Author Topic: Impeachment  (Read 272879 times)

Soul Crusher

  • Competitors
  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 39256
  • Doesnt lie about lifting.
Re: Impeachment
« Reply #225 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

Dos Equis

  • Moderator
  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 63566
  • I am. The most interesting man in the world. (Not)
Re: Impeachment
« Reply #226 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/

Dos Equis

  • Moderator
  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 63566
  • I am. The most interesting man in the world. (Not)
Re: Impeachment
« Reply #227 on: August 01, 2016, 04:01:03 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. 

240 is Back

  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 102396
  • Complete website for only $300- www.300website.com
Re: Impeachment
« Reply #228 on: August 01, 2016, 04:09:30 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.

Dos Equis

  • Moderator
  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 63566
  • I am. The most interesting man in the world. (Not)
Re: Impeachment
« Reply #229 on: November 03, 2016, 03:11:57 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

SOMEPARTS

  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 15831
Re: Impeachment
« Reply #230 on: November 03, 2016, 07:41:48 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...

Dos Equis

  • Moderator
  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 63566
  • I am. The most interesting man in the world. (Not)
Re: Impeachment
« Reply #231 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. 

Yamcha

  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 13292
  • Fundie
Re: Impeachment
« Reply #232 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
a

Dos Equis

  • Moderator
  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 63566
  • I am. The most interesting man in the world. (Not)
Re: Impeachment
« Reply #233 on: December 27, 2016, 01:27:16 PM »
First 100 days

Definitely possible. 

Dos Equis

  • Moderator
  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 63566
  • I am. The most interesting man in the world. (Not)
Re: Impeachment
« Reply #234 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. 

Dos Equis

  • Moderator
  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 63566
  • I am. The most interesting man in the world. (Not)
Re: Impeachment
« Reply #235 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 . . . .

Dos Equis

  • Moderator
  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 63566
  • I am. The most interesting man in the world. (Not)
Re: Impeachment
« Reply #236 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.  

Dos Equis

  • Moderator
  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 63566
  • I am. The most interesting man in the world. (Not)
Re: Impeachment
« Reply #237 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

Dos Equis

  • Moderator
  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 63566
  • I am. The most interesting man in the world. (Not)
Re: Impeachment
« Reply #238 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

Yamcha

  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 13292
  • Fundie
Re: Impeachment
« Reply #239 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...  :-\

a

GigantorX

  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 6370
  • GetBig's A-Team is the Light of Truth!
Re: Impeachment
« Reply #240 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.

Yamcha

  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 13292
  • Fundie
Re: Impeachment
« Reply #241 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.
a

Dos Equis

  • Moderator
  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 63566
  • I am. The most interesting man in the world. (Not)
Re: Impeachment
« Reply #242 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

TheGrinch

  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 5029
Re: Impeachment
« Reply #243 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?



Dos Equis

  • Moderator
  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 63566
  • I am. The most interesting man in the world. (Not)
Re: Impeachment
« Reply #244 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.   

Las Vegas

  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 7423
  • ! Repent or Perish !
Re: Impeachment
« Reply #245 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.

Dos Equis

  • Moderator
  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 63566
  • I am. The most interesting man in the world. (Not)
Re: Impeachment
« Reply #246 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. 

Skeletor

  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 15515
  • Silence you furry fool!
Re: Impeachment
« Reply #247 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".

Dos Equis

  • Moderator
  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 63566
  • I am. The most interesting man in the world. (Not)
Re: Impeachment
« Reply #248 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.

Skeletor

  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 15515
  • Silence you furry fool!
Re: Impeachment
« Reply #249 on: February 20, 2017, 06:11:44 PM »
And the punishment needs to fit the crime.

Yes.