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.
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.
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.
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.
Obama is just the front man. A harmless face to a dark corrupt enterprise.
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.
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.
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.
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.
http://www.senate.gov/pagelayout/history/one_item_and_teasers/partydiv.htm
Regards.
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!
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.
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.