Quote from: Solar on January 13, 2015, 06:36:34 AM
Look back at these two issues. Clinton's Impeachment hearings, as well as the Watergate investigations..
Both took more time to come to fruition than the Marxist has left in his final term in office.
Way too much time would be consumed, when it could be put to good use undoing the damage the Marxist inflicted upon the nation.

The internet and social media (such as this forum) is the wildcard.  It kind of compresses time and brings things to the attention of everyone much faster.  It's been said that time wounds all Heals!  The new media is both a blessing and a curse; just as the Terrorists and hijacking hackers use it for promoting their evil agenda, a lot of good can come of the instant interconnection of people.  The Republican party will benefit much more, from the use of social media, if they come to embrace the everyday,common man who posts on conservative sites and interacts with conservative talk radio.  Should this come to fruition, (our) representatives will become less affected by Washington insider 'group think' and more responsive to the Rebublican base.  Having said this, we also need to be much more aware of the affect of the 'group think' indoctrination our representatives are subjected to.  It's our task to bring them our way, jsut as the Liberals see it as their task to pursude them to see the merits of the shit they are selling as being good for our country!  Making 'our' people our enemies, only drive them deeper into the real enemy's camp!

Quote from: wally on January 13, 2015, 06:24:41 AM
I think the Republican politicians were (are) not all that different from Democrats politicians.  In fact, today's 24 hr. media and focus groups and poliing creates pressure on pragmatic professional politicians to flip and flog with public opinion, even more than in the days of Watergate.  There are many Democrat Senators who have no love for Obama after the way he's used and abused them..and as much as Obama is consumed by his own ego, many of them are just as narcissistic. 

Individual Democrats would not fall on their swords en masse to save this self styled Emperor.  We only need a few individuals who feel like screwing him for whatever reason!  (I doubt any would do it for Patriotism or Love of Country; but revenge (pay back)...Oh yeah! (especially if they think the Sheeple will take it as "patriotism for the good of the country:.  In their minds, this might give them a shot at the Whitehouse, after the Republicans inherit Obama's mess and fail to clean it up!

I agree that there are probably plenty of democrats who are unhappy with Obama. After all his policies has caused  the party to lose both houses of congress. Therefore, self preservation comes into play. The question is will any of them take any action against him?

Quote from: supsalemgr on January 13, 2015, 09:19:06 AM
I agree that there are probably plenty of democrats who are unhappy with Obama. After all his policies has caused  the party to lose both houses of congress. Therefore, self preservation comes into play. The question is will any of them take any action against him?

Much will depend upon the effectiveness of the Committee Hearings/Investigations and the further actions of this renegade POTUS.  Nixon was actively planning his defense and Watergate was somewhat in the rearview mirror and getting smaller, as public opinion waned and the matter just seemed to be a political witch hunt.  Other, 'little fish' seemed to have done wrong, by nothing landed the break in or the cover up , in the Oval Office...until Alexander Butterfield exposed the existence of the smoking gun (the tapes)....the rest, as they say; is history!

Petreaus may very well hold the smoking gun!  This would explain the recent threats of 'possible' prosecution (to be determined by Eric Holder)

Quote from: daidalos on January 13, 2015, 03:32:34 AM
Why do we keep hearing this crap about the Senate? That is not how impeachment works. Please read this sometime: http://www.archives.gov/exhibits/charters/constitution_transcript.html

I HAVE read it; many, many, many times, piece by piece, sometimes spending 3-4 weeks studying a single phrase and how it has affected history.

Have you?

Article I, Section 2, Paragraph 5:

QuoteThe House of Representatives shall chuse their Speaker and other Officers; and shall have the sole Power of Impeachment.

The House has sole power to impeach the president.  Right? So what?  Clinton was impeached. But nothing came of it because he was not convicted. Impeachment is the high mucky-muck equivalent of being arraigned. Once impeached, he still has to be tried and convicted.

HERE is why people keep mentioning the Senate when talking about impeachment:

Article I, Section 3, Paragraph 6:

QuoteThe Senate shall have the sole Power to try all Impeachments. When sitting for that Purpose, they shall be on Oath or Affirmation. When the President of the United States is tried, the Chief Justice shall preside: And no Person shall be convicted without the Concurrence of two thirds of the Members present.

So, the House impeaches, but for the impeachment to actually remove the president from office, the SENATE must convict with a 2/3 majority vote.

Thus, with the current level of blind party partisan politics of modern congresses, a sitting president would pretty much have to be caught on film from 8 or more sources gnawing on the liver of their most recent murder victim (or similar "can't sweep this one under the rug" blatant high level crime) to be both impeached AND convicted.

Quote from: zewazir on January 13, 2015, 12:56:06 PM
I HAVE read it; many, many, many times, piece by piece, sometimes spending 3-4 weeks studying a single phrase and how it has affected history.

Have you?

Article I, Section 2, Paragraph 5:The House has sole power to impeach the president.  Right? So what?  Clinton was impeached. But nothing came of it because he was not convicted. Impeachment is the high mucky-muck equivalent of being arraigned. Once impeached, he still has to be tried and convicted.

HERE is why people keep mentioning the Senate when talking about impeachment:

Article I, Section 3, Paragraph 6:So, the House impeaches, but for the impeachment to actually remove the president from office, the SENATE must convict with a 2/3 majority vote.

Thus, with the current level of blind party partisan politics of modern congresses, a sitting president would pretty much have to be caught on film from 8 or more sources gnawing on the liver of their most recent murder victim (or similar "can't sweep this one under the rug" blatant high level crime) to be both impeached AND convicted.

Oh Ye of little Faith!

Quote from: zewazir on January 13, 2015, 12:56:06 PM
I HAVE read it; many, many, many times, piece by piece, sometimes spending 3-4 weeks studying a single phrase and how it has affected history.

Have you?

Article I, Section 2, Paragraph 5:The House has sole power to impeach the president.  Right? So what?  Clinton was impeached. But nothing came of it because he was not convicted. Impeachment is the high mucky-muck equivalent of being arraigned. Once impeached, he still has to be tried and convicted.

HERE is why people keep mentioning the Senate when talking about impeachment:

Article I, Section 3, Paragraph 6:So, the House impeaches, but for the impeachment to actually remove the president from office, the SENATE must convict with a 2/3 majority vote.

Thus, with the current level of blind party partisan politics of modern congresses, a sitting president would pretty much have to be caught on film from 8 or more sources gnawing on the liver of their most recent murder victim (or similar "can't sweep this one under the rug" blatant high level crime) to be both impeached AND convicted.

Excellent points. If one is going to shoot the king they better kill him.

Quote from: supsalemgr on January 13, 2015, 05:23:36 AM
Impeachment is an empty act if the votes to convict and remove from office are not there in the senate. We learned that lesson from Clinton in the 90's.

I disagree.

If a person breaks the law, and it is your job to enforce the law, then if you don't do everything within your power to bring that person to justice, you are complicit in their lawlessness.

If the president has committed "High Crimes" and "Misdemeanors" (and I believe he has) it is not just the Congress's right to Impeach him, it is their duty to Impeach him. They took an oath to support and defend the Constitution from all enemies foreign and domestic.

True, the Senate might not vote to remove him from office, but it will force those Senators to take a stand, one way or another - for the rule of law, or the rule of the lawless.

The People deserve to know where their Representatives and Senators stand.

Quote from: Gator Monroe on January 13, 2015, 07:08:20 AM
Make his Phone & Pen Racist in the Minds of Americans ?

Quick, somebody re-write Jim Croce's "I Got A Name"  into  BO "I Got A Pen".

All you armchair Weird Al's...stand up  !

Quote from: zewazir on January 13, 2015, 12:56:06 PM
I HAVE read it; many, many, many times, piece by piece, sometimes spending 3-4 weeks studying a single phrase and how it has affected history.

Have you?

Article I, Section 2, Paragraph 5:The House has sole power to impeach the president.  Right? So what?  Clinton was impeached. But nothing came of it because he was not convicted. Impeachment is the high mucky-muck equivalent of being arraigned. Once impeached, he still has to be tried and convicted.

HERE is why people keep mentioning the Senate when talking about impeachment:

Article I, Section 3, Paragraph 6:So, the House impeaches, but for the impeachment to actually remove the president from office, the SENATE must convict with a 2/3 majority vote.

Thus, with the current level of blind party partisan politics of modern congresses, a sitting president would pretty much have to be caught on film from 8 or more sources gnawing on the liver of their most recent murder victim (or similar "can't sweep this one under the rug" blatant high level crime) to be both impeached AND convicted.

Oh I wasn't trying to be a smart aleck, or anything like that. It's just that I am personally sick to death of folks, (like I see on FB for example) all the time saying "Oh no they can't impeach because the Senate wouldn't do anything" as if the House has no powers or authority and cannot do anything under our Constitution. As far as impeachment goes though, once the articles are passed by the House technically he/she has been impeached. If the Senate cannot reach that 2/3 vote to remove, it's my understanding that they have the option to censure him.

Which is what was done in Clinton's case for example.

For me, impeaching Obozo, is not about his removal from office.

For me it's about the historical record.

A hundred years from now, if he's not impeached, or ever prosecuted for violations of our law and our Constitution.

How will the people know, how very close to a dictatorship our Constitutional Representative Republic wound up being?

People such as you or I or many of the other posters here, won't be around to tell them how close we came to a dictatorship anymore.

I think people forget, or simply don't know that we are an experiment. (we being our form of government)

Anyhow I hope you understand why/where I"m coming from now, and know I wasn't being a smart aleck.

Oh and in answer to your question, yep I have read our Constitution as well.

Quote from: zewazir on January 13, 2015, 12:56:06 PM
I HAVE read it; many, many, many times, piece by piece, sometimes spending 3-4 weeks studying a single phrase and how it has affected history.

Have you?

Article I, Section 2, Paragraph 5:The House has sole power to impeach the president.  Right? So what?  Clinton was impeached. But nothing came of it because he was not convicted. Impeachment is the high mucky-muck equivalent of being arraigned. Once impeached, he still has to be tried and convicted.

HERE is why people keep mentioning the Senate when talking about impeachment:

Article I, Section 3, Paragraph 6:So, the House impeaches, but for the impeachment to actually remove the president from office, the SENATE must convict with a 2/3 majority vote.

Thus, with the current level of blind party partisan politics of modern congresses, a sitting president would pretty much have to be caught on film from 8 or more sources gnawing on the liver of their most recent murder victim (or similar "can't sweep this one under the rug" blatant high level crime) to be both impeached AND convicted.

Hmm... 

Article I, Section 3, Paragraph 6:

QuoteThe Senate shall have the sole Power to try all Impeachments. When sitting for that Purpose, they shall be on Oath or Affirmation. When the President of the United States is tried, the Chief Justice shall preside: And no Person shall be convicted without the Concurrence of two thirds of the Members present.

Some of the Dem's could have a sick out.   

Quote from: Darth Fife on January 13, 2015, 02:15:27 PM
I disagree.

If a person breaks the law, and it is your job to enforce the law, then if you don't do everything within your power to bring that person to justice, you are complicit in their lawlessness.

If the president has committed "High Crimes" and "Misdemeanors" (and I believe he has) it is not just the Congress's right to Impeach him, it is their duty to Impeach him. They took an oath to support and defend the Constitution from all enemies foreign and domestic.

True, the Senate might not vote to remove him from office, but it will force those Senators to take a stand, one way or another - for the rule of law, or the rule of the lawless.

The People deserve to know where their Representatives and Senators stand.

Don Quixote best summed it up...

This is my Quest, to follow that star; No matter how Hopeless, no matter how far...

Though it may seem an Impossible Dream, would you rather live the Dream of Obammy's Daddy!

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yJlgio-UOng

Quote from: Darth Fife on January 13, 2015, 02:15:27 PM
I disagree.

If a person breaks the law, and it is your job to enforce the law, then if you don't do everything within your power to bring that person to justice, you are complicit in their lawlessness.

If the president has committed "High Crimes" and "Misdemeanors" (and I believe he has) it is not just the Congress's right to Impeach him, it is their duty to Impeach him. They took an oath to support and defend the Constitution from all enemies foreign and domestic.

True, the Senate might not vote to remove him from office, but it will force those Senators to take a stand, one way or another - for the rule of law, or the rule of the lawless.

The People deserve to know where their Representatives and Senators stand.

Precisely where I"m at too.