Impeachment of Obama is on the table of GOP considerations due to his "cover up" of the Benghazi Emb
44 replies, posted
[quote]“Look, it's not something I'm seeking,” the Republican congressman from Utah said on CNN’s “The Situation Room with Wolf Blitzer.” “It's not the endgame; it's not what we're playing for. I was simply asked, is that within the realm of possibilities, and I would say ‘yes.’ I'm not willing to take that off the table. But that’s certainly not what we’re striving for.”[/quote]
[url]http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2013/05/14/chaffetz-doesnt-rule-out-impeachment-for-obama-over-benghazi/?hpt=hp_t2[/url]
good luck
To us lay folk who don't know things too good, what are the chances of this actually happening?
What cover up? Maybe I haven't been following this closely enough, but aren't these "Benghazi cover up" theories baseless?
[QUOTE=SGTNAPALM;40647931]To us lay folk who don't know things too good, what are the chances of this actually happening?[/QUOTE]
In all honesty, zero.
[QUOTE=SGTNAPALM;40647931]To us lay folk who don't know things too good, what are the chances of this actually happening?[/QUOTE]
Only two presidents were impeached, but unsuccessfuly. Nixon quit slightly after they started hte vote anyway.
[QUOTE=SGTNAPALM;40647931]To us lay folk who don't know things too good, what are the chances of this actually happening?[/QUOTE]
It's incredibly hard to impeach a president and the GOP aren't seriously considering it, it's just not off the table of options for them.
Haha good luck. They couldn't even impeach Clinton and it was pretty obvious he committed the crimes. Its an empty threat and should be perceived as such, the president has probably already forgotten about it.
[QUOTE=SGTNAPALM;40647931]To us lay folk who don't know things too good, what are the chances of this actually happening?[/QUOTE]
Two presidents have ever been impeached, both acquitted
[QUOTE=Mackalda2k6;40647955]Haha good luck. They couldn't even impeach Clinton and it was pretty obvious he committed the crimes. Its an empty threat and should be perceived as such, the president has probably already forgotten about it.[/QUOTE]
On the other hand, what Clinton did wasn't really political at all and charging him with impeachment was extreme overkill, while this issue Benghazi is more serious and more political.
I see impeachments as severe impediments to an already completely stagnated and ineffective body of policy makers who's only goal is to serve themselves alongside the people who helped pay their way into office.
[QUOTE=SGTNAPALM;40647931]To us lay folk who don't know things too good, what are the chances of this actually happening?[/QUOTE]
somewhere between "when hell freezes over" and "when pigs fly"
[editline]15th May 2013[/editline]
[QUOTE=Emperor Scorpious II;40647984]On the other hand, what Clinton did wasn't really political at all and charging him with impeachment was extreme overkill, while this issue Benghazi is more serious and more political.[/QUOTE]
wasn't clinton being impeached for purgery? that's a political and serious thing.
[QUOTE=yawmwen;40648000]wasn't clinton being impeached for purgery? that's a political and serious thing.[/QUOTE]
Not all perjury is necessarily political. I certainly wouldn't consider being charged for perjury over the definition of "sexual relations" to be a political issue.
[QUOTE=Kinversulath;40648134]Not all perjury is necessarily political. I certainly wouldn't consider being charged for perjury over the definition of "sexual relations" to be a political issue.[/QUOTE]
it's a manipulation of the courts and public trust, which is definitely political.
although, to be fair, it isn't like no other president before or after clinton manipulates for their own purposes. clinton just became a bit of a joke for it.
John Steward did an excellent segment on this a few days ago, in that they keep going on about it, but they can't actually prove shit, hence why nothing has happened about it.
Whey they do [I]instead[/I] is make some wild theory of him being an evil mastermind, or a less exaggerated example, and then "if that's the case, then this could get him impeached/have massive implications!" with "if that's the case" being the important part. They have no proof, they have no evidence, and they're full of shit.
[QUOTE=yawmwen;40648152]it's a manipulation of the courts and public trust, which is definitely political.
although, to be fair, it isn't like no other president before or after clinton manipulates for their own purposes. clinton just became a bit of a joke for it.[/QUOTE]
Fair enough I suppose, though I think it's rather silly for the House and Senate to end up charging the President over what basically amounts to, "Well, it's not sexual relations if I'm the one [I]getting[/I] the blowjob."
[QUOTE=Fort83;40648188]Yet they fail to prove that there was any wrongdoing on Obama's part.[/QUOTE]
Yep.
And rest assured that they will try and drag this ridiculous affair on and on for as long as they can, just to stir up controversy about the administration.
In the era of instant gratification, impeachment has become a popular notion. It's always little more than that, though.
just like when they said they would impeach him if obamacare passed right
[QUOTE=Kopimi;40648414]just like when they said they would impeach him if obamacare passed right[/QUOTE]
Which is funny, considering the body count from obamacare! Inconsistent much?
-snip-
Yeah, let's halt the legislative process while we try a president over an issue that's already done and gone. Just throw the country into chaos for the next few years with Biden as president.
Covering up information about an attack where 4 Americans died is a hell of a lot less important than nearly all of the shit that's spilled out about the executive branch while Obama's been President.
Relevant:
[media]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uW2m2jB2OQQ[/media]
[editline]14th May 2013[/editline]
Similarly relevant, but more intelligent. Lyndon Larouche
[media]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tV8AXwpHtl4[/media]
But not impeaching him for war crimes?
[QUOTE=Fish Muffin;40649077]But not impeaching him for war crimes?[/QUOTE]
We didn't impeach Bush, why would we impeach Obama for that?
obama has done a fuck ton more drone strikes.
[QUOTE=Fish Muffin;40649274]obama has done a fuck ton more drone strikes.[/QUOTE]
Bush obliterated Iraq, throwing it into chaos and getting thousands killed for seriously no reason at all.
Drone strikes are bad, but Bush and Obama are really incomparable.
[QUOTE=Emperor Scorpious II;40649285]Bush obliterated Iraq, throwing it into chaos and getting thousands killed for seriously no reason at all.
Drone strikes are bad, but Bush and Obama are really incomparable.[/QUOTE]
so we should just do nothing because bush was arguably worse?
should we only take action when the atrocities top a record?
[QUOTE=Fish Muffin;40649376]so we should just do nothing because bush was arguably worse?
should we only take action when the atrocities top a record?[/QUOTE]
I said nothing about "should".
I said "would".
There's a difference between what ought to be done and what will be done. Obama will not be impeached due to the drone attacks when the president before him did much worse and got away clean.
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.