Should The Marxist Be Impeached?

[Solar]

Yea, it's an obvious question, and the answer under current RINO leadership, or rather, lack thereof,, is an obvious no.
But after Nov and lets assume TEA has total control, should we Impeach?
But before you answer, read below. It is after all, an Impeachable offense.

Senator Jeff Sessions will soon release this statement in response to a report in the Wall Street Journal that details President Obama's plans to unilaterally implement amnesty.

"The Wall Street Journal confirmed today that the President is planning to issue a massive unilateral executive amnesty after the election.

"In its report, the WSJ certifies that this executive amnesty would provide work permits for illegal immigrants—taking jobs directly from struggling Americans.

"Based on the USCIS contract bid and statements from USCIS employees, we know this executive immigration order is likely to be broader in scope than anyone has imagined.

"Earlier this week, President Obama's former head of Homeland Security revealed that she overrode resistance from administration lawyers and law enforcement agents in implementing the President's earlier unlawful amnesty and work authorization program for illegal immigrants 30 and under. This was an open admission by one of the most senior people in government of violating one's oath of office in order to accomplish a nakedly political aim.
http://www.weeklystandard.com/blogs/sessions-world-has-turned-upside-down_817731.html

[keyboarder]

Well, I've wanted him out of that office since the first day in 2008.  I'm not the most objective person to ask that question, can think or manufacture NO redeeming qualities for Bozo to keep his position, yet what is the alternative-Biden?  Puh-leeze Louise!  But, believe it or not I'm almost willing to suffer thru Biden to get rid of the most dangerous person that has ever set foot in the WH.   Biden may not have the thick skin that Bozo has and would cave to the amount of pressure that he would be given to do something.  But....that might happen anyway when we get the right Congress seated. 

[kit saginaw]

Impeachment has gotta be looked-at as an abstract threshold (impeachment-meter), and obama must simply cross it on his own volition, via some flagrant action or combination of actions. 

And he's real close.

The Country doesn't need the headache but, yes, impeach the irresponsible s.o.b. if he uses an Executive Order to grant mass amnesty.  That's a violation of the Monroe Doctrine, in my opinion.  Allowing-for the colonization of America by a 'former Spanish (old world) Territory'. 

[Taxcutter]

Impeachment is not the issue.   The GOP could impeach Hussein Obama tomorrow.

But as Clinton proved, impeachment without removal is pointless.   And for removal you need two-thirds of the Senate - 67 votes - to remove him.

Let's assume that after the first of the year (when the new Congress is sworn in) the GOP holds 53 seats.  In order to remove him you'll need fourteen Democrats to join the GOP is voting for removal.

For those 14, that is political suicide (with some exceptions) because the black vote will turn solidly against them.   The Marxist is still a hero in the hood.   Without a strong turnout and the 9:1 margin given the democrats by blacks, a Democrat couldn't get elected dogcatcher.

An exception is Joe Manchin (D-WV).   He is from a state that is nearly dead red and has been trending redder since the 80s.   The Democrats are all for killing off the coal industry and that is life in WV.   Manchin has been crossways with Hussein Obama over the EPA.   So far that has not made him cross the aisle, but he is definitely swimming upstream.

I cannot think of 13 more Joe Manchins.

[walkstall]

Remember "Impeach" does not necessarily mean removal.

The Senate has to vote for removal from office. 

In the U.S. impeached does not mean he is removed from office. Both Andrew Johnson and Clinton were impeached - neither was removed from office.

[supsalemgr]

Impeachment is not the issue.   The GOP could impeach Hussein Obama tomorrow.

But as Clinton proved, impeachment without removal is pointless.   And for removal you need two-thirds of the Senate - 67 votes - to remove him.

Let's assume that after the first of the year (when the new Congress is sworn in) the GOP holds 53 seats.  In order to remove him you'll need fourteen Democrats to join the GOP is voting for removal.

For those 14, that is political suicide (with some exceptions) because the black vote will turn solidly against them.   The Marxist is still a hero in the hood.   Without a strong turnout and the 9:1 margin given the democrats by blacks, a Democrat couldn't get elected dogcatcher.

An exception is Joe Manchin (D-WV).   He is from a state that is nearly dead red and has been trending redder since the 80s.   The Democrats are all for killing off the coal industry and that is life in WV.   Manchin has been crossways with Hussein Obama over the EPA.   So far that has not made him cross the aisle, but he is definitely swimming upstream.

I cannot think of 13 more Joe Manchins.

An excellent post and right on target. When Clinton was impeached it only energized the democrats. It would be a major distraction from what a GOP controlled congress could do. Harry Reid has protected Obama from having to veto or sign bills he doesn't like. That would no longer be the case. He is weak and does not like to make decisions so this should be the GOP strategy.

As for Manchin, he has openly spoken out against Obama and his energy positions. I think it would be 50/50 that he would switch to the GOP if the republicans win the senate.

[TboneAgain]

Remember "Impeach" does not necessarily mean removal.

The Senate has to vote for removal from office.

The Kenyan would have to chop up a living, breathing human baby with a meat cleaver and a Ginsu knife, and saute the chunks in bacon grease on live television to get himself removed from office via impeachment.

I'm trying to say I don't think it'll happen.

[walkstall]

The Kenyan would have to chop up a living, breathing human baby with a meat cleaver and a Ginsu knife, and saute the chunks in bacon grease on live television to get himself removed from office via impeachment.

I'm trying to say I don't think it'll happen.

I am not for booting him out, just look at or VP.   If he is out they can lay blame on b o only.   Let the Rats go down with the Sinking Ship.

[Billy's bayonet]

What are you gonna impeach him for?  yeah Yeah I know he guilty as sin on dozens of different issues BUT......

YOU STILL GOT TO HAVE PROOF, unless you got PROOF of wrongdoing you got nothing.

[Cryptic Bert]

It's a political loser. We can't win the PR battle.

Let him do amnesty. It takes the issue off the table and the Democrats can no longer use it to hurt the GOP and pander to the Hispanics. If the blacks are upset with the Democrats now just wait until millions of illegals jack up the black unemployment rate.

I want Obama in office for 8 years. I want the country so see how destructive progressivism really is.

[supsalemgr]

It's a political loser. We can't win the PR battle.

Let him do amnesty. It takes the issue off the table and the Democrats can no longer use it to hurt the GOP and pander to the Hispanics. If the blacks are upset with the Democrats now just wait until millions of illegals jack up the black unemployment rate.

I want Obama in office for 8 years. I want the country so see how destructive progressivism really is.

Good points. No need to provide him a distraction from all the "stuff" that will eventually come out. We are seeing cracks in the armor now like the leak of the information about Netanyahu.

[Solar]

What are you gonna impeach him for?  yeah Yeah I know he guilty as sin on dozens of different issues BUT......

YOU STILL GOT TO HAVE PROOF, unless you got PROOF of wrongdoing you got nothing.

Billy, the OP points out he's breaking one of our fundamental laws, where he is charged in protecting the nation from foreign invaders.

It's sad when we look at blatant actions such as this and say the burden of prof rests on us, when in fact what has taken place is proof of the lefts disdain for law and order.
Are we so used to them getting away with this stuff, that we've become calloused to the point we even dismiss reality because the left will demand yet even more proof?

[Taxcutter]

If the Senate votes for removal aren't there, don't impeach.

In 1974 GOP Senate leaders told Nixon that enough GOP Senator would votes to remove him, joining the Democrats.   Nixon read the handwriting on the wall and resigned.

Bubba knew he had a sufficient OJ jury in the Senate to block removal.

First rule of coup d'état:  If you strike at a king. you must kill him.  (Politically, of course)

[TboneAgain]

If the Senate votes for removal aren't there, don't impeach.

In 1974 GOP Senate leaders told Nixon that enough GOP Senator would votes to remove him, joining the Democrats.   Nixon read the handwriting on the wall and resigned.

Bubba knew he had a sufficient OJ jury in the Senate to block removal.

First rule of coup d'état:  If you strike at a king. you must kill him.  (Politically, of course)

I'm not sure there was no good reason to impeach Willie. He flatly lied to a federal grand jury and to Congress, and he certainly was guilty of perjury and obstruction of justice. But then, as now, nobody seems to know what to do about it when the emperor turns out to be just as naked as everybody's been saying all along.

Still, doing nothing would have been awful. Willie now owns the distinction of being the second president ever impeached (both Democrats), and the only one in the 20th century. Doing the impeachment was worthwhile because what he did -- lying under oath, not getting a blow job -- couldn't be allowed to pass without sanction of some sort. Presidents are expected to get regular blow jobs, but they're not allowed to lie to federal grand juries and Congress about it. Them's the rules.

[Taxcutter]

Impeachment/removal is a political (not legal) matter.