Has Obama Committed Any Impeachable Offenses? (Vanity)

March 5, 2010 | no dems

[no dems]

So next time, how about we unite to PROMOTE AND ELECT, in spite of the GOP, a CONSERVATIVE...
____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
Who do you have in mind?

[cynwoody]

It takes a simple majority Senators to remove a President. Check the constitution.

Which country?

[Kimberly GG]

Jim DeMint

He talks the talk, AND walks the walk.

[mojitojoe]

Obama is using repaid Tarp money as a slush fund.
________________
Now there may be a real smoking gun there.

[factmart]

USA

[dalereed]

“If someone shows he does not meet the qualifications to be president, he might have to give up the office. But that is different than an impeachable offense.”

It’s a felony, fraud!!!

[factmart]

You are correct, I was thinking impeachment.

The right to impeach public officials is secured by the U.S. Constitution in Article I, Sections 2 and 3, which discuss the procedure, and in Article II, Section 4, which indicates the grounds for impeachment: “the President, Vice President, and all civil officers of the United States shall be removed from office on impeachment for, and conviction of, treason, bribery, or other high crimes and misdemeanors.”

Removing an official from office requires two steps: (1) a formal accusation, or impeachment, by the House of Representatives, and (2) a trial and conviction by the Senate. Impeachment requires a majority vote of the House; conviction is more difficult, requiring a two-thirds vote by the Senate. The vice president presides over the Senate proceedings in the case of all officials except the president, whose trial is presided over by the chief justice of the Supreme Court. This is because the vice president can hardly be considered a disinterested party—if his or her boss is forced out of office he or she is next in line for the top job!
What Are “High Crimes and Misdemeanors?”

Bribery, perjury, and treason are among the least ambiguous reasons meriting impeachment, but the ocean of wrongdoing encompassed by the Constitution’s stipulation of “high crimes and misdemeanors” is vast. Abuse of power and serious misconduct in office fit this category, but one act that is definitely not grounds for impeachment is partisan discord. Several impeachment cases have confused political animosity with genuine crimes. Since Congress, the vortex of partisanship, is responsible for indicting, trying, and convicting public officials, it is necessary for the legislative branch to temporarily cast aside its factional nature and adopt a judicial role.

[nathanbedford]

Your reply expresses so with in a firm grasp of political realities. Why am I so angry when I read it? The fault, clearly, is not yours but with my dismay at a system which punishes those who impeach a constitutional officer who commits perjury and conspires to commit perjury, who physically hides evidence and conspires to hide evidence, who does all this in furtherance of a criminal plan to fix a court case for his own profit. You are perfectly right, at the end of the day it was those who sought to uphold the Constitution and the rule of law and simple decency in the Oval Office who were removed from office.

You quite properly point out:

Fair or not, too many people have the perception of impeachment as an attempt to undo the results of a lawful election. Also, the way it goes down makes those bringing the action appear to many to be vengeful and vindictive, which is also not a good place to be politically.

To reinforce the truth of what you say I am reminded that the events that led to the impeachment fiasco began with the delivery of a pizza during a shutdown of the government, an equally righteous attempt to govern decently by bringing under control what, by the standards of that day, was runaway spending. The public reacted against the Republicans and for Bill Clinton in that situation as well.

In each instance the media generally went to the defense of their champion, Bill Clinton. One wonders if the landscape has changed in a dozen years. Fox news is now ascendant, talk radio is ubiquitous, conservative Internet blogs are universally accessible. The ability of the conventional media to shepherd public opinion is severely diminished.

On the other hand, we saw how effective the forces of the left can still be when we witness the tsunami that swept Barack Obama through the primary process and into the Oval Office. So eager was the media to elect an African-American that they torpedoed Hillary Clinton to do it. So enamored were they of the possibility of an African-American president that the media effectively abandoned the champion they had supported in the government shutdown and in impeachment.

But the conventional media had thoroughly plowed the ground well before the election of Barack Obama, they had succeeded in demonizing George Bush and driving him into a bunker from which during the last two years of his presidency he declined to emerge and fight his corner except to persist in what I think he regarded as his "calling" to wage the war in Iraq.

In the year of Obama's incumbency we have witnessed an astonishing awakening to politics by the normally somnolent American electorate. What aroused them and is this time really different?

We conservatives sometimes misconceive the forces arrayed against us and think that we are battling mainly against a conventional media of a leftist bent. The fact is that we are increasingly beleaguered by an array of forces which push the country always leftwards. These forces include demographics, especially immigration, and birth rates which stock the electorate with congenital Democrats. Our education institutions from K through postgraduate work are thoroughly infiltrated and dominated by leftists and every school graduation ceremony represents a new crop of leftist voters. Our eleemosynary institutions including our foundations such as Tides, Ford, Rockefeller, MacArthur have all been perverted to the opposite point of view from there founding settlors. Our churches from the National Council of Churches, some extremely radical Catholic clerics, to outright communist fronts like Reverend Wright, are all political power centers given over to leftist worldview. Political correctness in general, exploiting race to intimidate those who love liberty, have made it increasingly uncomfortable or financially unprofitable to risk the label: racist, homophobe, bigot, sexist, denier, birther, or fundamentalist, to name a few excrescences of this form of mind control.

It is fascinating, or more accurately put, horrifying, to see how thoroughly interwoven this leftist fabric is as we watched Obama co-opt one American institution after another in support of his health insurance reform attempts. It exposed for us the reality that the American Bar Association and the American Medical Association-who knew?-have been suborned by the left. The Obama administration has exposed how such divers entities as Wall Street, the AARP, the unions, and the entire environmental movement can be manipulated, through greed or through ideology, to its sinister purposes. One can only think of the Lenin principle that the last capitalist will sell the rope for his hanging.

We are not just fighting a battle in the electoral college we are fighting a battle fought with children programmed to sing, Stepford fashion, chants of praise for Obama. This is sinister beyond description. Watching these children mindlessly offering up obeisance to Obama engorges one with indignation. I said to myself, God help us the left has won after all even with these children who escaped the abortionist's knife because they have been put to a political lobotomy.

It is human nature to be passive politically and it is only a few freaks who must play God who devilishly compelled to dominate and exploit an otherwise passive and contented electorate. But the electorate today is not passive because it is not contented; it is afraid and fear often expresses itself in anger. The question is, how deep and how energizing it is that anger?

One test, strangely, will be the respectability with which the "birther" movement is treated. As the standing of Barack Obama continues to deteriorate I predict the respectability of the demand that he demonstrate his constitutional qualification for office will increase. I hope it increases to the point that enough states require that a candidate for the office of President of the United States demonstrate his constitutional fitness for the office. Then, we shall see.

America is aroused today as it was not aroused for the impeachment of Bill Clinton because it understands that its very survival is at stake. Bill Clinton might have sodomized an intern with the cigar in the Oval Office and then masturbated into the presidential sink, but no American faced foreclosure and ruin as a result. Many Americans today understand that if Obama gets his way for the "transformation" of America as we know it, with such contrivances such as Obamacare and Cap and Trade, their life as they know it will come to a very sorry end.

In such tipping points as we have witnessed in American history from Lexington and Concord through Fort Sumter to Pearl Harbor and 9/11, Providence has always raised up a man for the season. God has not yet vouchsafed us such a man for this season but I believe he will in his perfect time.

[freekitty]

I asked you a simple question. Instead you give me a rats eyeview.

[BigCinBigD]

He married a Sasquatch. That's got to be against the law somewhere!

[Spaulding]

Finding an impeachable offense may seem a reasonable response to a president clearly attempting to destroy our economy and freedoms, but that presumes he is a legal president. You have been persuaded by the media and the fear of ridicule that any question of eligibility is the realm of “wingnuts” - birthers. That is an Obama/Alinsky tactic. A man whose father was not a citizen of the U.S. cannot be president. It may take a little reading to convince those who have been frightened off by the name calling.

You do not need to be a constitutional lawyer to read the clear statements of our founders. You don't need to buy books - every Supreme Court case is available through the internet. A few paragraphs are sufficient. You can even still find the statements of Patrick Leahy and Claire McGaskill, no rightwing birthers, by going to the senate archives (since Leahy has recently removed the resolution from his senate web site). Look for Senate Resolution 511, 2008, either March or April. You will find that every Senator, and DHS Secretary Michael Chertoff, vouched for Senator McCain's natural born citizenship "because he was born of two citizen parents." Barack Obama’s father was never a citizen. That is a blatant and unequivocal violation of our Constitutional requirement that a president be a natural born citizen. We don't need impeachment, and it may be irrelevant, because everyone in the legislature knows the truth, but is afraid to raise the issue. One congressman who had the courage to ask the White House for verification of eligibility, since his constituents were asking, Nathan Deal, suddenly become the object of ethics charges. Of course the White House never responded, except to sic their thugs on him. Deal has chosen, wisely I think, to resign from the congress and run for governor of Georgia.

For an exhaustive summary filled with dozens of citations by one attorney whose suit challenging congress for their failure to vet Obama is here; http://puzo1.blogspot.com
Do we need to reach bloodshed to force our legal system remove a clearly illegitimate president? Obama and his supporters counted on the obscurity of Article II Section 1 clause 5 to give him enough time to destroy our nation. That is the reason for the hurry. The more quickly the public learns about our history, realizes that these concepts are not crackpot allegations but embedded in our founding documents an dozens of supreme court cases the more quickly Obama will be removed - and probably not impeached because he is not a legitimate president.

[SvenMagnussen]

(Ozark, MO) — A judge has ordered the Christian County, Missouri Assessor be removed from office, for failing to report her own personal property for assessment.

The State of Missouri filed the paperwork to remove Sandra Bryant-Littles from office, after an investigation determined she failed to report her own personal property for 2007 and 2008. Little’s husband, Lonnie Littles, also did not report to the county about property he owns, investigators claim, and that Bryant-Littles knew that.

Because elected officials can not be impeached in Missouri, the Missouri Attorney General’s office filed to have Bryant-Littles removed from office, using a process called a “quo warranto”.

http://ozarksfirst.com/content/fulltext/?cid=241371

[SvenMagnussen]

Citizen Plaintiffs

STATE OF TENNESSEE ex rel. ROBERT L. WOLFENBARGER, III., et al.,
v.
SCOTT MOORE, et al.

No. E2008-02545-COA-R3-CV.

Court of Appeals of Tennessee, at Knoxville.

November 3, 2009 Session.

Filed February 12, 2010.

OPINION

HERSCHEL PICKENS FRANKS, P.J.

Sixteen “citizen plaintiffs” filed this ouster suit against Scott Moore and Paul Pinkston, Knox County Commissioners. Plaintiffs demanded a jury, which the Trial Court disallowed and, following an evidentiary hearing, the Trial Judge found that Scott Moore should be removed from office, but held the petitioners were unsuccessful in their attempt to oust Paul Pinkston. The parties have appealed and we hold that plaintiffs are entitled to a jury to decide the factual issues in dispute and vacate the Trial Court’s Judgment as to Paul Pinkston and remand for a new trial. The Judgment as to Scott Moore is affirmed.

This ouster action was filed on January 22, 2008 in the Chancery Court, by sixteen “citizen plaintiffs” on relation to the State of Tennessee and Knox County, Tennessee against Knox County Commissioners Scott Moore and Paul Pinkston. The complaint sets forth a cause of action against defendants pursuant to Tenn. Code Ann. § 8-47-101 et seq.[ 1 ] and Tenn. Code Ann. § 29-35-101 et seq.[ 2 ] seeking removal of defendants from their offices as Knox CountyCommissioners for violations of Tennessee’s Open Meeting Act in January 2007, for violation of their oath of office in January 2007, and for making false statements while under oath in the Open Meetings Act Litigation.

Plaintiffs describe themselves as ten”[c]itizen plaintiffs” and state that they are Knox County citizens and freeholders;[ 3 ] private individuals;[ 4 ] local taxpayers; members of a political association of residents supporting Knox County Term Limits; and are publically spirited citizens seeking to rectify wrongs committed by defendants.

[AlexW]

“I feel certain, he would be reelected today with the votes of the Blacks, Liberals and The Stone-cold Stupid.”

Granted, the country is full of neo-Marxist, other blacks, and very stupid.
I do not, however, think he would win an election today.
He did not win by a landslide in 08.
The angry white voters are now ruing the day that they threw their little temper tantrum.
Stupid is, as stupid does.

[Bellflower]

ping

[Scotsman will be Free]

Keep your hooks off of my senator. Further, we’d have no counterbalance to that traitorous swine, grahamnesty.

[freema]

I’m behind the times on the command being disciplined. Fill me in?!

[Jim Noble]

It takes a simple majority Senators to remove a President. Check the constitution.

Article I, section 3: "...The 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".

[backhoe]

Offered for informational purposes only:

March 4, 2010 at 9:57 pm

A much clearer case than the Utah Congressman is Obama offering Rep. Sestak the bribe of a high administration position

TalkingSides.com - Did Obama Offer Sestak A Bribe?

if he would drop out of his primary race against Specter. This is the same crime that Blago allegedly committed.

BLAGOJEVICH REMOVED: Impeached Blagojevich has been removed ...

Senators voted 59-0 to remove Rod Blagojevich, who walked out of the silent chamber after delivering an impassioned plea for mercy...corruption charges that included plotting to sell the U.S. Senate seat vacated by President Barack Obama.

[Diogenesis]