“Removal requires a 2/3 vote by the Senate. The vote is taken after a trial. If the trial isn’t a sham, as it was for Clinton, and the full depth and scope of Obama’s crimes are revealed, then I don’t think it would be impossible to get enough Democrats to vote for his removal, if the idea of backing so much lawlessness is something they don’t want hung around their necks.”
Despite what the Constitution calls it, a “trial”, removing a President from office is, first and foremost, a political act. If the Republicans win every seat that is leaning or firmly GOP, the Democrats will retain 45 seats. You would have to get 12 of them to ‘convict’. As you said, Clinton’s trial wasn’t a ‘sham’, it was a political act and so would be Obama’s.
“But even if the vote were to fall short, it would be worth the effort to shine a bright light onto what’s really been going on with this “transparent” administration. He might not be removed, but hopefully he’d be so exposed and humiliated that he’d be lucky to be asked to speak at the opening of a new supermarket.”
You mean like Bill Clinton? He’s going around the country receiving six figures for giving speeches. Removing Obama from office is simply a pipedream.
BTW, even if the Republicans took 67 seats, how long would it take to “shine that bright light”? You would have to build a case compelling, not just to conservatives, but to liberals as well. If the GOP does this as a political act, the GOP would never be competitive at the national level again. By the time you get all this done, Obama is out of office.
No, the best path is to ‘shine the bright light’, do all the investigations without calling them an impeachment. Convince the American people that Obama is a fraud and the Democrats incapable of running a country.
You misquoted me. Clinton's trial was absolutely a sham, because the GOP in the Senate was too cowardly to actually present the evidence. If there are enough in the current GOP with the guts to do it, an actual trial of Obama, where the massive amount of evidence is presented for all to see, should have a very different result. They have loads more to work with than what Henry Hyde was able to hand off to Trent Lott (chief coward at the time).
Also important to remember that the most damaging evidence against Clinton was that of his more serious sex crimes, but they weren't actually a part of the indictment and consequently didn't come close to being revealed in a fully public forum. Obama, on the other hand, has been acting in plain sight. It only remains for a demonstration of how these acts violate his oath, the Constitution, and the law in a public, organized setting, as opposed to prime time shouting matches on cable news networks.