[OldNavyVet]

How much more evidence is needed before impeachment becomes a serious option?

Sory to say ... there's no way in Hell that a Harry Reid led Senate would impeach Obama.

[0.E.O]

Sory to say ... there's no way in Hell that a Harry Reid led Senate would impeach Obama.

It's John Boehner's House that would impeach him and Harry Reid's Senate that would try him. But there is still zero chance of either happening.

[Starboard]

Sory to say ... there’s no way in Hell that a Harry Reid led Senate would impeach Obama.
*********
Absolutely true, but impeachment hearings in the House could open a lot of eyes to what’s really going on in this country. That in itself would be worth the exercise.

[kingu]

I realize I'm nitpicking here, but the House impeaches presidents like Bill Clinton. Not that I'd give anyone in the House the slightest benefit of the doubt that they'd impeach the pres(id)ent.

As for Snowden, I can't manage to care overly much about him. If he was a ‘whistleblower’, he could simply have walked to an ACLU office, called the local paper, and been on Fox and Friends by the next day, with the worst possible punishment he'd be facing would be an extended vacation at ClubFed.

Instead, weeks later he's turning up in Hong Kong exposing US surveillance? Just strikes me as an attempt to exit stage left with a big bag of cash that went horribly wrong, and there weren't any NSA or Chinese buyers for his information. He figured he had about a month to sell it, then get down low, and time ran out.

And in the aftermath, both parties want us to look at Snowden and not the actions of Congress in authorizing these wholesale actions against liberty and privacy, in the name of ‘the war on terrorism.’