About impeachment.

[fj1200]

Evasion, shallow reasoning and faulty memory. Perhaps vitamins would help you with the memory part. The first two , well I have no suggestion for you on those problems.--Tyr

Actually I remember it quite well and I'm a little surprised at the tack you are taking. I expected you to just link to that impeachment thread that details the 37? count "indictment."

[Tyr-Ziu Saxnot]

Actually I remember it quite well and I'm a little surprised at the tack you are taking. I expected you to just link to that impeachment thread that details the 37? count "indictment."

And I would have had the question came from you or any other member here besides him but he spent days evading my relevant questions with the flimsy excuse--not relevant to the subject. He needs to learn what's good for the goose is good for the gander amigo.. After three or four days of having questions dismissed as moronic and not relevant I decided to do the same to him and he went off about that. Some people you just can't please. Now back on topic. Do you think Obama has engaged in no impeachable offense? -Tyr

[Arbo]

And I would have had the question came from you or any other member here besides him but he spent days evading my relevant questions with the flimsy excuse--not relevant to the subject. He needs to learn what's good for the goose is good for the gander amigo.. After three or four days of having questions dismissed as moronic and not relevant I decided to do the same to him and he went off about that.

Yes, I ignored your idiotic questions in the CAGE. The CAGE has nothing to do with debate up here. You are simply making excuses.

Now back on topic. Do you think Obama has engaged in no impeachable offense? -Tyr

Clearly most of the people that have been responding to you have suggested there is nothing Obama has done that he could or would be impeached for. Which is why it was asked what (specifically) you think he has done that would be serious enough to start an impeachment process and get all the legislators to agree and impeach him. Without a response that gives examples and solid proof, there is no point in further discussion on the topic. As others have said/suggested, it's just crying and screaming like a partisan with nothing to back it.

[fj1200]

And I would have had the question came from you or any other member here besides him but he spent days evading my relevant questions with the flimsy excuse--not relevant to the subject. He needs to learn what's good for the goose is good for the gander amigo.. After three or four days of having questions dismissed as moronic and not relevant I decided to do the same to him and he went off about that. Some people you just can't please. Now back on topic. Do you think Obama has engaged in no impeachable offense? -Tyr

OK. And no. No impeachable offense at least based on the previous listing. Incompetence is not a high crime or misdemeanor.

And moreso he won't be impeached because Congress doesn't care about itself anymore. Party is more important.

[Tyr-Ziu Saxnot]

OK. And no. No impeachable offense at least based on the previous listing. Incompetence is not a high crime or misdemeanor.

1. So none of his scandals qualify???
2. Can not disagree with that at all. The House isn't as bad as the Senate in that IMHO. And the Senate primarily because Reid holds tight reins there.

And moreso he won't be impeached because Congress doesn't care about itself anymore. Party is more important

.

Partly will remain more important if the President continues to hold all this Unconstitutional power IMHO.-Tyr

[fj1200]

1. So none of his scandals qualify???

2. Can not disagree with that at all. The House isn't as bad as the Senate in that IMHO. And the Senate primarily because Reid holds tight reins there.

1. No, I don't think so.
2. The House only isn't so bad because the threshold is lower; mere majority for impeachment with no responsibility to actually convict.

[Kathianne]

I disagree with the premise that the Congress won't address impeachment because 'it doesn't care about itself anymore.' While that clause may be very correct, I don't think it has anything to do with impeachment. It has to do with evading responsibility and staying in office.

Presidents have most always done things that many citizens and legislators seriously disagree with. Often it causes them to be one term presidents. That's how the system works.

Impeachment is for very serious issues, crimes or no crimes. Nixon qualified, Johnson's and Clinton's actions did not. The first was caught in partisan Congressional machinations, the later's crimes did not rise to be serious enough for removal from office. They could have censured him without the brouhaha.

[fj1200]

I disagree with the premise that the Congress won't address impeachment because 'it doesn't care about itself anymore.' While that clause may be very correct, I don't think it has anything to do with impeachment. It has to do with evading responsibility and staying in office.

It has direct relevance if even an impeachable offense won't result in conviction if the Congress votes party over the facts. I submit that suborning perjury is conviction worthy.

[Kathianne]

It has direct relevance if even an impeachable offense won't result in conviction if the Congress votes party over the facts. I submit that suborning perjury is conviction worthy.

Any actions are impeachable, if the House decides to bring the Articles and enough vote to bring him/her to Senate for trial.

As the Clinton impeachment proved, even 'crimes' won't necessarily result in removal from office. That's just a fact.

The 'high crimes and misdemeanors' like most things in the Constitution, i.e., see definition of 'treason,' were written to stand time. They did not want a Parliamentary system.

[fj1200]

Any actions are impeachable, if the House decides to bring the Articles and enough vote to bring him/her to Senate for trial.

As the Clinton impeachment proved, even 'crimes' won't necessarily result in removal from office. That's just a fact.

The 'high crimes and misdemeanors' like most things in the Constitution, i.e., see definition of 'treason,' were written to stand time. They did not want a Parliamentary system.

Not sure where we disagree there. Suborning perjury? A crime and worthy of conviction IMO. That won't necessarily result in removal? Clearly, but the motive of the jurors is also my opinion. And removal of the POTUS doesn't change the results of an election as far as the party in power is concerned; we have plenty of other "non-parliamentary" features in place.

[Kathianne]

Not sure where we disagree there. Suborning perjury? A crime and worthy of conviction IMO. That won't necessarily result in removal? Clearly, but the motive of the jurors is also my opinion. And removal of the POTUS doesn't change the results of an election as far as the party in power is concerned; we have plenty of other "non-parliamentary" features in place.

When it comes to the framework of government, I guess I like to keep the basics in place. They new parties would arise though hated them. Since Washington left NY, they've been with us, along with partisanship. Sometimes worse than now, more often less so.

Removal from office should only, IMO, be if the executive is a danger to the people or the country's well being. Nixon's crimes rose to that, Clinton's did not. He was a pig, a liar, but his 'wrongs' left him a legacy. His removal from office would have harmed the country more.

[aboutime]

Any actions are impeachable, if the House decides to bring the Articles and enough vote to bring him/her to Senate for trial.

As the Clinton impeachment proved, even 'crimes' won't necessarily result in removal from office. That's just a fact.

The 'high crimes and misdemeanors' like most things in the Constitution, i.e., see definition of 'treason,' were written to stand time. They did not want a Parliamentary system.

Kathianne. There is only one action I am sure of concerning Obama. And watch how many begin asking for proof. And that action is. Obama HAS violated his Oath of Office.
Which reads: "The Oath of Office: I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will faithfully execute the Office of President of the United States, and will to the best of my Ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States."

He is not defending the Constitution when he pretends it doesn't apply to him.

[Kathianne]

Kathianne. There is only one action I am sure of concerning Obama. And watch how many begin asking for proof. And that action is. Obama HAS violated his Oath of Office.
Which reads: "The Oath of Office: I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will faithfully execute the Office of President of the United States, and will to the best of my Ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States."

He is not defending the Constitution when he pretends it doesn't apply to him.

Ok.

[Kathianne]

Clinton shouldn't have been impeached for having a fling with Lewinski. His PERJURY about the matter, however, was definitely grounds for it.

Agree and it was one of the charges. Failed to be removed though. Was censured. (I'm hoping I don't see I already responded to this, 2nd read through.)

[Kathianne]

Giving an example of what forums a valid argument that can be seen a more credible is not picking sides.

English, please.