Forum Thread

Impeach Obama

Reply to ThreadDisplaying 1 - 15 of 87 1 2 3 4 5 .. 6 Next
  • Republican
    Meredith, NH
    Are you sure you want to delete this post?
        
    With the revelation of E-mails showing continuity between Obama and the Benghazi situation, specifically pointing to Obama's intent to misinform the public about the reasons for the attack on the US consulate in Benghazi, I ask that articles of impeachment be submitted against Obama. I base this request on well founded principals put forth by Alexander Hamilton in federalist #65. No clearer example of abuse of office has ever been provided. His abuse of office, just weeks before the election, undoubtedly aided in his re-election.
  • Center Left
    Independent
    Denton, TX
    Are you sure you want to delete this post?
        
    A couple things here. Unless there is some new revelation that hasn't been announced yet, the Benghazi thing you are talking about has long be debunked and there is zero evidence behind it.

    And secondly, a President can't be impeached for lying to the public. There has to be an actually federal law that has be violated. Assuming that these emails you speak of exist, and assuming that they prove exactly what you are saying, there would still be no grounds for impeachment. If this where grounds for impeachment, then I challenge you to find a single president that shouldn't be impeached in the last 100 years.

    "No clearer example of abuse has ever been provided?" Well for starters, there is currently no clear evidence for abuse, just a bunch of right-wing conspiracy theories. Again, let's assume there is evidence. Are you saying that the abuse is clearly than Iran-Contra or Watergate?
  • Independent
    Widefield, CO
    Are you sure you want to delete this post?
        
    Lastexan Wrote: With the revelation of E-mails showing continuity between Obama and the Benghazi situation, specifically pointing to Obama's intent to misinform the public about the reasons for the attack on the US consulate in Benghazi, I ask that articles of impeachment be submitted against Obama. I base this request on well founded principals put forth by Alexander Hamilton in federalist #65. No clearer example of abuse of office has ever been provided. His abuse of office, just weeks before the election, undoubtedly aided in his re-election.
    Lastexan, considering Obama's administration has sent money and weapons to our enemies during a time of war (a clear cut case of high treason if I've ever heard one) and a group that is allied with the group that attacked Benghazi (Look it up Ansar al-Sharia is allied with Al-Qaeda) I would have to agree. Impeachment proceedings are often over used, but when a President does something that threatens the security of this nation and our people, he's got to go.
  • Strongly Liberal Democrat
    Democrat
    Portland, OR
    Are you sure you want to delete this post?
        
    RanmaMOJ Wrote: Lastexan, considering Obama's administration has sent money and weapons to our enemies during a time of war (a clear cut case of high treason if I've ever heard one) and a group that is allied with the group that attacked Benghazi (Look it up Ansar al-Sharia is allied with Al-Qaeda) I would have to agree. Impeachment proceedings are often over used, but when a President does something that threatens the security of this nation and our people, he's got to go.
    If we use this logic then why wasn't Reagan impeached during the Iran-Contra fiasco? Or why didn't our Congress impeach countless other Presidents who have sent 'money and weapons to our enemies'?

    Impeachment is the favorite rallying cry of the far right in this country, but your argument isn't a sound one. It is based off emotion and not an educated understanding of Article II, Section IV of the US Constitution.
  • Republican
    Meredith, NH
    Are you sure you want to delete this post?
        
    Absolutely. Read federalist paper #65 which outlines precisely what Obama has done. The e-mails, which were not given to the senate in the original document request, were obtained by court order and made public by Judicial watch within the last week.
  • Republican
    Meredith, NH
    Are you sure you want to delete this post?
        
    I base my findings on the content of the E-mails and the date they were sent, just weeks prior to the election. Nothing emotional about it at all. The fact that Obama misinformed the public and engaged in a conspiracy to change the testimony of Susan Rice in order to avoid shining a spot light on his failed policies overseas which would have cost him the election.
  • Center Left
    Independent
    Denton, TX
    Are you sure you want to delete this post?
        
    What emails are you talking about? Are talking about damage control emails that EVERY politician sends when something bad has happened? There are still zero signs of any criminal behavior. And you keep bringing up the Federalist Papers. You seem to be confused on exactly what the Federalist Papers are. They are NOT legally binding documents or legislation. They can NOT be used to try someone in a court or to prosecute someone. The Federalist Papers are a series of persuasive arguments that were published to encourage states to ratify the newly drafted Constitution. A lot of the arguments are still applicable today, some are not. But NONE of them officially establish any sort of law or procedure.
  • Republican
    Meredith, NH
    Are you sure you want to delete this post?
        
    The federalist papers provide definition and clarity to the terms and ideals penned in our constitution. The specific paper I am referring to provides a definition of "Abuse of Office" which is an impeachable offence. As for the e-mails I am talking about, please go to Judicialwatch.org
  • Independent
    Widefield, CO
    Are you sure you want to delete this post?
        
    jaredsxtn Wrote:
    RanmaMOJ Wrote: Lastexan, considering Obama's administration has sent money and weapons to our enemies during a time of war (a clear cut case of high treason if I've ever heard one) and a group that is allied with the group that attacked Benghazi (Look it up Ansar al-Sharia is allied with Al-Qaeda) I would have to agree. Impeachment proceedings are often over used, but when a President does something that threatens the security of this nation and our people, he's got to go.
    If we use this logic then why wasn't Reagan impeached during the Iran-Contra fiasco? Or why didn't our Congress impeach countless other Presidents who have sent 'money and weapons to our enemies'?

    Impeachment is the favorite rallying cry of the far right in this country, but your argument isn't a sound one. It is based off emotion and not an educated understanding of Article II, Section IV of the US Constitution.
    Honestly, don't know much about the Iran-Contra affair, before my time. But if its as you presented I would have agreed he needed to be impeached. As for the 'countless other presidents who sent money and weapons to our enemies' I'm assuming your talking about presidents like Bush Sr. and some of his predecessors who sent money to Al Qaeda to combat the Russians? They weren't our enemies at the time, they were our allies at the time.

    As for it being a favorite rallying cry of the far right? How about I look up how many times the Mainstream Left called for Bush Jr's impeachment, starting with September 12th 2001 for 'not preventing 9/11'? Was it misused with Clinton? Most definitely. Fact is, being unbiased here, its a favorite rallying cry (in congress) of the mainstream politicians of BOTH PARTIES/sides of the aisle.

    Article II, Section IV allows for impeachment of a President for treason. If ANY US CITIZEN (by US Law) gives money and weapons to our enemies during at time of war (which we are currently in with Al Qaeda) they are guilty of Treason. So how do I not understand Article II, Section IV? When even Britain is saying that the Benghazi incident could have been prevented if the US hadn't sent money and weapons to Al Qaeda (who are not only allies with, but train Ansar al-Sharia, the group who carried out the attack on our Embassy), I'd hardly call it a far right conspiracy, or even a conspiracy.

    As for the info from 'The Federalist'... Don't know what they say and don't care. 'Abuse of Office' is too subjective for me to agree that ANY President should be impeached for it. That's why I'm being specific and saying Treason and saying what act he did that is treasonous.
  • Center Left
    Independent
    Denton, TX
    Are you sure you want to delete this post?
        
    Lastexan Wrote: The federalist papers provide definition and clarity to the terms and ideals penned in our constitution. The specific paper I am referring to provides a definition of "Abuse of Office" which is an impeachable offence. As for the e-mails I am talking about, please go to Judicialwatch.org
    Judicial Watch is a conservative political advocacy website. And if they don't know the intent behind the Federalist Papers, then they are far from reliable on the subject. The Federalist Papers are in no way legally binding documents. They aren't addendums to the Constitution. They aren't directions for how the Constitution should be interpreted. And they aren't there to clarify the Constitution.

    The Federalist Papers were written by 3 people. They weren't a collaboration of the drafters of the Constitution nor of all the founding fathers. Hamilton, Madison, and Jay wrote them, on their own, to convince states to ratify the Constitution and to promote the idea of a Democratic Republic. If judicialwatch.org is claiming they are something else in order to promote their agenda, then that completely undercuts them as any kind of reliable source since they clearly willing to change facts in an attempt to make their case.
  • Republican
    Meredith, NH
    Are you sure you want to delete this post?
        
    Zach F Wrote:
    Lastexan Wrote: The federalist papers provide definition and clarity to the terms and ideals penned in our constitution. The specific paper I am referring to provides a definition of "Abuse of Office" which is an impeachable offence. As for the e-mails I am talking about, please go to Judicialwatch.org
    Judicial Watch is a conservative political advocacy website. And if they don't know the intent behind the Federalist Papers, then they are far from reliable on the subject. The Federalist Papers are in no way legally binding documents. They aren't addendums to the Constitution. They aren't directions for how the Constitution should be interpreted. And they aren't there to clarify the Constitution.

    The Federalist Papers were written by 3 people. They weren't a collaboration of the drafters of the Constitution nor of all the founding fathers. Hamilton, Madison, and Jay wrote them, on their own, to convince states to ratify the Constitution and to promote the idea of a Democratic Republic. If judicialwatch.org is claiming they are something else in order to promote their agenda, then that completely undercuts them as any kind of reliable source since they clearly willing to change facts in an attempt to make their case.
    I have not claimed any of what you just wrote. Please re-read my previous posts. The E-Mails in question are not fabricated by judicial watch. their content, Author and recipients come directly from the White House. The fact that you can find them on Judicial watch.org is irrelevant. You can find them elsewhere as well but that will not change their impact on Obama's presidency.
  • Center Left
    Independent
    Denton, TX
    Are you sure you want to delete this post?
        
    RanmaMOJ Wrote:
    jaredsxtn Wrote:
    RanmaMOJ Wrote: Lastexan, considering Obama&#39;s administration has sent money and weapons to our enemies during a time of war (a clear cut case of high treason if I&#39;ve ever heard one) and a group that is allied with the group that attacked Benghazi (Look it up Ansar al-Sharia is allied with Al-Qaeda) I would have to agree. Impeachment proceedings are often over used, but when a President does something that threatens the security of this nation and our people, he&#39;s got to go.<br type="_moz" />
    If we use this logic then why wasn&#39;t Reagan impeached during the Iran-Contra fiasco? Or why didn&#39;t our Congress impeach countless other Presidents who have sent &#39;money and weapons to our enemies&#39;?<br /> <br /> Impeachment is the favorite rallying cry of the far right in this country, but your argument isn&#39;t a sound one. It is based off emotion and not an educated understanding of Article II, Section IV of the US Constitution.
    Honestly, don&#39;t know much about the Iran-Contra affair, before my time. But if its as you presented I would have agreed he needed to be impeached. As for the &#39;countless other presidents who sent money and weapons to our enemies&#39; I&#39;m assuming your talking about presidents like Bush Sr. and some of his predecessors who sent money to Al Qaeda to combat the Russians? They weren&#39;t our enemies at the time, they were our allies at the time.<br /> <br /> As for it being a favorite rallying cry of the far right? How about I look up how many times the Mainstream Left called for Bush Jr&#39;s impeachment, starting with September 12th 2001 for &#39;not preventing 9/11&#39;? Was it misused with Clinton? Most definitely. Fact is, being unbiased here, its a favorite rallying cry (in congress) of the mainstream politicians of BOTH PARTIES/sides of the aisle.<br /> <br /> Article II, Section IV allows for impeachment of a President for treason. If ANY US CITIZEN (by US Law) gives money and weapons to our enemies during at time of war (which we are currently in with Al Qaeda) they are guilty of Treason. So how do I not understand Article II, Section IV? When even Britain is saying that the Benghazi incident could have been prevented if the US hadn&#39;t sent money and weapons to Al Qaeda (who are not only allies with, but train Ansar al-Sharia, the group who carried out the attack on our Embassy), I&#39;d hardly call it a far right conspiracy, or even a conspiracy.<br /> <br /> As for the info from &#39;The Federalist&#39;... Don&#39;t know what they say and don&#39;t care. &#39;Abuse of Office&#39; is too subjective for me to agree that ANY President should be impeached for it. That&#39;s why I&#39;m being specific and saying Treason and saying what act he did that is treasonous.<br type="_moz" />
    RanmaMOJ;
    Anyone calling for Bush's impeachment due to 9/11 would be completely wrong as well. There can be a decent case made for the warrantless wiretapping or perhaps for war crimes and violations of the Geneva Convention (torture).

    Clinton did indeed perjure himself. But the impeachment was completely politically motivated. There was really no legitimate reason for him to be under oath, answering questions about his sex life. But, for political reasons, he was, and he did lie under oath, which then led to impeachment.

    As for your article II reference. For starters, the US is NOT at war. The US has not been at war since the Paris Peace Treaty that ended WWII on February 10, 1947. We have authorized military engagements all over the world, but no official wars. And the US hasn't been giving arms and weapons to Al-Qaeda in a very long time. If you have some evidence to support your claims for treason, then by all means, produce it.

    People have been using the "IMPEACH" war cry too readily in the last 25 years. Crying out to impeach someone just because you disagree with their policies makes you look ridiculous. Impeach someone is a very serious matter that can't be called up every few months. Only 2 presidents in US history have been impeached, Bill Clinton and Andrew Johnson. Both cases were grossly driven by political factors. A third President was facing possible impeachment and federal jail time, but he resigned and was pardoned by his successor. In short, you need some strong, hard evidence to impeach someone. Then you even more hard evidence to turn that impeachment into a conviction and remove someone from office.
  • Center Left
    Independent
    Denton, TX
    Are you sure you want to delete this post?
        
    Lastexan Wrote:
    Zach F Wrote:
    Lastexan Wrote: The federalist papers provide definition and clarity to the terms and ideals penned in our constitution. The specific paper I am referring to provides a definition of "Abuse of Office" which is an impeachable offence. As for the e-mails I am talking about, please go to Judicialwatch.org
    Judicial Watch is a conservative political advocacy website. And if they don't know the intent behind the Federalist Papers, then they are far from reliable on the subject. The Federalist Papers are in no way legally binding documents. They aren't addendums to the Constitution. They aren't directions for how the Constitution should be interpreted. And they aren't there to clarify the Constitution.

    The Federalist Papers were written by 3 people. They weren't a collaboration of the drafters of the Constitution nor of all the founding fathers. Hamilton, Madison, and Jay wrote them, on their own, to convince states to ratify the Constitution and to promote the idea of a Democratic Republic. If judicialwatch.org is claiming they are something else in order to promote their agenda, then that completely undercuts them as any kind of reliable source since they clearly willing to change facts in an attempt to make their case.
    I have not claimed any of what you just wrote. Please re-read my previous posts. The E-Mails in question are not fabricated by judicial watch. their content, Author and recipients come directly from the White House. The fact that you can find them on Judicial watch.org is irrelevant. You can find them elsewhere as well but that will not change their impact on Obama's presidency.
    I didn't say judicialwatch fabricated any emails. I'm saying they have no idea what the purpose of the Federalist Papers were. I still have not seen the emails that that "prove" that Obama committed any sort of crime. And certainly not a crime that would warrant impeachment.
  • Republican
    Meredith, NH
    Are you sure you want to delete this post?
        
    Zach F Wrote:
    RanmaMOJ Wrote:
    jaredsxtn Wrote:
    RanmaMOJ Wrote: Lastexan, considering Obama's administration has sent money and weapons to our enemies during a time of war (a clear cut case of high treason if I've ever heard one) and a group that is allied with the group that attacked Benghazi (Look it up Ansar al-Sharia is allied with Al-Qaeda) I would have to agree. Impeachment proceedings are often over used, but when a President does something that threatens the security of this nation and our people, he's got to go.
    If we use this logic then why wasn't Reagan impeached during the Iran-Contra fiasco? Or why didn't our Congress impeach countless other Presidents who have sent 'money and weapons to our enemies'?

    Impeachment is the favorite rallying cry of the far right in this country, but your argument isn't a sound one. It is based off emotion and not an educated understanding of Article II, Section IV of the US Constitution.
    Honestly, don't know much about the Iran-Contra affair, before my time. But if its as you presented I would have agreed he needed to be impeached. As for the 'countless other presidents who sent money and weapons to our enemies' I'm assuming your talking about presidents like Bush Sr. and some of his predecessors who sent money to Al Qaeda to combat the Russians? They weren't our enemies at the time, they were our allies at the time.

    As for it being a favorite rallying cry of the far right? How about I look up how many times the Mainstream Left called for Bush Jr's impeachment, starting with September 12th 2001 for 'not preventing 9/11'? Was it misused with Clinton? Most definitely. Fact is, being unbiased here, its a favorite rallying cry (in congress) of the mainstream politicians of BOTH PARTIES/sides of the aisle.

    Article II, Section IV allows for impeachment of a President for treason. If ANY US CITIZEN (by US Law) gives money and weapons to our enemies during at time of war (which we are currently in with Al Qaeda) they are guilty of Treason. So how do I not understand Article II, Section IV? When even Britain is saying that the Benghazi incident could have been prevented if the US hadn't sent money and weapons to Al Qaeda (who are not only allies with, but train Ansar al-Sharia, the group who carried out the attack on our Embassy), I'd hardly call it a far right conspiracy, or even a conspiracy.

    As for the info from 'The Federalist'... Don't know what they say and don't care. 'Abuse of Office' is too subjective for me to agree that ANY President should be impeached for it. That's why I'm being specific and saying Treason and saying what act he did that is treasonous.
    RanmaMOJ;
    Anyone calling for Bush's impeachment due to 9/11 would be completely wrong as well. There can be a decent case made for the warrantless wiretapping or perhaps for war crimes and violations of the Geneva Convention (torture).

    Clinton did indeed perjure himself. But the impeachment was completely politically motivated. There was really no legitimate reason for him to be under oath, answering questions about his sex life. But, for political reasons, he was, and he did lie under oath, which then led to impeachment.

    As for your article II reference. For starters, the US is NOT at war. The US has not been at war since the Paris Peace Treaty that ended WWII on February 10, 1947. We have authorized military engagements all over the world, but no official wars. And the US hasn't been giving arms and weapons to Al-Qaeda in a very long time. If you have some evidence to support your claims for treason, then by all means, produce it.

    People have been using the "IMPEACH" war cry too readily in the last 25 years. Crying out to impeach someone just because you disagree with their policies makes you look ridiculous. Impeach someone is a very serious matter that can't be called up every few months. Only 2 presidents in US history have been impeached, Bill Clinton and Andrew Johnson. Both cases were grossly driven by political factors. A third President was facing possible impeachment and federal jail time, but he resigned and was pardoned by his successor. In short, you need some strong, hard evidence to impeach someone. Then you even more hard evidence to turn that impeachment into a conviction and remove someone from office.
    Impeachment is, by its very nature, a political process, not a criminal proceeding. Any criminal proceeding would occur after the impeachment process.

    Also, please note that Jay Carney just ended a presser where he attempted poorly to explain away the contents of these e-mails. The Obama administration is now in full damage control mode. They are too late. There is far to much "Back Story" already out in the public for them to avoid what will inevitably come to pass.
  • Center Left
    Independent
    Denton, TX
    Are you sure you want to delete this post?
        
    Lastexan Wrote: Impeachment is, by its very nature, a political process, not a criminal proceeding. Any criminal proceeding would occur after the impeachment process.

    Also, please note that Jay Carney just ended a presser where he attempted poorly to explain away the contents of these e-mails. The Obama administration is now in full damage control mode. They are too late. There is far to much "Back Story" already out in the public for them to avoid what will inevitably come to pass.
    Can you please provide a link to both the emails and press release? There are no recent White Press releases nor statements regarding any of this on any official site, yet.