The real question IS who has power and using it to their advantage, and who is not using theirs?
Posted on 01/29/2014 3:51:47 PM PST by ConservativeMan55
Just hours after he stormed out of President Obama’s State of the Union address Tuesday, Rep. Steve Stockman (R-Texas) announced he’s considering filing articles of impeachment against the president.
(Excerpt) Read more at theblaze.com ...
Soros, Koch brothers. Ying and Yang. Every administration has a sugar daddy, often several. In the Clinton Administration it was Richard Mellon Scaife who caused indigestion in the East wing, and to a slightly lesser degree, in the West wing.
Meets with Putin somewhat secretly..
+++++++++++++++++++++
Though the group of five House members had been scheduled to meet with Vladimir Putin,
the Russian President canceled because of meetings in Davos, Stockman said.
http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Government/2014/01/26/Stockman-Details-Travels-Rips-Media
Let me speak more clearly, a House impeachment is tantamount to an indictment for trial in the Senate. The actual trial occurs in the Senate with the Chief Justice presiding.
If his approval rating falls under 30 this year and the republicans make great gains in both houses, it is possible. Of course if his rating falls under 30 they should make great gains.
So who are the true believers holding him up? I give him the vast majority of the blacks, maybe 9% of the population, total. GLAD crowd makes another 1%. Moslems 2%. Laborites/socialists/communists/occupiers/community activists/college faculty/media types/assorted committed lefties another 5%. Three quarters of the hispanics gives him another 12%. That's 29% right there.
What would be glorious would be if Stockman filed the Impeachment papers as a Congressman, then got to actually Impeach as a Senator!
Reading some of the asinine posts on this thread I wouldn't blame Stockman if he didn't say another word.
The real question IS who has power and using it to their advantage, and who is not using theirs?
Amen brother. It's so far removed from reality it's a waste of time.
....”How you think articulating the point is a “waste of time” is beyond me”....
Perhaps it is.
Thanks! PHEW - I’d hate to see her get away with this shite.
Yeah lets all not utter the word impeachment. What possible benefit could their be for doing it.
Unbelievable.
Article 1, Section 2, Clause 5--"The House of Representatives . . . shall have the sole power of impeachment."The power of impeachment translates into the power to indict. The House, through the Judiciary Committee, conducts investigation and gathers evidence. At the proper time, the House assembles the evidence into individual indictments or charges known as Articles of Impeachment. Each article requires a majority vote of the House to pass to the Senate. Once impeached, the officer is on trial.
Article 1, Section 3, Clause 6--"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."
The trial of the impeached officer is held in the Senate. In Nixon v. US, regarding the impeachment trial of a Federal judge, the Supreme Court ruled that the application of the phrase phrase "sole power to try all impeachments" to a particular case was not justiciable. In other words it held that the proper application of this constitutional language to a specific impeachment proceeding was not a question for the courts. Therefore, the process and procedure for impeachment lie solely within the purview of the legislature. The officer subject to an impeachment proceeding has no appeal to a federal court.
Article 1, Section 3, Clause 7--"Judgment in cases of impeachment shall not extend further than to removal from office, and disqualification to hold and enjoy any office of honor, trust or profit under the United States: but the party convicted shall nevertheless be liable and subject to indictment, trial, judgment and punishment, according to law."
An impeachment and removal does not activate the double jeopardy clause of the Fifth Amendment. The ex-officer may face criminal indictments and trials for the same conduct that led to their impeachment and removal from office.
With every day that passes this administration is making congress less and less relevant, in one hearing I think it was Trey Goudy that said that the electorate will conclude that this body is not bound by law and neither are they.
The longer the House waits to act the less likely it is that they will be effective in any action they do take. They are clueless to how quickly their power is evaporating.
No I don’t in this case since it is wishy-washy. If he had said “I WILL file ...” then that would have been OK. However after 5 years of Obama the time for “considering” impeachment is long gone.
Reminds me of the line from Tuco in the Good the Bad and the Ugly. When you need to shoot, shoot, don’t talk. :-)
This is the same Rep that Sheriff Joe and Mike Zullo have been working with to bring the birth document forgery and SSID theft evidence to the congress.
Perhaps people should do the right thing.
I know, a silly thought.
Better Never Late! /s
My point being, that the rules of evidence do not apply in an impeachment case. If a House wanted to, a majority could impeach any president whom they think has substantially exceeded his constitutional authority. Just as the Radicals did Andrew Johnson. The check on this power is that a two-thirds majority in the Senate is needed to remove, which in practice means that the public has abandoned the President. Looking back, it is too bad that Johnson wasn’t removed, because then we wouldn’t have had to worry about “progressive” Presidents.
My gosh Impeaching Clinton didn’t accomplish anything whatsoever...and he remains a star and greatly honored....not to mention his wife will likely run for President and this without blinking an eye over her husbands past.
Politics today is all about who has the money and the heavy hitters willing to support them. It has nothing at all to do with the Integrity of the Individual. It’s a win or loose deal and even that is fully corrupted.
Impeachment is simply another word being thrown around with no intention nor power behind it...and it’s ridiculous to entertain the idea outside of politicians looking for theatrical gain.
Impeachment would be a waste of time. As terrible as Obama is, and he’s the worst occupant of our White House in America’s history, Obama will not be removed from office by a Senate filled with Democrats. We should focus instead on stopping Obama from doing any more damage, rather than giving the media an excuse to pretend that an inept, drug-addled loser is actually a sympathetic and persecuted figure.
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.