About impeachment.

[Gaffer]

Congratulations, you just got on an NSA watch list.

If Obama were to attack Syria without the legislature approving, I see a valid point in impeachment. Not sure what this long laundry list of other 'impeachable' offenses are, lord knows a lot of the BS he pulls many before him have pulled.

I long for the day he isn't in office, but empty rhetoric about 'impeachment' is meaningless.

I see the joke in what your saying about the NSA. I'm sure I'm already on their list. I see your also still using selective quoting and only addressing small parts of what others talk about.

There are many things that can be brought into impeachment but the most important of all of them would be lying. Using the IRS to target political rivals and lying about it, (hmmmm sounds familiar), authorizing fast and furious and lying about it. Having the NSA spy on ordinary citizens and lying about it. Benghazi, and lying about it and having others lie as well. His impeachment needs to be focused on the lies rather than the event itself.

The biggest problem is the dems in the senate will circle the wagons to protect him. A lairs support group so to speak.

[Arbo]

I see the joke in what your saying about the NSA. I'm sure I'm already on their list.

Me too, no doubt.

I see your also still using selective quoting and only addressing small parts of what others talk about.

I don't need to 'quote' at all to reply, and I find no reason to quote stuff that I don't think needs a reply, sometimes even it if does, there is no need to fill up space by quoting the whole thing.

There are many things that can be brought into impeachment but the most important of all of them would be lying. Using the IRS to target political rivals and lying about it, (hmmmm sounds familiar), authorizing fast and furious and lying about it. Having the NSA spy on ordinary citizens and lying about it. Benghazi, and lying about it and having others lie as well. His impeachment needs to be focused on the lies rather than the event itself.

The biggest problem is the dems in the senate will circle the wagons to protect him. A lairs support group so to speak.

I think the biggest problem is a lack of hard evidence on any of those issues, along with the reality that most other presidents have done the same in the past.

[Gaffer]

I think the biggest problem is a lack of hard evidence on any of those issues, along with the reality that most other presidents have done the same in the past.

Yes that is the problem, because he has so many standing in the way to prevent proper investigation of things. He owns the justice dept and can stymie an investigation simply by classifying the most important things. Anyone who speaks out becomes a criminal. They started closing all the loop holes after nixon.

[Tyr-Ziu Saxnot]

Yes that is the problem, because he has so many standing in the way to prevent proper investigation of things. He owns the justice dept and can stymie an investigation simply by classifying the most important things. Anyone who speaks out becomes a criminal. They started closing all the loop holes after nixon.

Obama's defenders like to point out the lack of hard evidence. That kind of evidence almost always takes a serious and extensive investigation. Obama controls access to most areas and ways to do such an investigation so he prevents the truth from coming out . THAT DOESNT STOP HIS FFING DEFENDERS THEY THEN WANT TO IGNORE HIS EFFORTS TO PREVENT SUCH AND CRY INSTEAD, WHERE IS THE HARD EVIDENCE? Obama is supposedly about to make war on Syria but as presented no hard evidence that Assad is guilty as charged. I hope Congress tells the SOB NO and he does it anyway. I think that may be a bridge too far and will at least get him impeached even if not convicted....-Tyr

[Arbo]

Oh they have. I'm sure only a short wait will be required and it will be presented again.

Well, the excuses were presented, but of course, nothing solid.

[Arbo]

Obama's defenders like to point out the lack of hard evidence.

Obama's defenders? Yeah, sure.

More likely those based in the reality that there is nothing solid to use, and that those that run around yelling 'impeach him!', merely look foolish for doing so when there isn't enough evidence to do such a thing.

[Tyr-Ziu Saxnot]

Obama's defenders? Yeah, sure.

More likely those based in the reality that there is nothing solid to use, and that those that run around yelling 'impeach him!', merely look foolish for doing so when there isn't enough evidence to do such a thing.

--Tyr

[Arbo]

--Tyr

That's all you have? You were asked for a list of impeachable offenses, and all we got was excuses. With them the typical 'obama defenders' line of BS. Either you have a list of impeachable offenses, or you have NOTHING. Excuses do not matter.

So let's see that list instead of just excuses and deflection.

[Little-Acorn]

BTW, when the Constitution was written, "high crimes" didn't mean really serious crimes like murder, kidnapping etc. It meant, any crime committed by a person in high office, who uses that office in the commission.

And "misdemeanors", particularly when plural, didn't mean parking tickets or shoplifting. It meant "instances of misbehavior".

"Demeanor", in fact, means "behavior".

Food for thought.

[fj1200]

More likely those based in the reality that there is nothing solid to use, and that those that run around yelling 'impeach him!', merely look foolish for doing so when there isn't enough evidence to do such a thing.

And lack of political will and denial of political reality.

[Kathianne]

As the impeachment of Andrew Johnson proved, the House may impeach on anything they agree to, easier said than done. That doesn't mean that if the Senate doesn't think the charges are grave enough to cause removal from office, they won't vote for that. Again, both Johnson and Clinton.

With Clinton at least they tried to bring charges alongside of our laws: perjury and obstruction; the Senate decided not grave enough.

[Tyr-Ziu Saxnot]

As the impeachment of Andrew Johnson proved, the House may impeach on anything they agree to, easier said than done. That doesn't mean that if the Senate doesn't think the charges are grave enough to cause removal from office, they won't vote for that. Again, both Johnson and Clinton.

With Clinton at least they tried to bring charges alongside of our laws: perjury and obstruction; the Senate decided not grave enough.

How about his starting a war with Syria with no justification? OR ANY OF HIS RECENT SCANDALS? --Tyr

[Arbo]

How about his starting a war with Syria with no justification? OR ANY OF HIS RECENT SCANDALS? --Tyr

He hasn't started a war with Syria... yet.

What are the other scandals that are impeachable?

[Kathianne]

How about his starting a war with Syria with no justification? OR ANY OF HIS RECENT SCANDALS? --Tyr

If you could get the House to vote on articles of impeachment, he'd be tried. Would it happen? I doubt it.

I've said it before and likely will again, we do not want to yell impeachment cause we don't like the guy. I understand they did it to Bush, but it's undermining our system of government.

[fj1200]

How about his starting a war with Syria with no justification? OR ANY OF HIS RECENT SCANDALS? --Tyr

He hasn't started a war yet and so far has been asking Congress for the go ahead. And his handling of the most incompetent military action ever devised is not as of yet an impeachable offense. Besides he probably has the cover under the War Powers Act to make the strike.