Impeachment 101 for Democrats

http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2010/05/28/bradley-blakeman-obama-sestak-clinton-memorial-day-rahm-emanuel/
from JoeUser Forums

For almost 8 years, many democrats (or just loony liberals) called for the impeachment of Bush.  The reasons were never substantial, the main one being they just could not stand him (probably because he beat Al Gore for President).  But even with significant majorities in both houses of congress during the last 2 years, there was no serious movement by democrat leaders to carry out the impeachment.  Why?

There was no impeachable offense, just offensive policies.

12 years ago, a president was impeached, but not removed from office.  it was only the 2nd time in history that had been done, the first being a republican.  And that was a legitimate impeachable offense, albeit it had nothing to do with his job performance.  But that is the issue.  Impeachment is the vehicle to make sure the president is not above the law.  36 years ago, a president resigned instead of facing impeachment, not for anything he did related to the office, but for crimes committed that anyone else would have gone to jail for.

Today, we are approaching another impeachable moment.  As the Sestak scandal continues to unravel, it is clear that at the least some bad judgment was used in trying to maintain the democrat majority.  At worse it is a crime.  But that is not what is going to catch Obama.  for it seems in order to protect his nascent administration, the administration is trying to cover up the dealings.

So what you ask?  I am sure many democrats are shouting that right now.  No crime, so no cover-up.  Au contraire!  There was no underlying crime that got Scooter Libby in hot water, but he was convicted of "obstruction of justice" - a cover up in other words.  The same thing that got Nixon out of office (it was never even reliably alleged that he had anything to do with the actual crime there either).

You would have thought that after Watergate (that gave us all subsequent gates apparently), Politicians would have learned.  Clinton did. He actually committed a crime, but when it came to throwing his staff under the bus, he was without peer.  But Obama does not seem to be that smart.  He seems bound and determined to repeat the mistake of Nixon.

Whether he was in on the bribe to Sestak or not, is irrelevant now.  What is apparent is that his administration is in rapid CYA mode to cover it up, and the stench goes all the way to the Lincoln Bedroom.

Nixon screwed up after 4 years, Clinton 6.  It has taken Obama less than 1 1/2.  He may not be smart, but he sure is fast.

politics
84,810 views 35 replies
Reply #1 from JoeUser Forums Top

FYI Doc, Nixon resigned prior to being impeached, at least in the end, he did the right thing.

As far as Sestak, many people that tune into "administration approved" only media, are probably even unaware of the controversy. The influence and hypocrisy of this magnitude, sound straight out of some intrigue novel, yet they are occurring in broad daylight. If the media ever recovers this will be known as a dark time in their history. Let the whitewash continue.

Reply #2 from JoeUser Forums Top

Quoting Nitro, reply 1
FYI Doc, Nixon resigned prior to being impeached, at least in the end, he did the right thing..

I know.  Perhaps you mis-read my post (or I was just not clear, sorry).  The Republican in question was Andrew Johnson, not Nixon.  Nixon was told by his party that he would be, so resigned (some say to protect the office of the president).  Clinton, while smart, was never that self sacrificing.

As far as Sestak, many people that tune into "administration approved" only media, are probably even unaware of the controversy.

That is the other irony.  The sycophantic media made Clinton think he was safe, as they are doing with Obama.  But both failed to realize that the old paradigm of the MSM being the only outlet for news (just as Dan Rather was totally clueless) is dead.  Anyone that is not a mind numbed robot is very aware of the issue.

If the media ever recovers this will be known as a dark time in their history. Let the whitewash continue.

I personally do not think they will.  At best they will be just another NPR, at worst they will be a footnote in history books.

 

Curtains - Customize Windows with additional styles
Reply #3 from JoeUser Forums Top

I cant wait for them to start hearings and put them all under oath. Its funny.... an impeachable offense already percolating.

Reply #4 from JoeUser Forums Top

Quoting Anthony, reply 3
I cant wait for them to start hearings and put them all under oath. Its funny.... an impeachable offense already percolating.

Patience!  It will be next year.

Reply #5 from JoeUser Forums Top

Patience! It will be next year.

Its kind of troubling though.... if Obammy is impeached, that would put bumbling Joe Biden in charge, and if hes somehow implicated in the crimes or is unable to serve... Nancy Pelosi will become President. It just gets worse and worse. 2012 can't come soon enough!

 

 

+1 Loading…
Reply #6 from JoeUser Forums Top

I know. Perhaps you mis-read my post

Gotcha, my bad.

Reply #7 from JoeUser Forums Top

if Obammy is impeached, that would put bumbling Joe Biden in charge

Mot necessarily, remember Clinton was impeached. For everything bad said about Nixon, he did the honorable thing and resigned. Do you believe Obama would do the honorable thing??? I believe he's looking for someone to pin the full blame on right now. Nobody suspects the Blamer in Chief could do such a thing...lol.

Reply #8 from Stardock Forums Top

As a Chicagoan (strangely enough, talking about a president from Chicago), I am shocked an appalled at this whole business.

 

I mean we trade jobs for votes/favors/contributions on a daily basis around here.  Hell, it's part of our political culture.  And we like it that way!

How on Earth could people get so upset over something like this?  Honestly people, the next thing you'll tell me is that you can't sell a senate seat or that the dead can't vote.HA!  what kind of politics is that?!?!?! 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Reply #9 from JoeUser Forums Top

:beer: :beer: :beer:   to you dan_l.

Reply #10 from Stardock Forums Top

Reply #12 from JoeUser Forums Top

Quoting Anthony, reply 5

Patience! It will be next year.
Its kind of troubling though.... if Obammy is impeached, that would put bumbling Joe Biden in charge, and if hes somehow implicated in the crimes or is unable to serve... Nancy Pelosi will become President. It just gets worse and worse. 2012 can't come soon enough!

The Biden scenario is scary.  Ever seen "My Fellow Americans"?  Biden is Ted Matthews.  But if it happens (impeachment), it will not be Pelosi second in line.  A democrat congress will never raise the subject.  It will be a republican.  I suspect it may go the same way as Clinton's as the senate will not vote for conviction (at best it will be a 50/50 split).

Reply #13 from JoeUser Forums Top

For everything bad said about Nixon, he did the honorable thing and resigned.

Obama would never do that.  He is too narcissistic.

Reply #14 from JoeUser Forums Top

I mean we trade jobs for votes/favors/contributions on a daily basis around here. Hell, it's part of our political culture. And we like it that way!

Chicago is not THE US.  It is but one city, and whether it follows the laws or not is in the end, a reflection on the culture of that city, not the nation (yet).

How on Earth could people get so upset over something like this? Honestly people, the next thing you'll tell me is that you can't sell a senate seat or that the dead can't vote.HA! what kind of politics is that?!?!?!

:grin:

Reply #15 from JoeUser Forums Top

Thanks ID and Anthony!  The sad part of your pictures is the truth of them.

Reply #16 from JoeUser Forums Top

I'm really confused by this one.  I'm curious: 

 

What are the odds would you suspect Obama is going to get got through this?  At this point I'm laying better money on ugatz than I am anybody coming anywhere near Obama. 

Reply #17 from JoeUser Forums Top

Quoting dan_l, reply 16
I'm really confused by this one.  I'm curious: 

 

What are the odds would you suspect Obama is going to get got through this?  At this point I'm laying better money on ugatz than I am anybody coming anywhere near Obama. 

What are you confused about?

As for your odds, no bet.  I agree with you, even if I do not know what ugatz is.

Reply #18 from Stardock Forums Top

Very good article and comments.

He may not be smart, but he sure is fast.

Add dirty...because he's playing with Clinton.

 

 

Reply #19 from Stardock Forums Top

What are the odds would you suspect Obama is going to get got through this?

I think it depends on how much the Congress wants to press it.

Reply #20 from Stardock Forums Top

What are you confused about? As for your odds, no bet. I agree with you, even if I do not know what ugatz is.

 

Ugatz is an Italian american coloquialism.  I forget the actual words---but it means literally "this penis". Typically it's said in place of 'bullshit'. 

 

The part that confuses me is that we've seen this song and dance before.  It was called plamegate.  Yeah yeah, wingers are going to try to say "yeah but this is really illegal" or some silliness, but look.  People have offered people jobs in favor of getting out of elections before.  Hillary Clinton---for example. 

I guess the part that confuses me is that I wouldn't lay a dime of getting Barry O on this one.  Not a single cent, in fact.  I was surfing through outwingnutistan and the Malkins of the world think they're going to get an impeachment out of this.  It seems kind of like grasping at straws. 

 

 

Reply #21 from JoeUser Forums Top

It's just more phony outrage, dan.

Reply #22 from JoeUser Forums Top

For almost 8 years, many democrats (or just loony liberals) called for the impeachment of Bush.  The reasons were never substantial, the main one being they just could not stand him (probably because he beat Al Gore for President).  But even with significant majorities in both houses of congress during the last 2 years, there was no serious movement by democrat leaders to carry out the impeachment.  Why?

The true irony here is, Prs. Bush did one thing for which he could have been legitimately impeached.  That is, he signed the McCain-Feingold Campaign Finance Reform bill into law, even though he knew it was unconstitutional.

So why didn't the Democrat controlled Congress jump on that?  The fact is, they never intended to impeach him for anything, ever.  It was all just playing on the anger most Americans had for Bush.

As for Prs. Obama ever doing the honorable thing.  Being scummy has served him well his entire life, what motivation would he have to change now?

 

~~~~~

Aren't we glad the only honest person in Chicago politics was the one who made it to the White House? :~D

 

 

Reply #23 from JoeUser Forums Top

Add dirty...because he's playing with Clinton.

NO, because he learned his politics in Chicago (as did Hillary).

Reply #24 from JoeUser Forums Top

Quoting lulapilgrim, reply 19

What are the odds would you suspect Obama is going to get got through this?
I think it depends on how much the Congress wants to press it.

No, regardless of the outcome of the elections in November, like Clinton, he will skate.  Democrats have never met slime they cannot love.

Reply #25 from JoeUser Forums Top

Typically it's said in place of 'bullshit'.

Thanks!  I will remember that as it will pass censors more than BS will!

The part that confuses me is that we've seen this song and dance before. It was called plamegate. Yeah yeah, wingers are going to try to say "yeah but this is really illegal" or some silliness, but look. People have offered people jobs in favor of getting out of elections before. Hillary Clinton---for example.

As we saw with Nixon, it is not about a crime, but the cover-up.  Nixon was never associated with the crime, but he got hung because of his participation in the cover-up.  I think Blago is going to be hung for the same reason.  Yea, that is normal politics (even if it is illegal), but the outrage seems to come when they try to cover it up.

I was surfing through outwingnutistan and the Malkins of the world think they're going to get an impeachment out of this. It seems kind of like grasping at straws.

No, but I think you confuse impeachment with conviction.  There is a good chance he will be impeached, but not convicted.  Impeachment is just the certifying of the crimes.  The senate has to convict, and that will never happen.