Impeach Oboma

[golfhobo]

She has very small hands. I don't think she has room to spell out impeachment on one of them.

[Ptarmigan]

This is an interesting statement which I hope to return to this weekend.

Another interesting thing I noted about this thread: 17 replies (before THIS one) by 11 people (if I counted right.) And 16 votes. That means there are at least a FEW who are voting without comment.... as "I" did when I voted (my comment came later.)

Yet, on this board that has been touted to be something like 85% Conservative, and my minority status being well established, The vote is 9-7. Only 56%.... a little over half..... would support impeachment.

In fact.... I believe all 9 "yea" votes are represented here in the comments, and will probably continue to "agree with each other" and pat themselves on the back, and (what does robertt call it?....oh yea,) DISCUSS it for days to come. But, myself and 6 others (mostly silent to date) would vote "nay."

Impeachment of a sitting president is a very serious thing. BTW Mr. Ford... Clinton wasn't impeached for " [not] having sex-ual relations with THAT woman."

And y'all might want to consider (and maybe be thankful) that... OBAMA is about the only thing standing between his Atty General and.... what was the question of this thread?..... Articles of Impeachment.... against former President Bush.

I think Holder would have a tough road ahead of him. Firstly, you cannot impeach a former president, he has already been removed from office due to his two terms and Obama's being inaugurated.

Holder has considered criminal charges, but again, he's likely to struggle to make that stick. The witch hunt against those justice department officials that gave the past administration advice is on a tenuous footing, and won't go anywhere. I don't see a prosecution against Bush being tremendously successful either.

[golfhobo]

Ptarmigan said:

I think Holder would have a tough road ahead of him. Firstly, you cannot impeach a former president, he has already been removed from office due to his two terms and Obama's being inaugurated.

Well... of course you are correct. I was referencing discussions that took place after Pelosi's bunch took over Congress in 06. There was alot of talk about it then, and mostly during the campaign of 08. Obama clearly came out against impeaching Bush (at a time when it was still a possibility.) SINCE the inauguration, the discussion changed to criminal charges, and Holder and Pelosi have continued to show a certain inclination towards that event.

Holder has considered criminal charges, but again, he's likely to struggle to make that stick.

I'm not so sure it would BE such a struggle under the current makeup of the courts, but it WOULD have been easier when it was within the power of Congress.

The witch hunt against those justice department officials that gave the past administration advice is on a tenuous footing, and won't go anywhere.

That is an entirely different case. The charges against Bush (or Cheney for that matter,) are of a different nature and coersion of the head of the intelligence agencies is a powerful argument, supported by the Downing Street Memo. It would not be too hard to prove "lying to Congress" which is at least a Felony [Giving false statements to a government official.] Not to mention the possibility of charging Cheney with ordering torture, and eventually laying the blame at Dubya's feet.

But, as I said.... Obama has "graciously" indicated that he has no desire to put America through another presidential trial like the GOP did to Clinton. He wants to move forward.

I don't see a prosecution against Bush being tremendously successful either.

No such prosecution would... or indeed, SHOULD.... be easy. And this country doesn't NEED to go through all that again. Clinton was, in a way, payback for Nixon. Game is even.

But, again.... my point was that those who are so quick to call for Obama's "lynching" should be glad that HE was more even tempered than them! Of course, he had little choice. A BLACK president could hardly survive the backlash of White America if he immediately tried to "lynch" his predecessor!

[Ptarmigan]

Ptarmigan said:



Well... of course you are correct. I was referencing discussions that took place after Pelosi's bunch took over Congress in 06. There was alot of talk about it then, and mostly during the campaign of 08. Obama clearly came out against impeaching Bush (at a time when it was still a possibility.) SINCE the inauguration, the discussion changed to criminal charges, and Holder and Pelosi have continued to show a certain inclination towards that event.

Well, my opinion of Pelosi is pretty low, and I think Holder was a terrible choice for AG, and certainly his appointment smacked more of pandering to the base than a truly throughful pick of an Attorney General. Holder has made no secret of his desires, and the AG's position is a unique one, he actually has the authority to defy the President.

That is an entirely different case. The charges against Bush (or Cheney for that matter,) are of a different nature and coersion of the head of the intelligence agencies is a powerful argument, supported by the Downing Street Memo. It would not be too hard to prove "lying to Congress" which is at least a Felony [Giving false statements to a government official.] Not to mention the possibility of charging Cheney with ordering torture, and eventually laying the blame at Dubya's feet.

I'd be wary of reading things into the Downing Street memo than are actually there. I haven't read it in a while, but my recollection is that it said that there was a hankering for War in DC. I think that's established, but also a correct posture for DC to have taken. If you wish for peace, prepare for war etc etc.

No such prosecution would... or indeed, SHOULD.... be easy. And this country doesn't NEED to go through all that again. Clinton was, in a way, payback for Nixon. Game is even.

But, again.... my point was that those who are so quick to call for Obama's "lynching" should be glad that HE was more even tempered than them! Of course, he had little choice. A BLACK president could hardly survive the backlash of White America if he immediately tried to "lynch" his predecessor!

I don't consider race an issue, I think Obama could certainly gain support in some quarters for such a prosecution. I do think it would result in an acquittal, but that's neither my call (thank jebus), nor something I wish to consider.

[Mr. Ford95]

Why return to my comment Hobo? It is overrated, of the 62 times the House has brought impeachment's since 1789, only 7 officials have been removed by the Senate. The House can vote to impeach you but the Senate can let you go which means technically you were impeached but allowed to stay in office. Andrew Johnson and Clinton are the only POTUS' to be impeached but not removed from office. In fact they are the only 2 POTUS' to ever have impeachment charges brought against them. Nixon left office before the imminent impeachment could start.

Apparently from what I've read, the Atty Gen doesn't have any say in impeachment unless they want to act as a defense. It comes down to the Senate and House. Senate tries them, House votes and recommends to Senate then acts as prosecutor at the Senate trial. Senate as a whole then votes, two-thirds majority is required for a conviction and ultimate removal from office.

[Windwalker]

And, the impeachment proceedings against Clinton were actually for something that has been going on in the White House quite a number of times over past administrations. We've had a President that regularly met with prostitutes. Kennedy had women in private at various times. The main difference is that Clinton's meetings were made public. In this age of "information superhighways", the news spreads faster and farther. If we had the technology a hundred years ago, some of our former leaders would not have been, or would have been impeached also. Our president living in a glass house has progressed since Johnson watched a space flight, while wearing his red, long underwear, as seen on national news at the time. Something the newscaster also pointed out.

Obama has studied the Constitution, and knows where the line is. He also knows how to push the envelope without blatantly crossing the line. Regardless how the public may feel that he's betrayed them, I do not see any impeachment coming his way unless he slips. I do see him as the best weapon the Republicans have on the Democrat's side. He's going to try to get as much done as he can while his side wields the power. I expect, and I believe he also expects, a power shift this fall. His remaining 2 years in office will be an up-hill battle to try to do anything. And, with all the people that feel he's betrayed them, I do not see him getting re-elected in 2012.

Being "the first black President", I do not expect him to allow himself to be drawn into something that would impeach him, and have that blemish on his record.

[Mr. Ford95]

As long as the Dems control all of Congress Obama will not be impeached or have charges brought against him unless he suddenly becomes enemies with his own party. Come 2012 though, if he wins re-election and the Repubs this November and again in 2012 suddenly get a super-majority, then he better tread real lightly because the Repubs will be waiting for a slip up.

I do expect him to get drawn into something that could destroy him and rather easily, he can't handle critisicm and if you push him just enough(which isn't very much pushing some have found out) he will react.

[Southron]

Would you support articles of impeachment against P BO.

I'm sure if Obama committs an impeachable offense, that John Boehner will introduce impeachment proceedings. And now, since that Federal Judge in Florida ruled Obamacare unconstitutional, and it looks like Obama is going to ignore his ruling... it just may lead to impeachment. Only time will tell.

[Windwalker]

He may be satisfied that he succeeded in putting on his big show when first elected. I still don't see impeachment.