Most of Clinton's alleged crimes were blocked from prosecution by the Senate GOP leadership.
Posted on 06/27/2014 5:09:42 PM PDT by kingattax
Impeachment is the only procedural mechanism in the American system of government that can be used to remove from office a president who has willfully abused his executive power under the Constitution.
Technically there are other extraordinary measures that can be taken, but these measures cannot fully address in an expeditious manner the present crisis of executive abuse of power by this president.
In my view the problem we have today is not whether the case can be made for the impeachment of the president, but rather the frivolous arguments made by many commentators and political partisans that prevent us from moving forward. Here are some of these arguments.
(Excerpt) Read more at canadafreepress.com ...
Maybe you didn’t get to the post where I explained that I am not talking about military removing a President from office. I am talking about military detaining enemy combatants, regardless of who they are.
Do you believe that Congress lawfully gives the military the authority to do that in the NDAA?
And do you believe that the NDAA is about NATIONAL DEFENSE, not law enforcement? Law enforcement is after the fact; national defense is PREVENTING an enemy combatant from being able to blow up the whole country.
After the mid-terms the house Republicans will say “His term is almost over. We’ll just let him stay because the senate would never convict anyway.”
435 “representatives” and not a single spine on anyone with an (R) after their name. My congressman won’t return calls or answer emails. He’s part of the problem.
Who has th eballs to start it? There has to be some men in the House not the gutless punks.
If Obama has committed high crimes and misdemeanors, then Congress is obligated to impeach him. The military can have no role in removing a sitting President.
Why do Democrats and liberals have to cheat? Even Republican liberals?
Liberals have to cheat because there aren't enough of them. They'd lose if they didn't cheat.
The image of Obama-loving throngs put forth in the MSM is just a fake projection. So are a lot of the votes that install these people in positions of authority and power.
Just sayin' :^) Americans are smarter than what the MSM projects.
Again, maybe you didn’t get to the post where I explained that I am not talking about the military removing a sitting President. I’m talking about the military detaining an enemy combatant to prevent them from being able to inflict serious harm on the country.
Does the NDAA authorize the military to do that - to detain enemy combatants to keep them from inflicting serious harm, as indicated by previous actions/connections/stated intentions/ associations, etc that fit objective, pre-determined criteria for an enemy combatant?
If Obama had blown up Washington, DC with a nuke, would somebody have had the authority to arrest him after the fact? If so, who? Would somebody have had the authority to DETAIN him if they knew in advance that he planned to blow up DC? If so, who?
If not, then how does Congress impeach somebody when they’ve already been blown to bits by the guy they authorized the military to detain in order to protect the country but the military refused because they might look “political” to the media - some portion of which also got blown up?
Unfortunately the officer corpse (that’s intentional) has been gutted by the Puppet and replaced with soldiers devoted to his mindset...
The bigger enemy, imho, are the liberals next door/across the street/at work that EVERYONE knows, those that can replace this idiot with another to continue the pain.
“That’s about all I got to say ‘bout that.”
According to the NDAA, does it have to be an officer who determines that somebody is an enemy combatant and detains them?
That’s an honest question; I don’t know the answer and would appreciate an answer if somebody knows, especially if it includes a citation so I know where to look.
Yet, a thorough impeachment in the House could end Obama’s reign of tyranny by forcing him to spend his resources to defend himself. Time spent defending himself is time he is not spending further ruining this country.
Given that impeachment is a highly personal attack, Obama the narcissist will be enraged. Enraged people do stupid things (see Bill C & what the definition of ‘is’ is) that often bring harm to their cause.
The MSM cannot avoid covering an impeachment as they have the many other Obama scandals. Impeachment proceedings will bring these crimes out in the open for discussion & debate. As most of Obama’s acts are indefensible, the Left can side with criminality, be silent, or reveal themselves as biased fools. Impeachment will be top news for months.
I do NOT recommend beginning the impeachment until AFTER the November election, as the Pubs have a chance to take the Senate majority. Impeachment could give clever talking Obama & Co. a campaigning boost. He will be all alone after November.
FR: The power of the purse: "Our most complete and effectual weapon: - JAMES MADISON
When you say “Congress” that means the US House of Representatives and the Senate. Now in an Impeachment only the US House of Representatives acts on that, The Senate acts on whether to convict or not.
We’ve already seen how the Senate acts with the Democrats being in control - for example with Clinton, where they would NOT CONVICT.
The Senate would never act to convict. It would be Reid running a straight party line ... :-) ...
In addition to that, in the entire history of the USA, the Senate has NEVER ONE TIME removed a president from office. It has simply NEVER WORKED ONE SINGLE TIME, despite being tried many times.
So ... “that” (what you say) ... is going absolutely nowhere and everyone knows it, including the military.
I do not believe the military is authorized to perform operations involving national security in the United States. Not without specific authorization from the President.
Frankly I think you are either trolling or off your meds.
If there is one thing we do NOT need in this country, it’s the military trotting around detaining those they decide on their own judgement who are enemy combatants.
There are exceptions, of course. Somebody launches a Beslan or Mumbai style attack, I hope the military is called in quickly. But that’s a battlefield situation.
I’m not talking about impeachment. I’m talking about detaining an enemy combatant before he can destroy the nation.
Does the NDAA allow the military to do that?
When Clinton was on trial, the GOP had 55 Senators. The two charges were both defeated, 45/55 and 50/50.
Couldn't get even a simple majority, much less 2/3. Not even all Republicans voted to convict, on either charge.
The military is all about knowing the “end-game” and they know this end-game as well ...
You said, “Congress can decide what to do from there - whether to impeach him or not ...”
And I said ...
We’ve already seen how the Senate acts with the Democrats being in control - for example with Clinton, where they would NOT CONVICT.
The Senate would never act to convict. It would be Reid running a straight party line ... :-) ...
In addition to that, in the entire history of the USA, the Senate has NEVER ONE TIME removed a president from office. It has simply NEVER WORKED ONE SINGLE TIME, despite being tried many times.
So ... “that” (what you say) ... is going absolutely nowhere and everyone knows it, including the military.
— — — — —
The military can read the tea leaves and they know politics very well, too ... :-) ...
All it takes is one bomb and we’re in a battle situation. What’s the contingency plan? Military is all about contingency plans. You have to know ahead-of-time what you will do because when the time comes you often have one second to react, and then you live with it for the rest of your life.
Now we all know it could never happen in America. We know that we will never have twin tornadoes hit our town, or we will never have an enemy get in the cockpit of a plane and fly it into the Twin Towers or Pentagon. We all know that stuff could never happen in America.
But a person can never be too prepared. So we plan what we will do if the impossible ever happened and we got hit with a 200-foot typhoon.
So let’s pretend that we had an enemy combatant in our White House. Let’s pretend that he was put there by groups who hate us and want to radically transform our country into something like, say, Iran, or maybe Cuba. They’ll do it through peaceful means if they can or by blowing the whole place up and starting over if necessary.
How do we defend the country? The guy can go into his personal and family bunker and blow up the whole country if anybody in Congress even attempts impeachment.
What do we do? What’s the contingency plan? Does our Constitution mandate that we let him do it if he wants to? Is there no protection for us? Have we built anything into the system to protect us in that situation? If so, what?
Or are we all at the mercy of our enemy having fangs and wearing a t-shirt that says, “I am an enemy combatant. Don’t ever elect me if you value your life.”?
The military is under obligation NOT to obey orders to blow up the country.
Somebody who is detained is not released until the evidence is all looked at and it’s determined that they are not a danger. It doesn’t matter whether they impeach him; he can’t act as President from Gitmo. So while they are processing him to find out if they made a mistake in classifying him as an enemy combatant, somebody else acts as President. If Congress would impeach and convict they would remove him from office and whoever was next in the line of succession would not only ACT as President but would actually BECOME President.
Impeachment is irrelevant. It’s not a matter of booting somebody out of office; it’s a matter of keeping an enemy combatant from destroying the country.
The Supreme Court just voted 9-0 saying that Obama broke the law and subverted the Constitution that he swore to uphold? What more is needed to impeach and convict? If the democrats in the Senate fail to convict him, they are complicit in his crime as the article says.
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.