Free Republic
Browse · Search
General/Chat
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Obama will not be impeached.
self | 5-19-13 | self

Posted on 05/19/2013 6:21:13 PM PDT by staytrue

Everyone who thinks one of these scandals will remove Obama from the White House is sadly mistaken.

Let's look at Nixon to see what it takes to remove a President.

In Nixon's case, it took a well prepared and knowledgeable witness John Dean, a lot of tape recordings, a press that hated Nixon, and a political party that was the same as the president and somewhat honest and fair minded.

In Obama's case, we have nothing close to John Dean, we have no recordings, the media still likes Obama and the democrat party is ruthless and corrupt as the mafia.

In short, there will be no impeachment. Get over it.

The best we can do is to administer a beating in the 2014 election.


TOPICS: Chit/Chat
KEYWORDS: demoralization; doomandgloom; impeach; postharder; vanity
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-5051-91 last
To: icwhatudo

Right. I think we know these RINOs won’t pursue impeachment. Even if they did the Senate would not convict. We know all that. EVEN SO we should push for the Republicans to do what is right and get as much truth and evidence in the history books as possible. That’s like a baseball team playing a much better team and giving up in the 1st inning.


51 posted on 05/19/2013 7:19:15 PM PDT by plain talk
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 34 | View Replies]

To: DJ MacWoW

That is one Fugly MO-FO image!!!


52 posted on 05/19/2013 7:21:30 PM PDT by Lockbar (The guy that fires the last bullet gets to write the history books,)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 29 | View Replies]

To: boop

Exactly...DON’T TALK IMPEACHMENT. We are not even close to having the votes, at least in the Senate, and probably the House. (I realize that I’m using the term impeachment to mean removal from office, but that’s how 95% of country uses the term too)

Instead answer as follows:

“We Republicans cannot impeach the President, we simply don’t have enough votes, particularly in the Senate. I think you really need to ask Minority Leader Pelosi and Majority Leader Reid whether using the IRS to target political opponents should be an impeachable office. And while you’re at it, also ask if lying to Congress regarding what happened in Benghazi should be impeachable, as well whether spying on Associated Press reporters should be impeachable.

If the Democrat leaders in the House and Senate still believe that the president shouldn’t be held responsible for these these actions, then I guess he will not get impeached.”


That way you can say the word “impeach” or “impeachment” 5 times, while never calling for it.


53 posted on 05/19/2013 7:21:50 PM PDT by BobL (To us it's a game, to them it's personal - therefore they win.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 43 | View Replies]

To: E. Pluribus Unum

I agree with you that impeachment is not something we need to pursue. He’s becoming a detriment to the party, and the media. I’m pretty sure donations will be difficult for dems to get soon.

He’s their problem, impeachment and removal is probably what they’d like us to do for them. No. Let him dangle in the wind.

2014 will be more like 2010 than 2012, Obama won’t be on the ballot. Then we can begin to “uninstall”.


54 posted on 05/19/2013 7:26:02 PM PDT by wayoverontheright
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: staytrue

55 posted on 05/19/2013 7:28:30 PM PDT by Revolting cat! (Bad things are wrong! Ice cream is delicious!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: E. Pluribus Unum

impeachment would be satisfying but would likely give us another democrat president in ‘16.

We need to kick butt in ‘14. Win more governor’s races.
And then use his 4 years of lame duckness to show low information voters that democrats are even worse than republicans.


56 posted on 05/19/2013 7:32:12 PM PDT by Scotswife
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: staytrue

Impeachment requires 2/3 of the Senate to make the crime stick. I just don’t see having enough votes. In all honesty, the best scenario we could hope for is to have an impeachment trial begin, or be on the verge of beginning, and for pressure from the democratic party to cause him to resign.

This is how it happened with Nixon. The republicans could no longer deal with the mess and asked him to resign. An added thing was that his ego caused him to record the mess.

I am not saying that Obama will not be run from office. I am saying that there is no way he will be convicted in an impeachment trial unless there is a tremendous smoking gun.

The democrats would rather run him off than have a lingering issue that will cause the IRS or any other extended component of the DNC lose its power. They’ll make him take the blame and resign if they have to, just to save their agencies that do their dirty work with out tax dollars.

To me, the real sadness is that some people at the IRS and possibly the state department will take the hit, but nothing will be done to punish them at large, or prevent them from doing it over and over again. It’s just the world we live in now.


57 posted on 05/19/2013 7:34:20 PM PDT by Preachin' (I stand with many voters who will never vote for a pro abortion candidate.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: staytrue
John Dean was a weasel who conceived the Watergate break in (he got info from his wife that the Democrats were seeing prostitutes there) and managed to blame his boss.

Also, the Republicans were not fair minded, but cowards in forcing Nixon to resign.

58 posted on 05/19/2013 7:39:57 PM PDT by Stepan12
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: staytrue
Even if Obama is impeached, he will not be convicted. At about 1.05 minutes into the interview, Thomas Sowell, Ph.d, talks about the only thing that might save the country.
59 posted on 05/19/2013 7:40:25 PM PDT by Stepan12
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: staytrue

Oh goody. The doom and gloom thread.

Reporting in for my daily dose of liberal demoralization!


60 posted on 05/19/2013 7:56:21 PM PDT by Windflier (To anger a conservative, tell him a lie. To anger a liberal, tell him the truth.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: staytrue

An arrest by the SEALs will do.


61 posted on 05/19/2013 7:58:54 PM PDT by GeorgeWashingtonsGhost
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: staytrue
You are right. Obama will not be impeached nor convicted.

The Lord Himself is going to have the first crack at him.

62 posted on 05/19/2013 8:02:22 PM PDT by Slyfox (The red face of shame is proof that the conscience is still operational.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: staytrue

Impeachment File on Benghazi Coward B. Hussein Obama, aka Barry Soetoro, a legal citizen of the sovereign Nation of Indonesia.


63 posted on 05/19/2013 8:03:25 PM PDT by Graewoulf (Traitor John Roberts' Commune-Style Obama'care' violates U.S. Constitution AND Anti-Trust Law.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Signalman

He will RESIGN and become a perfect martyr before an impeachment process. He would claim his inability to govern because of republicans. He would talk about how he was experiencing a public lynching. The riots would then begin.


64 posted on 05/19/2013 8:03:53 PM PDT by Toespi
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: staytrue

Of course not, they in Washington,all want the guy right where he is.Destroying this country.


65 posted on 05/19/2013 8:06:21 PM PDT by HANG THE EXPENSE (Life's tough.It's tougher when you're stupid.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Venturer

The rinos will just throw the next election.Just watch.


66 posted on 05/19/2013 8:10:51 PM PDT by HANG THE EXPENSE (Life's tough.It's tougher when you're stupid.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 40 | View Replies]

To: Texas Fossil
"An unimpeachable witness will appear concerning Benghazi. The spooks do not like being betrayed. Nor do the top military officers. There are some that have not been removed that “know” what actually went down in Benghazi and they would love to expose Obozo."

Who are the ones being stupid here!!! He already has admitted he's not aware of anything going on in his administration. "I certainly did not know anything" he says...truer words were never spoken.

What is holding everyone back?? Because they love him? - because the press loves him? - because he's black? - because he's done so many wonderful things for our country since he was first elected? Or is it because we are gutless, fear ridden nincompoops who complain that the Congress is spineless?

Are we all so helpless that all we can do is whine & wring our hands while this is going on - or will we finally wake up & decide we no konger will sit by & let our country go down the drain.

He's only one 'so called' man & even with every single adorer of his - there are more of us than there are of them.

67 posted on 05/19/2013 8:20:21 PM PDT by LADY J (You never know how strong you are until being strong is the only choice you have. - Author Unknown)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: staytrue

Always the “next election”. No thanks.

We never fight later, so now is going to have to do.


68 posted on 05/19/2013 8:22:34 PM PDT by CodeToad (Liberals are bloodsucking ticks. We need to light the matchstick to burn them off. -786 +969)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: FReepers




Seriously, PLEASE Support Free Republic Tonight.
It takes EVERYONE to Support FR to Keep FR on the Air.
ALL Contributions are for "THIS" Quarter's Expenses.

69 posted on 05/19/2013 8:33:27 PM PDT by onyx (Please Support Free Republic - Donate Monthly! If you want on Sarah Palin's Ping List, Let Me know!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 68 | View Replies]

To: staytrue

Perhaps a former Secretary of State will invite him to surreptitiously meet her/him in Ft. Marcy Park. Alone. Secretly. For a tryst.


70 posted on 05/19/2013 8:33:42 PM PDT by Rembrandt (Part of the 51% who pay Federal taxes)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: GeorgeWashingtonsGhost
It is at a point where we need a military coup to straighten everything out. Every governmental department is corrupt, IRS, EPA, HUD, Homeland security, Department of Energy, Department of Education, HHS , FAA, FCC , and Department of Agriculture has been corrupted and needs to be cleansed. Watching congress interview these people it is clear to me that they are not afraid of congressional review. They need to be water boarded.
71 posted on 05/19/2013 8:34:33 PM PDT by pterional
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 61 | View Replies]

To: staytrue

Impeachment is a Constitutional process that must operate within a framework of respect for the law and legal institutions, and a demand for accountability and limited powers of authority. Alas, there’s the rub.


72 posted on 05/19/2013 8:46:43 PM PDT by windsorknot
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: staytrue

Maybe someone should talk to a person on Valerie Jarrett’s staff and offer immunity.


73 posted on 05/19/2013 8:51:06 PM PDT by OrioleFan (Republicans believe every day is July 4th, Democrats believe every day is April 15th.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: boop
Too bad Nixon trusted him in the first place.

It is actually worse than that. Who (personally, individually) was the prime beneficiary of the break in of the Dem party HQ at the Watergate? Why, as it turns out, none other than one John Dean, who hoped to circumvent the the release, publicly, of what the woman he had chosen to marry had been previously involved in.

Nixon's real 'crime' was to give his loyalty to an individual who was totally undeserving of the same...

the infowarrior

74 posted on 05/19/2013 9:23:31 PM PDT by infowarrior
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 48 | View Replies]

To: afraidfortherepublic

I think that the info coming out against BO in at least one of these scandals will be too much for even the dems to ignore and they will look like idiots for still trying to to cover for him after all the evidence that points to him is eventually revealed. After all, at some point the want to save their own careers and quit worrying abou BO’s legacy. Someone in one of the many scandals will squeal on BO.


75 posted on 05/19/2013 9:29:20 PM PDT by dandiegirl
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: staytrue

I’m sure I’m not the first to tell you this, but Nixon was never impeached. He was facing impeachment over Watergate and resigned bfore impeachment proceedings began.

Clinton is the only president in recent years to be recommended for impeachment (which the House does) but he was never formally impeached because the Dems ran the Senate and refused.


76 posted on 05/19/2013 9:43:15 PM PDT by DustyMoment (Congress - another name for anti-American criminals!!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: DustyMoment

>>>I’m sure I’m not the first to tell you this, but Nixon was never impeached. He was facing impeachment over Watergate and resigned bfore impeachment proceedings began.<<<

True.

>>>Clinton is the only president in recent years to be recommended for impeachment (which the House does) but he was never formally impeached because the Dems ran the Senate and refused.<<<

Not true. Clinton WAS impeached by the House but NOT convicted by the spineless Senate.


77 posted on 05/19/2013 9:48:47 PM PDT by melancholy
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 76 | View Replies]

To: staytrue
In short, there will be no impeachment. Get over it.

The tone of this sounds extremely leftist.

78 posted on 05/19/2013 9:53:36 PM PDT by dragnet2 (Diversion and evasion are tools of deceit)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: icwhatudo
Agreed. Nixon was NOT impeached, clinton was.

Just because the rinos sold us out on impeachment-with the help of a complicit media, doesn’t mean we should not have impeached the corrupt slime-ball. Had clinton not been impeached, all the scandals would have simply been forgotten. Impeachment will follow him forever.

1) You've forgotten President Gore resulting!

2) Bob Woodard may factor into the 2014 election.

79 posted on 05/20/2013 1:08:38 AM PDT by Does so (Progressives Don't Know the Meaning of INFRINGED...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 34 | View Replies]

To: Windflier

Is there a Liberal Demoralization Ping List, or must we search it out for ourselves? I’ve been running a little low on it lately.

Every day, new revelations are brought to light about the impending downfall of this corrupt administration. Frankly, it’s pretty much depleted my reserves of demoralization. If I didn’t occasionally stumble upon threads like this, I’d have no demoralization left.

I’ve heard of hard core demoralization junkies going slumming to pick up a supply at DU, but you can pick up some pretty nasty things in the bargain. I only partake socially, so I’d rather do without than risk those problems.

Still, a ping list would come in handy, so demoralization could be safe, legal and rare.


80 posted on 05/20/2013 3:13:27 AM PDT by BykrBayb (Somewhere, my flower is there. ~ Þ)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 60 | View Replies]

To: markomalley
He wouldn’t be impeached regardless...unless by some miracle, the GOP gets a 2/3 (non-RINO) majority in the Senate.

Incorrect. The House impeaches - indicts, the Senate convicts - removes from office. So yes, he could be impeached but there is zero chance he would be convicted.

81 posted on 05/20/2013 3:47:37 AM PDT by A.A. Cunningham (Barry Soetoro can't pass E-verify)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 21 | View Replies]

To: staytrue

Defeatism is one of the things I detest most in Freepers.

No war was ever won with p!ss-poor attitudes like yours. Shame on you.

Get lost.


82 posted on 05/20/2013 5:53:52 AM PDT by Do Not Make Fun Of His Ears (The Buck Stops Over There.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: staytrue

If you mean conviction, then you are correct. After impeachment, there would be no conviction in the Senate.

Since impeachment is a matter of simple vote of the House of Representatives, it is entirely possible that an impeachment could take place.

IMHO, that would take a very clear smoking gun from any one of the major abuses of power perpetrated by Obama: Fast and Furious, Benghazi, IRS, or AP.

Obama is very well insulated by liars and the sons of liars, so I doubt there’s enough time left to really get to him without the assistance of an absolutely clear smoking gun that leads directly to B.Hussein Obama.


83 posted on 05/20/2013 5:56:09 AM PDT by xzins (Retired Army Chaplain and Proud of It! True supporters of our troops pray for their victory!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: staytrue
Obama is not the primary target, Holder is. Noting would please me more than to see that MF'er go down in flames..

Obama is just the front man. A harmless face to a dark corrupt enterprise.

84 posted on 05/20/2013 5:58:46 AM PDT by central_va (I won't be reconstructed and I do not give a damn.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: staytrue

Three scandals. We are one ‘smoking gun’ away from impeachment. If there is an email or phone recording that proves he’s been blatantly lying to us all, he could be impeached. If there are smoking guns for 2 of the 3 scandals, he could be removed from office.


85 posted on 05/20/2013 6:12:08 AM PDT by privatedrive
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: pterional

I agree. I don’t think 0bama, Biden, Holder, Jarrett, Axelrod, Plough, Carney, Biden, Napolitano, Sebelius, and other agency heads will be mocking and laughing when the SEALs are cable tying their wrists.


86 posted on 05/20/2013 10:55:43 AM PDT by GeorgeWashingtonsGhost
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 71 | View Replies]

To: privatedrive
If he takes NO action on removing his illegal and unconstitutional 'recess appointments' to the NLRB, as ruled by TWO FEDERAL COURTS, add one more impeachable offense to the list.
87 posted on 05/20/2013 10:58:09 AM PDT by GeorgeWashingtonsGhost
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 85 | View Replies]

To: melancholy
Not true. Clinton WAS impeached by the House but NOT convicted by the spineless Senate.

In the House of Representatives:
•The House Judiciary Committee decides whether or not to proceed with impeachment. If they do...
•The Chairman of the Judiciary Committee will propose a Resolution calling for the Judiciary Committee to begin a formal inquiry into the issue of impeachment.
•Based on their inquiry, the Judiciary Committee will send another Resolution to the full House stating that impeachment is warranted and why (the Articles of Impeachment), or that impeachment is not called for.
•The Full House (probably operating under special floor rules set by the House Rules Committee) will debate and vote on each Article of Impeachment.
•Should any one of the Articles of Impeachment be approved by a simple majority vote, the President will be "impeached." However, being impeached is sort of like being indicted of a crime. There still has to be a trial, which is where the US Senate comes in.

In the Senate:
•The Articles of Impeachment are received from the House. •The Senate formulates rules and procedures for holding a trial.
•A trial will be held. The President will be represented by his lawyers. A select group of House members will serve as "prosecutors." The Chief Justice of the Supreme Court (currently John G. Roberts) will preside with all 100 Senators acting as the jury.
•The Senate will meet in private session to debate a verdict.
•The Senate, in open session, will vote on a verdict. A 2/3 vote of the Senate will result in a conviction.
•The Senate will vote to remove the President from office.
•The Senate may also vote (by a simple majority) to prohibit the President from holding any public office in the future.

Clinton was not tried by the senate on the basis of politial partisanship. The senate in the 1990s, was undder the majority control of the Democrats, the same as today. As a result, they denied to "try" Clinton on structlt political grounds.

88 posted on 05/20/2013 11:18:39 AM PDT by DustyMoment (Congress - another name for anti-American criminals!!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 77 | View Replies]

To: DustyMoment

Thanks for the info.

In #77, I corrected your assertion below where you stated that >>>...he [clinton] was never formally impeached...<<<

>>>Clinton is the only president in recent years to be recommended for impeachment (which the House does) but he was never formally impeached because the Dems ran the Senate and refused.<<<

I answered:

“Not true. Clinton WAS impeached by the House but NOT convicted by the spineless Senate.”

Apparently, you mixed up between impeachment and removal of through conviction after a trial in the Senate.

In your #88:

>>>Clinton was not tried by the senate on the basis of politial partisanship. The senate in the 1990s, was undder the majority control of the Democrats, the same as today. As a result, they denied to “try” Clinton on structlt political grounds.<<<

You concur that he wasn’t “convicted” because he wasn’t tried by the senate.

Your statement >>>The senate in the 1990s, was undder the majority control of the Democrats, the same as today.<<<

Incorrect. From 1995 to 1999, a period in which Clinton was impeached, the Senate was under Republican control.

As you can see below, at the time that Clinton was impeached, the Senate was under the control of spineless Republicans, many of whom voted not to try Clinton. Even if they all voted to try him, conviction was impossible because of the 2/3 vote required to convict.

104th Congress (1995-1997)
Majority Party: Republican (52 seats)
Minority Party: Democrat (48 seats)
Other Parties: 0
Total Seats: 100
Note: Party ratio changed to 53 Republicans and 47 Democrats after Richard Shelby of Alabama switched from the Democratic to Republican party on November 9, 1994. It changed again, to 54 Republicans and 46 Democrats, when Ben Nighthorse Campbell of Colorado switched from the Democratic to Republican party on March 3, 1995. When Robert Packwood (R-OR) resigned on October 1, 1995, the Senate divided between 53 Republicans and 46 Democrats with one vacancy. Ron Wyden (D) returned the ratio to 53 Republicans and 47 Democrats when he was elected to fill the vacant Oregon seat.


105th Congress (1997-1999)
Majority Party: Republican (55 seats)
Minority Party: Democrat (45 seats)
Other Parties: 0
Total Seats: 100

http://www.senate.gov/pagelayout/history/one_item_and_teasers/partydiv.htm

Regards.


89 posted on 05/20/2013 12:58:08 PM PDT by melancholy
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 88 | View Replies]

To: melancholy
Apparently, you mixed up between impeachment and removal of through conviction after a trial in the Senate.

No, I understand the difference as I pointed out in my reply. Essentially, what the House did was indict Clinton but, without the senate taking any action, he was "technically" not impeached.

The confusion in terms comes mostly from the DBM which hasn't got a clue what the hell they are talking about 97.4% of the time and frequently report incorrect or incomplete news stories. Therein lies the confusion.

I'll concede the senate makeup since I have slept since then and was probably thinking of the 2001 - 2004 or 2005 senate when the Republicans had a slim majority and agreed (in one of their dumber moves) to share power with the Dems who promptly ran right over them.

So, essentially, it's a draw. We were both right about some parts of the story and we were both wrong about other parts. All-in-all, I consider it a win-win because we had a nice, civil discussion and, between the two of us, managed to get the story correct!!

Thanks for helping to keep me honest!

90 posted on 05/20/2013 4:49:38 PM PDT by DustyMoment (Congress - another name for anti-American criminals!!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 89 | View Replies]

To: DustyMoment

You’re welcome.

>>>No, I understand the difference as I pointed out in my reply. Essentially, what the House did was indict Clinton but, without the senate taking any action, he was “technically” not impeached.<<<

Clinton will have “impeached president” on his record because he was IMPEACHED. There’s nothing called “technically not impeached.” That would be an interpretation that is akin to ducking. Either he was impeached by the House or he wasn’t, period. HE WAS.

I wasn’t wrong about anything and I’ll let it go at that. :-)

Have a great evening, Dusty.


91 posted on 05/20/2013 5:50:37 PM PDT by melancholy
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 90 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-5051-91 last

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
General/Chat
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson