are you telling me this. Didn't I as much as say impeachment is unlikely?


Title: Re: Impeachment
Post by: Straw Man on August 24, 2018, 02:52:54 PM
Keep in mind it is a two-step process:  majority of the House must vote to impeach and, following a trial, two thirds of the Senate must vote to remove.  Never going to happen based on everything we know to do date, with the biggest problem being the lack of an impeachable offense.  

LOL - If Trump were a Democrat he would have been impeached 8 months ago

Trump has already committed obstruction of justice and witness intimidation multiple times and in public

We can ignore all that and just look at Trump pathetic performance in Helsinki which at the very least is dereliction of duty

Here is Lindsey Graham explaining the grounds for impeachment in 1999

Quote
"You don’t even have to be convicted of a crime to lose your job in this constitutional republic. If this body determines that your conduct as a public official is clearly out of bounds in your role. Because impeachment is not about punishment. Impeachment is about cleansing the office. Impeachment is about restoring honor and integrity to the office."


Title: Re: Impeachment
Post by: Dos Equis on August 24, 2018, 02:55:03 PM
Are you speculating or do you really know there is no impeachable offense now or in the future?  Anyway, why are you telling me this. Didn't I as much as say impeachment is unlikely?

I didn't say anything about the future.  What said was "Never going to happen based on everything we know to do date, with the biggest problem being the lack of an impeachable offense."

We are saying impeachment is unlikely for different reasons.  I'm saying it's unlikely for two reasons:  (1) he hasn't committed an impeachable offense and (2) the makeup of Congress makes it all but impossible, because even if Democrats retake the House and Senate, they will not have enough in the Senate to remove him.  


Title: Re: Impeachment
Post by: Primemuscle on August 24, 2018, 02:56:39 PM
I didn't say anything about the future.  What said was "Never going to happen based on everything we know to do date, with the biggest problem being the lack of an impeachable offense."

We are saying impeachment is unlikely for different reasons.  I'm saying it's unlikely for two reasons:  (1) he hasn't committed an impeachable offense and (2) the makeup of Congress makes it all but impossible, because even if Democrats retake the House and Senate, they will not have enough in the Senate to remove him.  

Okay. Gotta go now, it's time for my nap.  :)


Title: Re: Impeachment
Post by: Dos Equis on August 24, 2018, 02:58:59 PM
Okay. Gotta go now, it's time for my nap.  :)

lol   :D


Title: Re: Impeachment
Post by: Straw Man on August 24, 2018, 03:14:02 PM
I didn't say anything about the future.  What said was "Never going to happen based on everything we know to do date, with the biggest problem being the lack of an impeachable offense."

We are saying impeachment is unlikely for different reasons.  I'm saying it's unlikely for two reasons:  (1) he hasn't committed an impeachable offense and (2) the makeup of Congress makes it all but impossible, because even if Democrats retake the House and Senate, they will not have enough in the Senate to remove him.  

an impeachable offense is whatever Congress says it is

As we know Republican have two drastically different standards for what that is depending on whether you're a Republican or a Democrat

If a Democrat had done all the stuff Trump has done he/she would have been long gone by now and we'd have a whole bunch of recent videos of Republicans making passionate speeches about having to cleanse the office and return dignity to the office, etc..





Title: Re: Impeachment
Post by: chaos on August 24, 2018, 05:05:48 PM
I didn't say anything about the future.  What said was "Never going to happen based on everything we know to do date, with the biggest problem being the lack of an impeachable offense."

We are saying impeachment is unlikely for different reasons.  I'm saying it's unlikely for two reasons:  (1) he hasn't committed an impeachable offense and (2) the makeup of Congress makes it all but impossible, because even if Democrats retake the House and Senate, they will not have enough in the Senate to remove him.  
But he says mean things!!! :'( :'(


Title: Re: Impeachment
Post by: polychronopolous on August 24, 2018, 05:09:23 PM
an impeachable offense is whatever Congress says it is

As we know Republican have two drastically different standards for what that is depending on whether you're a Republican or a Democrat

If a Democrat had done all the stuff Trump has done he/she would have been long gone by now and we'd have a whole bunch of recent videos of Republicans making passionate speeches about having to cleanse the office and return dignity to the office, etc..





You people should come up with a coherent message.

Even the Democrat Party at large is getting sniped daily from a growing movement on the further left.

A complete cluster fuck the Democratic Party has become.


Title: Re: Impeachment
Post by: Dos Equis on August 24, 2018, 05:19:54 PM
But he says mean things!!! :'( :'(

Right? 


Title: Re: Impeachment
Post by: Dos Equis on August 24, 2018, 05:20:18 PM
You people should come up with a coherent message.

Even the Democrat Party at large is getting sniped daily from a growing movement on the further left.

A complete cluster fuck the Democratic Party has become.

Good luck with that.  lol


Title: Re: Impeachment
Post by: Primemuscle on August 25, 2018, 12:16:03 AM
lol   :D

I had a great nap. Felt very refreshed afterwards. Think I'll make this a fixture in my life.  ;)