Repubs: We lose, we impeach Obama

[FaxModem1]

http://www.nationalconfidential.com/201 ... _multiline

CONSERVATIVES CONSIDER IMPEACHMENT IF THEY LOSE TO OBAMA 28 January 2012 | 4:10 am EST Topic: 2012 Election, Americans For Tax Reform, Barack Obama, Conservative, Grover Norquist, Impeachment, toprow By National Confidential Staff

Tweet Tweet 93 16 points Submit 4 people +1'd

» Follow National Confidential on Twitter, Facebook, and Google+

A highly influential conservative leader is already considering an impeachment strategy against President Obama if he wins re-election. Grover Norquist of Americans For Tax Reform told National Journal that if Obama is re-elected and refuses to re-authorize the Bush-era tax cuts for millionaires, “Obama can sit there and let all the tax [cuts] lapse, and then the Republicans will have enough votes in the Senate in 2014 to impeach.”

The Republican party, petty as all get out.

[Sidewinder]

I hope enough voters realize how petty it is, and will eject the Republicans from office in the next election.

[Metahive]

I'm surprised they didn't threaten to hold their breath until they get it their way, too. What a bunch of overgrown, wrinkly-faced man-children. Will somebody please send them back to the playgrounds, please?

Here, Mr. Norquist, something from the good book for you:

When I was a child, I spake as a child, I understood as a child, I thought as a child: but when I became a man, I put away childish things.
1 Corinthians 13:11

[Simon_Jester]

Histrionics aside, it's very unlikely that the Republicans will have enough Senate votes to impeach Obama, and very unlikely that they will be able to catch him in a crime. Norquist is living in a fantasy world, probably due to a long period of groupthink in which Democrats are assumed to be criminal by default.

Which some of us might want to take as a cautionary tale to people on the left- I've seen people assume Republicans are criminal by default here.

[wautd]

If you're advocating tax cuts for the rich, especially during an economic crisis (ironically caused by rich assholes) where everyone needs to chip in, it would be political suicide. Not in America though. For some obscure reason, it would seem that Joe Sixpack wants the rich get richer, and the poor/middleclass get poorer.

[Darth Yoshi]

One day Joe Sixpack will be one of the rich people, and when that happens why should he want the gubmint to take away his money? One day...

Anyway, even if they impeach him, that won't accomplish anything if they can't also convict him as well, and for all the complaining about how he's handled his presidency Obama hasn't actually done anything that Congress would agree to convict him for. It'd just end up wasting everybody's time and money. Taxpayer dollars, hard at work, yeah?

[Grumman]

No, not "Repubs", a lobbyist. They supported his last idea, but there's no need to break out the torches and pitchfork just yet.

[Lord of the Abyss]

Anyway, even if they impeach him, that won't accomplish anything if they can't also convict him as well, <snip>

Judging from what they did to Clinton it'll give them a chance to bog him down even more and harass him and anyone associated with him.

[Tsyroc]

If they do go ahead and try and impeach Obama maybe that would be a good time to have Cheney arrested for war crimes and see how that goes.


What exactly is the legal basis going to be for impeaching Obama and why do they think that just because people are registered as Republicans that they'd be willing to go along with the bat shit just because...? I mean, at some point at least a few people have to start saying, "screw this shit, I don't care if the party is going to keep me from being reelected next time I'm not going along with this crazy assed shit".

The other question is. Say they impeach Obama, get him removed from office. Are they going to right in to impeaching Biden?

[Lord of the Abyss]

What exactly is the legal basis going to be for impeaching Obama and why do they think that just because people are registered as Republicans that they'd be willing to go along with the bat shit just because...?

A President can be impeached for "high crimes and misdemeanors", which is as vague as it sounds. They can pretty much impeach him for anything.

[Broomstick]

The other question is. Say they impeach Obama, get him removed from office. Are they going to right in to impeaching Biden?

Impeachment does not equal removal from office. Clinton was impeached successfully, but not removed from office. Sure, they could probably impeach Obama for some reason or other, doesn't even have to be criminal, just skanky, like getting a blow job in the Oval Office (although Obama seems quite loyal and faithful to Michelle, and if he did cheat, I'd say there was a possibility Michelle would wind up stashing his family jewels in a pickle jar as a revenge trophy).

Getting him removed from office is a different matter than impeachment.

[Omega18]

A President can be impeached for "high crimes and misdemeanors", which is as vague as it sounds. They can pretty much impeach him for anything.

While it is vague by modern standards, its been clearly understood that this is supposed to refer to actual crimes.

It should be noted that the full statement from the US Constitution also makes it rather clear these are supposed to be serious crimes as "The President, Vice President and all civil officers of the United States, shall be removed from office on impeachment for, and conviction of, treason, bribery, or other high crimes and misdemeanors."

The key point to recognize is the language as used was intended very differently than today where a misdemeanor represents a minor crime, and it really was basically intended in something at least reasonably close to the term "high misdemeanor" which was used in the British legal code at the time.

The actual legal argument raised by Republicans was that since Clinton had committed perjury in his testimony over the Lewinsky matter, that was a federal crime which they claimed was serious enough to warrant impeachment. It should be noted though that Republicans came nowhere remotely close to getting the required 2/3s majority required in the U.S. Senate to actually remove President Clinton from office. (This also means that even if you think the Republicans actually would all go along with this, they would still under remotely plausible circumstances still need Senate Democrats to support them for this action to actually get Obama out of office after this year's election.)

[Mr Bean]

Further comment on Omega18's point.
Checking who's up for re-election
In 2012 there are 21 Democratic Seats up, 2 Independents and 10 Republicans
Of those seats only 9 Democratic seats are considered vulnerable, 1 Independent and 4 Republican Seats are Vulnerable.

Vulnerable means they won with less than 60% of the vote in this Context

In 2014 there are 20 Democratic Seats up, 13 Republican.
Of those seats 7 Democratic Seats are vulnerable, and 7 Republican Seats are.

As the Senate is 53-47 if the Republicans sweep 2012 Senate Races (43-57)
And sweep the 2014 races (36-64)

They will still need 3 Democrats to switch sides to meet the 67 vote threshold.

Long story short, Grover Norquist is bad at math or thinks that they will take some Senate seats like Tom Udalls who won by a twenty point margin and still has high approval numbers. In order to get to 67 they need to pick of three seats like Tom's which unless he dies (Which is possible) show little chance of losing that seat. Keep in mind all these numbers assume incumbents. There are several seats that could swing the other way if the person holding them retires. But again that is assuming a 100% Republican retention rate which considering some Senators like Scott Brown and Olympia Snow is crazy.

[Lord of the Abyss]

The actual legal argument raised by Republicans was that since Clinton had committed perjury in his testimony over the Lewinsky matter, that was a federal crime which they claimed was serious enough to warrant impeachment.

They flailed about in a series of fishing expeditions, harassing and threatening anyone close to Clinton, trying to find something they could pin on him; his "perjury" was in response to a question that should never have been asked. They could try to do the same to Obama, make sure his second term is eaten up with a continuous series of investigations; maybe hauling off his subordinates like they did with some of Clinton's and try to terrorize them into perjuring themselves against Obama. They tried that with Clinton, and they certainly haven't gotten any nicer or more principled since then.

[The Yosemite Bear]

on what grounds? he's not driving the car off the cliff fast enough for mr. norquist (satan, ok Howard Jarvis is Satan to me as a person who whent through Calfiornia schools, Norquist is just Jarvis on a national level kinda like Randites hate the concept of Kant, and society as a whole)

[Tsyroc]

The other question is. Say they impeach Obama, get him removed from office. Are they going to right in to impeaching Biden?

Impeachment does not equal removal from office. Clinton was impeached successfully, but not removed from office. Sure, they could probably impeach Obama for some reason or other, doesn't even have to be criminal, just skanky, like getting a blow job in the Oval Office (although Obama seems quite loyal and faithful to Michelle, and if he did cheat, I'd say there was a possibility Michelle would wind up stashing his family jewels in a pickle jar as a revenge trophy).

Getting him removed from office is a different matter than impeachment.

Good point. I just assumed the goal in impeaching him would be to get him removed from office. I hadn't thought in terms of bogging him down in the impeachment process being the goal.

[Omega18]

Good point. I just assumed the goal in impeaching him would be to get him removed from office. I hadn't thought in terms of bogging him down in the impeachment process being the goal.

On the other hand, logically this is likely to be wildly counterproductive in virtually every sense.

If Republicans have a majority in Congress, Obama can't get legislation they want to block through there anyways. The U.S. Senate in particular would be bogging itself down impeachment proceedings, thereby reducing their opportunities to try to pass legislation Obama would be unwilling to actually veto.

If you're actually talking about a situation where the impeachment charge is clearly a joke and there is no even remote actual threat of removal, the Presidential administration should be able to continue to operate effectively and get various administrative actions (which don't require Congressional approval) they want enacted.

A wildly obvious B.S. impeachment proceeding is also going to realistically benefit both the President and Democrats in general politically, so its extreme counterproductive in that sense.

As far as the impeachment for perjury idea goes, it should be noted that even getting a sitting US President to testify under oath is not that easy. It also should be noted than even in the Clinton case the Republicans had pretty strong evidence of an actual false statement under oath, it wasn't something like one person's word versus the word of a whole bunch of other people in the Obama administration and the President. (The actual removal trial is supposed to work somewhat like a regular criminal proceeding in general, and I would wonder if it would be possible for the Presiding Chief Supreme Court Justice to throw out the charges as not impeachable offenses, or having failed to provide sufficient evidence to possibly prove the case, without a Senate vote even being held. My suspicion is legally this is currently unclear one way or the other, but it would strike me as likely in a situation where the charges are clearly dubious enough and would be another practical potential barrier to a bogus impeachment proceeding.)

[Simon_Jester]

What exactly is the legal basis going to be for impeaching Obama and why do they think that just because people are registered as Republicans that they'd be willing to go along with the bat shit just because...?

A President can be impeached for "high crimes and misdemeanors", which is as vague as it sounds. They can pretty much impeach him for anything.

That's not what the passage means. "High crimes" means he's being impeached for, well, a high crime. Something like a felony, like murder or perjury. "Misdemeanors" meant in 1787 what it means now: petty crimes.

So there still has to be a charge. Congress can't accuse the president of "committing high crimes and misdemeanors" without specifying what high crimes or misdemeanors he's accused of.

Impeachment does not equal removal from office. Clinton was impeached successfully, but not removed from office. Sure, they could probably impeach Obama for some reason or other, doesn't even have to be criminal, just skanky, like getting a blow job in the Oval Office (although Obama seems quite loyal and faithful to Michelle, and if he did cheat, I'd say there was a possibility Michelle would wind up stashing his family jewels in a pickle jar as a revenge trophy).

Clinton was impeached not for getting the blow job, but for perjury.

As to the last sentence, you'd think Hillary would have been just as likely to go for pickle jars as Michelle, maybe more so... and Bill Clinton hasn't been noticeably squeaky-sounding these past few years, so I kind of doubt it.

Getting him removed from office is a different matter than impeachment.

True, although people often use 'impeach' as a colloquial verb for the whole process- and I don't criticize that. Saying that both houses of Congress have to agree to "impeach" the president and remove him from process isn't a bad description- in practice, it's just a question of the House making the allegation and the Senate investigating it.

The actual legal argument raised by Republicans was that since Clinton had committed perjury in his testimony over the Lewinsky matter, that was a federal crime which they claimed was serious enough to warrant impeachment.

They flailed about in a series of fishing expeditions, harassing and threatening anyone close to Clinton, trying to find something they could pin on him; his "perjury" was in response to a question that should never have been asked.

True, but he had to commit the perjury. You can talk about entrapment all you like, and I don't disagree- I think there was a strong element of entrapment in the Starr investigations. But Clinton had to be suckered into a position where he could be accused of perjury; Obama would be wise not to fall for that trap.

They could try to do the same to Obama, make sure his second term is eaten up with a continuous series of investigations; maybe hauling off his subordinates like they did with some of Clinton's and try to terrorize them into perjuring themselves against Obama. They tried that with Clinton, and they certainly haven't gotten any nicer or more principled since then.

Now that is true, but if Obama handles himself carefully and doesn't get stupid, he can't be trapped into perjuring himself. About the only thing I'm sure they can nail him for is civil rights violations on issues like torture, and there's no way in hell they're going to try.

Good point. I just assumed the goal in impeaching him would be to get him removed from office. I hadn't thought in terms of bogging him down in the impeachment process being the goal.

On the other hand, logically this is likely to be wildly counterproductive in virtually every sense.

If Republicans have a majority in Congress, Obama can't get legislation they want to block through there anyways. The U.S. Senate in particular would be bogging itself down impeachment proceedings, thereby reducing their opportunities to try to pass legislation Obama would be unwilling to actually veto.

If you're actually talking about a situation where the impeachment charge is clearly a joke and there is no even remote actual threat of removal, the Presidential administration should be able to continue to operate effectively and get various administrative actions (which don't require Congressional approval) they want enacted.

Honestly, yes. At most it would keep Obama from enacting any grand initiatives, which wouldn't have much chance of success anyway (how many grand initiatives has he gotten done since the beginning of 2011, anyway?) Having Obama simply occupying the White House and refusing to pass any Republican legislation unacceptable to the Congressional Democrats would help him.

This also assumes, of course, that the Republicans will do very well in the upcoming Congressional elections- well enough to override Senate filibusters. I kind of doubt that- I suspect that the House Republicans will take a hit this election, because they're easily played up as responsible for a lot of the stupid government paralysis of 2011.

The Senate might shift for the Republicans, because the sheer number of Democratic seats contested in 2012 means that even if the seats are assigned by flipping a damn coin the Republicans still have an edge. But I doubt they're going to gain that much new ground.

[Broomstick]

Impeachment does not equal removal from office. Clinton was impeached successfully, but not removed from office. Sure, they could probably impeach Obama for some reason or other, doesn't even have to be criminal, just skanky, like getting a blow job in the Oval Office (although Obama seems quite loyal and faithful to Michelle, and if he did cheat, I'd say there was a possibility Michelle would wind up stashing his family jewels in a pickle jar as a revenge trophy).

Clinton was impeached not for getting the blow job, but for perjury.

Yes, we know that, but let's not pretend the Repubs hadn't been on a multi-year hunt for an excuse, ANY excuse, to use against Clinton. Lying about getting a blowjob is nothing like, say, lying about evidence in order to start a war.

As to the last sentence, you'd think Hillary would have been just as likely to go for pickle jars as Michelle, maybe more so... and Bill Clinton hasn't been noticeably squeaky-sounding these past few years, so I kind of doubt it.

Clinton had a LONG history of womanizing, decades-long, back to his career in Arkansas. It was an issue when he was running for PotUS the first time. Hillary clearly tolerated it, for whatever reason. I don't doubt she got pissed off about it, but she stayed with him, forgave him, took him back, forgave him again, for years. She's hardly the first wife to grudgingly tolerate infidelity in exchange for wealth/power/prestige/etc.

Obama, however, has no history of cheating. Catching him with his pants around his ankles would be a bit more surprising than catching Ol' Bill in that state.

[Simon_Jester]

Impeachment does not equal removal from office. Clinton was impeached successfully, but not removed from office. Sure, they could probably impeach Obama for some reason or other, doesn't even have to be criminal, just skanky, like getting a blow job in the Oval Office (although Obama seems quite loyal and faithful to Michelle, and if he did cheat, I'd say there was a possibility Michelle would wind up stashing his family jewels in a pickle jar as a revenge trophy).

Clinton was impeached not for getting the blow job, but for perjury.

Yes, we know that, but let's not pretend the Repubs hadn't been on a multi-year hunt for an excuse, ANY excuse, to use against Clinton. Lying about getting a blowjob is nothing like, say, lying about evidence in order to start a war.

This seems to imply that I'm saying there's some moral issue here.

I don't want to bring that up, it's irrelevant. My point is that Clinton had to do something, on purpose, before impeachment could become an option. If Obama is at all careful, he can't be trapped the same way, or in a closely related way.

[JME2]

If Obama is at all careful, he can't be trapped the same way, or in a closely related way.

Which is why I hope there aren't any skeletons that going to come to light by November or into his potential second term. If there's anything at all, the GOP will be on it faster than Elvis on a pound of bacon.

[Baffalo]

If Obama is at all careful, he can't be trapped the same way, or in a closely related way.

Which is why I hope there aren't any skeletons that going to come to light by November or into his potential second term. If there's anything at all, the GOP will be on it faster than Elvis on a pound of bacon.

You're thinking fried peanut butter and bacon sandwiches there.

Anyway, I highly doubt that Obama can be successfully impeached because he hasn't really done anything worthy of a crime. That won't stop. I happen to have the names of all the House Judicial Committee members, who would be responsible for writing up any articles of impeachment against Obama. So far the list stands at 23 Republicans vs. 16 Democrats (someone please tell me if I got this wrong but this is from the official website). What also concerns me is that the chairman of the Judicial Committee is the Honorable Lamar Smith, which everyone will remember from the SOPA/PIPA debates. So we know he's not above corporate money, which sounds like what the Republicans are dancing to the tune of. If Mr. Smith plays to the right tune, he'll probably obey and we'll see a few articles of impeachment on the floor of the House in short order.

[JME2]

You're thinking fried peanut butter and bacon sandwiches there.

I'm not one for culinary metaphors.

[Simon_Jester]

By and large, I don't think "corporate money" really wants Obama impeached- he's not exactly reluctant to represent their interests.

It's the political and ideological wing of the Republican Party that views Obama as an evil criminal/spy/Manchurian candidate/whatever. They're the ones most inclined to trump up impeachment charges.

[Shroom Man 777]

Kansas House Speaker Mike O’Neal is under fire after asking Republican House members to pray for President Barack Obama’s death. O’Neal made the request via an email he forwarded to GOP colleagues in the House. In an email sent in December, O’Neal asked his fellow Republicans to pray Psalm 109, which contains the following lines:

Let his days be few; and let another take his office.
Let his children be fatherless, and his wife a widow.


The email has become the subject of a mini-media frenzy. Numerous major news outlets began reporting the details surrounding the disturbing prayer request on Friday.

The relevant verse from Psalm 109 is considered a prayer for vengeance, a prayer for the death of a leader. The most damning part of the prayer is lines 7-12:


'When he shall be judged, let him be condemned: and let his prayer become sin.
Let his days be few; and let another take his office.
Let his children be fatherless, and his wife a widow.
Let his children be continually vagabonds, and beg: let them seek their bread also out of their desolate places.
Let the extortioner catch all that he hath; and let the strangers spoil his labor.
Let there be none to extend mercy unto him: neither let there be any to favor his fatherless children.'


Think Progress reports that O’Neal forwarded the prayer with his own message:


“At last — I can honestly voice a Biblical prayer for our president! Look it up — it is word for word! Let us all bow our heads and pray. Brothers and Sisters, can I get an AMEN? AMEN!!!!!!”


News of the email is a sad commentary on Republican politics in Kansas. In addition, the email prayer request indicates an astonishing disregard and disrespect for the office of the presidency. For a government official to pray for the death of President Obama, and encourage other government officials to do the same, is not only morally reprehensible, it is also treason.

Hopeful Prayers Conquer All