Obama's impeachable Offenses(link)

[AVGWarhawk]

Ignore button. Use it.

I'm set to ignore for many members. Seems to be working out for them. In fact, I have been ignored since 2005.

[Platapus]

Just like with Bush, If this person has evidence of an impeachable offense against the President, then they need to contact their representative in the House of Representatives. That's the process.

Not writing media articles.

If they are not willing to go through the official process, why would I think their article has any credibility?

[jumpy]

So, where does it say he ****** the intern?

[Bubblehead1980]

Originally Posted by Platapus

Just like with Bush, If this person has evidence of an impeachable offense against the President, then they need to contact their representative in the House of Representatives. That's the process.

Not writing media articles.

If they are not willing to go through the official process, why would I think their article has any credibility?

Well if we have a GOP Senate and House, perhaps impeachment will be tried if he is reelectedl but then again, maybe not because many in the congress as just as guilty as he is.

[Ducimus]

Originally Posted by AVGWarhawk

Ignore button. Use it.

I'm set to ignore for many members. Seems to be working out for them. In fact, I have been ignored since 2005.

OR, or maybe, in addition to.... just don't stop in General Topics for awhile. It's been a few days for me, and i find this thread great for an afternoon chuckle.

[vienna]

First, i would just like to say, there is no way Obama is going to be impeached based on the babblings of some Limbaugh/Hannity/FoxNews spouting loon, be he a member of Congress or some questionable law professor...

However, this deserves a second look:

In all seriousness, here's also one reason that Obama is not going to get impeached for these reasons: because that would set a precedent that neither party can afford to risk. It would be very short-sighted of them to kick out a president for, at best, bending constitutional interpretations to his agenda - because as soon as they do, then good luck avoiding the same for future presidents. Yes, it might be smart to slap the executive on the wrist for throwing around its authority (as Obama did on several occasions), but what makes you think that having a legislative branch than can throw out a prez at whim is in any way better? More importantly, what makes you (as the law student around here) think that this won't give a dangerous legal precedent to the supreme court?

Anyone else remember the sight of the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court, William Rehnquist, strutting about pompously in a robe he said was copied from a design in a Gilbert & Sullivan operetta, through the halls of the House and presiding over a farce engineered by NeoCon GOP members in an attempt to impeach and remove a sitting President over charges not even an -Nth of a degree as "serious" as those given by the law professor? Because of that little fiasco, the question of legal precedence is a ship that has already sailed...

Sadly, for the GOP, the axiom of "Those who do not learn from the past are doomed to repeat it" has not taken hold. The little sideshows, such as the "Birthers", among others, is seriously obscuring any meaningful impact the GOP could have with the voting public...

[Oberon]

I think the most serious question to ask here is...

Why are people taking this thread seriously?

Stop it.

[CCIP]

Originally Posted by vienna

Anyone else remember the sight of the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court, William Rehnquist, strutting about pompously in a robe he said was copied from a design in a Gilbert & Sullivan operetta, through the halls of the House and presiding over a farce engineered by NeoCon GOP members in an attempt to impeach and remove a sitting President over charges not even an -Nth of a degree as "serious" as those given by the law professor? Because of that little fiasco, the question of legal precedence is a ship that has already sailed...

Good point! It was, in fairness, a failed impeachment, but it did set some very dangerous possibilities open for the future. That said, I wouldn't take the threat very seriously right now. I don't think those same neocon GOP members are in a position to benefit from this kind of scenario at the moment anyway. If they can't take Obama down in the elections, they would probably only polarize and offend voters more by maneuvers like this.

Originally Posted by Oberon

I think the most serious question to ask here is...

Why are people taking this thread seriously?

Stop it.

We're nerds and can't help it

[Buddahaid]

Originally Posted by CCIP

Good point! It was, in fairness, a failed impeachment, but it did set some very dangerous possibilities open for the future. That said, I wouldn't take the threat very seriously right now. I don't think those same neocon GOP members are in a position to benefit from this kind of scenario at the moment anyway. If they can't take Obama down in the elections, they would probably only polarize and offend voters more by maneuvers like this.




We're nerds and can't help it

That implies logic that often defies a mob mentality which would seem to be an apt description these days. It's not beyond the possible simply by inertia.

[Torplexed]

No matter what year or political season it is, impeachment talk is always dirt cheap.

[yubba]

When it all goes to hell in a hand basket what will it matter, we'll be too busy in our backyards looking for worms to eat.

[nikimcbee]

looking for worms to eat.

HHHHM, free protein

[Bubblehead1980]

Originally Posted by Torplexed

No matter what year or political season it is, impeachment talk is always dirt cheap.

not this time, he has done more than just lie.I could see an attempt to impeach him if he is reelected because he will be ever more dangerous when he does not have to answer to the voters.