Ted Cruz: Harry Reid and Senate Dems are enabling a worse abuse of presidential power than Nixon’s

posted at 3:21 pm on July 8, 2014 by Allahpundit

This Examiner account of Cruz’s appearance on Mark Levin’s show last night caught my eye as a companion piece to Palin calling for O’s impeachment. Skip to 6:45 of the clip below for the key bit. You tell me: Does Cruz sound receptive to impeaching Obama here or reluctant? On the one hand, he’s comparing O unfavorably to a president who would have been impeached had he not resigned first. On the other hand, his whole point is that Reid and the Democrats are shills for the White House, especially in protecting O from scrutiny on the IRS scandal. That’s true, and that’s also why impeachment is doomed: You’ll never, ever find 15-20 Democratic votes in the Senate to remove Obama unless the public turns on him decisively. His job approval at Gallup today is 44/51, not great but nowhere near the levels of toxicity that would force Dems to cut him loose in the interest of self-preservation. You can’t impeach a president whose party is neck-deep in the tank for him unless you’ve got 67 Senate seats, and even under the best-case scenario, the GOP won’t have anything close to that next year. So why bother trying?

As alternatives, you can either follow Levin’s advice and use the power of purse to restrain Obama or you can follow Cruz’s advice and go after a lower-ranking official. He wants the House to impeach Eric Holder if Holder refuses to appoint a special prosecutor to investigate the IRS. That won’t work either — why would Democratic shills in the Senate refuse to convict Obama but agree to convict his attorney general? — but if you like the idea of impeachment as an expressive act of no confidence in the administration and you’re worried about a public backlash at the polls from going after Obama himself, targeting his right-hand man is an obvious feelgood compromise. The House votes to remove Holder, the Senate fails to convict him, Democrats whine a little about “GOP extremism” and shrug, and Republicans use the whole experience to goose GOTV, as evidence that the Senate desperately needs more Republican members. Low risk with the potential for some reward.


Related Posts:

Breaking on Hot Air

Blowback

Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.

Trackbacks/Pings

Trackback URL

Comments

Ted Cruz: Harry Reid and Senate Dems are enabling a worse abuse of presidential power than Nixon’s

Yes. Yes, they are.

M240H on July 8, 2014 at 3:24 PM

I guess we couldn’t have Perry/Cruz ’16.
Be great tho.
Or Perry/Cruz/Palin. Easy to remember. PCP.

vityas on July 8, 2014 at 3:25 PM

I agree it makes more sense to go after Holder. Fast and furious shouldn’t be forgotten either.

cat_owner on July 8, 2014 at 3:25 PM

Hmmm, nice of Cruz to issue this. Coming in tandem
with Palin. I like this two fisted Conservative Team.

Better than any two I’ve seen in a long time.

They wouldn’t have planned it this way would they?? Naw.

ToddPA on July 8, 2014 at 3:28 PM

What difference at this point does it make???

txmomof6 on July 8, 2014 at 3:28 PM

No shit… But still I see why they invoke Nixon. Nixon is still the ultimate boogyman of political corruption thanks to decades of media spin.

ConstantineXI on July 8, 2014 at 3:29 PM

I guess we couldn’t have Perry/Cruz ’16.
Be great tho.
Or Perry/Cruz/Palin. Easy to remember. PCP.

vityas on July 8, 2014 at 3:25 PM

You could, if you intend to lose the election.

Walter L. Newton on July 8, 2014 at 3:30 PM

but if you like the idea of impeachment as an expressive act of no confidence in the administration and you’re worried about a public backlash at the polls from going after Obama himself

That’s me. I also think there might be some Dems that would vote to impeach Holder. Regardless, the stench of guilt by association would be on Obama and that’s a good thing in the long run.

Occams Stubble on July 8, 2014 at 3:31 PM

Also…#RememberMississippi #mssen

d1carter on July 8, 2014 at 3:31 PM

Nixon couldn’t carry Obama’s JOCK when it comes to corruption and law-breaking.

There has never been a more corrupt and lawless U.S. “President” than Obama.

He is a “President” of firsts. First half-black “President”. First affirmative action “President”.

First American Dictator.

Meople on July 8, 2014 at 3:32 PM

You can’t impeach a president whose party is neck-deep in the tank for him unless you’ve got 67 Senate seats, and even under the best-case scenario, the GOP won’t have anything close to that next year. So why bother trying?

Seriously? Is this a question?

I don’t know anymore. Why do we even have an oath of office, or a pretense that officials are supposed to abide by the law, if the political question trumps the law. Are we to the point where it’s simply accepted that if your party has the right numbers in the right places, you may just openly break the law, without worry of consequence?

Or does the rule of law still matter, and the House must do it’s f*cking job, as they’ve sworn to do by their own oath of office? If they fear or even know that the Senate will not do *their* job, is the House excused from doing *its* job?

Midas on July 8, 2014 at 3:32 PM

As alternatives, you can either follow Levin’s advice and use the power of purse to restrain Obama

This is what boggles the mind. The GOP can control what Obama gets to spend and yet they will not do it to hold him back.

Bitter Clinger on July 8, 2014 at 3:32 PM

Seriously? Is this a question?

I don’t know anymore. Why do we even have an oath of office, or a pretense that officials are supposed to abide by the law, if the political question trumps the law. Are we to the point where it’s simply accepted that if your party has the right numbers in the right places, you may just openly break the law, without worry of consequence?

Or does the rule of law still matter, and the House must do it’s f*cking job, as they’ve sworn to do by their own oath of office? If they fear or even know that the Senate will not do *their* job, is the House excused from doing *its* job?

Midas on July 8, 2014 at 3:32 PM

I guess oaths to obey the law and protect the Republic don’t matter as long as there are lots and lots of people breaking theirs already.

ConstantineXI on July 8, 2014 at 3:34 PM

So, has anyone called Hussein a traitor yet ?

burrata on July 8, 2014 at 3:34 PM

you can either follow Levin’s advice and use the power of purse to restrain Obama or you can follow Cruz’s advice and go after a lower-ranking official.

Harry Reid will refuse to bring reigned in spending bills up for a vote in the Senate and the main stream propagandists will spin it as a GOP government shut down.

rbj on July 8, 2014 at 3:34 PM

F*ck; everything is about the politics, never about the merit.

Midas on July 8, 2014 at 3:35 PM

That’s me. I also think there might be some Dems that would vote to impeach Holder. Regardless, the stench of guilt by association would be on Obama and that’s a good thing in the long run.

Occams Stubble on July 8, 2014 at 3:31 PM

Going into the latter half of 1998 and even the early part of 1999, there were some people who thought there would be a couple of Rats who would vote to convict Clinton. That didn’t happen.

I’ll go with history and say that instead of Rats voting to impeach/convict Obama or Holder, there will be Pubbies voting to not impeach/not convict Obama and Holder (more so in the Senate).

Of course, if another Pubbie non-Rat managed to get into the executive branch by means other than being The Token, and did something even marginally impeachment-worthy, El PRL will be tripping over itself to do to that non-Rat what they did to Nixon.

Steve Eggleston on July 8, 2014 at 3:35 PM

So, has anyone called Hussein a traitor yet ?

burrata on July 8, 2014 at 3:34 PM

I do, pretty much every time I see his ugly, lying face on TV or on the web.

Meople on July 8, 2014 at 3:36 PM

Let’s looks at Obama’s support:

25-30% blacks, latinos, and Asians
6-8% public employees and family members
3-5% academia, show biz, and other gays

That’s his concrete-clas floor. He can rape cancer patients, bomb American territory and slaughter kittens with a buzzsaw, all on live TV, and none of these groups will bat an eyelash.

Conclusion: When the Founders devised their system of checks and balances, they never accounted for population segments so completely immune to decency and moral norms. Moreover, short of (hopefully very unlikely) massive genocide or deportations, these segments are not going anywhere. That automatically makes every Democrat president a tyrant. So no wonder we wound up with one…

Rix on July 8, 2014 at 3:36 PM

So, has anyone called Hussein a traitor yet ?

burrata on July 8, 2014 at 3:34 PM

Over at AoSHQ’s combox, AllenG defines the “T” in SCOAMT as “traitor” every chance he gets.

Steve Eggleston on July 8, 2014 at 3:37 PM

Breaking (via Drudge):

LIVE UPDATES: Siren sounds in Tel Aviv, Jerusalem; 16 killed in IDF strikes in Gaza

http://www.haaretz.com/news/diplomacy-defense/1.603677

http://www.jpost.com/Operation-Protective-Edge/Iron-Dome-intercepts-second-rocket-over-greater-Tel-Aviv-361994

davidk on July 8, 2014 at 3:37 PM

But, but, but…we shouldn’t be uttering this Devisive rhetoric!!

Why Sarah Palin is calling for..for..for..Gasp, IMPEACHEMENT!!

This will certainly send EVERY PERSON in this Nation to vote
for the Dems!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

So let’s just wait for the GOP to take control of the Senate.

Then everythig will be fixed!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

You concerned GOPers can have fun with that Delusional
Picnic. John MCain is your FRIEND!!

ToddPA on July 8, 2014 at 3:39 PM

Just remember when the word impeachment comes up, Joe Biden. Now, having said that, I think when the Supremes go back into session, the slaps Obama got this past session are going to be nothing compared to what’s to come. Hobby Lobby opened a flood gate, and I don’t think people see what is about to come.

The easiest way to stop most of this nonsense, is what is stated above, stop funding him. It’s a simple as that, but the GOP are a bunch of words I choose not to say, so he will keep doing what he is doing, and everyone will complain and not do a damn thing to stop him.

dodge7505 on July 8, 2014 at 3:40 PM

The Israeli military launched a major offensive in the Hamas-ruled Gaza Strip on Tuesday, striking more than 100 sites and mobilizing troops for a possible ground invasion in what Israel says is an operation aimed at stopping a heavy barrage of rocket attacks from the Palestinian territory.
Related Stories

At least 15 Palestinians, including three children, were killed in the attacks from air and sea, Palestinian medical officials said.

The military said the open-ended operation aims to deliver a blow against the Islamic militant group, and end the rocket fire that has reached deeper into Israel in recent days.

“It won’t end in a day and it won’t end in two days. It will take time,” Yitzhak Aharonovitch, the country’s Cabinet minister for internal security, told Channel 2 TV, during a visit to the rocket-scarred southern city of Ashkelon.

“If we need to go inside in a ground operation, then we will do it. These things are on the table. These options exist. We will not stop anything until the rocket firing ends,” he added. Asked whether there were any efforts to reach a cease-fire, Aharonovitch said, “Not now.”

http://news.yahoo.com/israel-foils-seaborne-attack-gaza-strip-172025292.html

davidk on July 8, 2014 at 3:41 PM

Breaking (via Drudge):

LIVE UPDATES: Siren sounds in Tel Aviv, Jerusalem; 16 killed in IDF strikes in Gaza

http://www.haaretz.com/news/diplomacy-defense/1.603677

http://www.jpost.com/Operation-Protective-Edge/Iron-Dome-intercepts-second-rocket-over-greater-Tel-Aviv-361994

davidk on July 8, 2014 at 3:37 PM

Are you sure? I thought John F-kcing Kerry fixed this by opening the barn door for Hamas.

MistyLane on July 8, 2014 at 3:43 PM

Security forces are investigating after finding an abandoned parachute near Kibbutz Yad Mordechai in southern Israel.

One of the suspicions is that the parachute was used by a Hamas terrorist who may have used a motorized glider to infiltrate the country.

http://www.jpost.com/Breaking-News/Security-forces-find-abandoned-parachute-in-South-suspect-terrorist-infiltration-361991

davidk on July 8, 2014 at 3:43 PM

Are you sure? I thought John F-kcing Kerry fixed this by opening the barn door for Hamas.

MistyLane on July 8, 2014 at 3:43 PM

Did you know he served in Viet Nam?

davidk on July 8, 2014 at 3:44 PM

Ot
Marine may get out of Mexican prison tomorrow …going in front of judge then

cmsinaz on July 8, 2014 at 3:46 PM

Nixon couldn’t carry Obama’s JOCK when it comes to corruption and law-breaking.

There has never been a more corrupt and lawless U.S. “President” than Obama.

He is a “President” of firsts. First half-black “President”. First affirmative action “President”.

First American Dictator.

Meople on July 8, 2014 at 3:32 PM

It really shows how far America has fallen. When Nixon left office, he was damn near persona-non-grata. Now Obama can wantonly break laws and still 40% of the populace approves of him.

Bitter Clinger on July 8, 2014 at 3:46 PM

Or Perry/Cruz/Palin. Easy to remember. PCP.

vityas on July 8, 2014 at 3:25 PM

We got a third wheel somewhere in there.
Which one is it?

anotherJoe on July 8, 2014 at 3:47 PM

It really shows how far America has fallen. When Nixon left office, he was damn near persona-non-grata. Now Obama can wantonly break laws and still 40% of the populace approves of him.

Bitter Clinger on July 8, 2014 at 3:46 PM

Yep, Obama could have every Conservative talk show host burned at the stake on the White House lawn and set up concentration camps for anyone he views as an enemy (which would be at least half the nation), and those 40% would be ALL FOR IT.

This nation is doomed.

Meople on July 8, 2014 at 3:51 PM

Midas on July 8, 2014 at 3:32 PM

Are we to the point where it’s simply accepted that if your party has the right numbers in the right places, you may just openly break the law, without worry of consequence?

Yes, and we were always at that point.

There was hard evidence that Nixon broke the law and the congress along with the media made the case to impeach him. If there hadn’t been the numbers in congress, and if Nixon’s approval numbers hadn’t been dismal, he never would have been under threat of impeachment.

Bill Clinton was guilty of perjury and there was hard evidence of that perjury. Had there not been the numbers in the congress to impeach him he wouldn’t have been brought up for impeachment despite that hard evidence.

Impeachment is only a punishment of the president. It does virtually nothing to reverse any of the damage the president has done even by the behavior or acts that brought about the impeachment.

Because Obama has been allowed to simply float in the framework of the administration, he has been insulated. He claims not to have known about the IRS targeting of conservatives until several weeks after his staff, cabinet, and advisers knew about it. Since Lerner’s hard drives have been destroyed we have no way of proving when he did know about it. The same holds true for Benghazi. Obama claims not to have been told that the youtube video was not the cause of the attack on the consulate, that the security at the consulate had been signed over to locals, or that Ambassador Chris Stevens was at an unsecured consulate, rather than a locked down embassy, on the anniversary of 9/11. There’s no way to prove when he did know.

There is no way that the senate Democrats will vote for impeachment of “The First African-American President”. All of their ambitions, for themselves and their party, ride on being able to present Obama’s presidency as something other than a dismal failure. At this point, they don’t need or expect him to be great, much less live up to the hype that got him elected, they just need him to survive politically. They are completely invested in that political survival.

We expect these elected officials to do their job and keep the oaths they swore when they took office. They laugh at us and call us ‘rubes’. They congratulate themselves on being ‘political animals’ and ‘playing the political game’.

It would be far better if we could try Obama and Holder in the courts, not impeach them in congress. If we try them in the courts, the courts can order the many laws they’ve made up wholecloth, or changed, without the benefit of congress, nullified or reversed. Then the actual damage they’ve done can be reversed or mitigated.

This would punish Obama and the Democrats far more than impeachment. It would deprive them of that legacy of “The First African-American President” as anything other than a criminal who broke the law when he took the law into his own hands and decided to rule by his will alone, legislating from his desk.

thatsafactjack on July 8, 2014 at 3:51 PM

We are witnessing the death of the legilstive branch of government.

Failure to attempt impeachment is tacit consent of obama’s usurping power that belongs to the legislative branch.

We don’t even have two parties anymore. We don’t have a representative government.

Why should anyone bother paying taxes to fund this corrupt administration?

azpatriotsdotcom on July 8, 2014 at 3:53 PM

You concerned GOPers can have fun with that Delusional
Picnic. John MCain is your FRIEND!!

ToddPA on July 8, 2014 at 3:39 PM

These “let’s wait until the GOP takes over the senate” types need to get a grip. If we have an election in the fall it won’t be fair. The marxists have their apparatus in place. Even if the GOP did take over the senate what makes you think they have the guts to do anything other than what is already going on. They have purged and marginalized conservatives who want to do the right thing.

The Democrats have to get rid of him. If they don’t there will be a revolution and it won’t go well for them.

crankyoldlady on July 8, 2014 at 3:56 PM

Dem senators who are up for re-election are trying to distance themselves from Obama. Pubbies should put the heat on every one of those senators during this campaign season and show that they are shills and protectors of Obama.

mydh12 on July 8, 2014 at 3:57 PM

It would be far better if we could try Obama and Holder in the courts, not impeach them in congress. If we try them in the courts, the courts can order the many laws they’ve made up wholecloth, or changed, without the benefit of congress, nullified or reversed. Then the actual damage they’ve done can be reversed or mitigated.

Now we’re getting somewhere. Let’s go for it. Somehow.

otlset on July 8, 2014 at 3:58 PM

If you need any evidence that impeachment means very little, look to Bill Clinton. He was impeached. Congress moved, there was a big hearing, and Bill Clinton was thoroughly and duly impeached.

Now he’s a millionaire, he’s considered one of the most powerful men in the world, he moves in the very circles he always wanted to belong to, and recent polling shows that the American people believe he’s the “best president in the last 25 years”.

I’d say Bill Clinton shrugged off impeachment thoroughly and swiftly. He’s not suffering from the experience.

thatsafactjack on July 8, 2014 at 3:58 PM

Reid and the Marxist Senators are a bigger problem than obama.

rjh on July 8, 2014 at 4:03 PM

This is ridiculous. An Attorney General isn’t committing a high crime or misdemeanor by refusing to appoint an independent prosecutor. I know we’re all upset about it, but the penalty of impeachment is reserved for specific acts and omissions, and this isn’t one of them. We always preach respecting the Constitution, so let’s practice what we preach.

To the contrary, Congress can simply lop of funding for Justice and/or the IRS. It’s a simple matter to explain to the American people: officials at those agencies have been accused of (and, in fact, admitted) abusing their powers, and are preventing Congress from performing their function to oversee the agencies. As a result, Congress has no choice but to punish them by decreasing their funding, subject to reinstatement if they decide to comply with reasonable oversight demands.

Holder is in contempt of Congress. Lerner has taken the Fifth Amendment. The IRS has seemingly purposely destroyed evidence. Their abuses need to be investigated to make sure laws weren’t broken. If the Executive Branch is refusing to comply with investigative demands, then Congress’s only available sanction is to limit its funding. This is a message the American people will understand when the Dems force a shutdown of government over it. And besides, who’s really going to oppose shrinking the IRS budget?

JoeShmoe99 on July 8, 2014 at 4:03 PM

When should impeachment be used as a means to stop a president that has clearly violated the oath of office?

Dog walker on July 8, 2014 at 4:03 PM

If you need any evidence that impeachment means very little, look to Bill Clinton. He was impeached. Congress moved, there was a big hearing, and Bill Clinton was thoroughly and duly impeached.

Now he’s a millionaire, he’s considered one of the most powerful men in the world, he moves in the very circles he always wanted to belong to, and recent polling shows that the American people believe he’s the “best president in the last 25 years”.

I’d say Bill Clinton shrugged off impeachment thoroughly and swiftly. He’s not suffering from the experience.

thatsafactjack on July 8, 2014 at 3:58 PM

That’s only because Obama and his leftist cult followers have succeeded in turning America into a country of the lowest common denominator.

Where the (D) party and it’s operatives, no longer care about anything other than the “cause”. And the rule of law, “doing the right thing”, and morality of any shade is no longer even the smallest factor in their persona.

Like I said, this nation is doomed.

Meople on July 8, 2014 at 4:03 PM

Do it all. Starve him of money and take away the keys to AF1. Impeach the SOB and then remove him from office. Sue him. If that doesn’t work, get Judical Watch on the case. They seem to be the only ones that are getting results. Put in him jail. Do what it takes to get him out of the WH.

I am sick of hearing that we can’t impeach the first Black President. Yes we can. I am also sick of Joe Biden being his ‘insurance policy’. He’s stupid, but malleable. Let’s get this done now. Obama is actively killing America. Stop him!

BetseyRoss on July 8, 2014 at 4:05 PM

Yep, Obama could have every Conservative talk show host burned at the stake on the White House lawn and set up concentration camps for anyone he views as an enemy (which would be at least half the nation), and those 40% would be ALL FOR IT.

This nation is doomed.

Meople on July 8, 2014 at 3:51 PM

And you wondered how Hitler got away with what he did.

Something about owning the media, the 47% plus some corporate cronies. And they won’t know what hit them until it is THEY who are heading for the gas chambers and mass graves.

MistyLane on July 8, 2014 at 4:06 PM

unless the public turns on him decisively

The public has turned on him. They don’t care. If they have the nerve to go home to their districts they will find out what the public feels.

crankyoldlady on July 8, 2014 at 4:07 PM

Speaking to MSNBC on Monday, Rep. Jason Chaffetz, R-Utah, went one step further saying that the former Massachusetts governor will be occupying the White House after the next presidential election.

http://washington.cbslocal.com/2014/07/08/gop-rep-i-think-romney-will-be-the-next-president-of-the-united-states/

davidk on July 8, 2014 at 4:08 PM

Frustrate Obama’s appetites wherever possible & beat him at the polls in 2014 & 2016.

That’s how you “remove” him.

BD57 on July 8, 2014 at 4:11 PM

Indeed.

Don’t do your duty.

Don’t uphold your oath of office.

Because it might make people who hate you, hate you a bit more.

Because it might make people who have no idea of what those oaths mean vote for someone else.

Don’t do your duty because the media will say even more bad things about you.

Don’t do your duty, and maybe you will keep your phoney-baloney job, and get in a few more of your gutless friends in next election, and having established that you fear to do your duty, it won’t surprise anyone that you continue to cower from public opinion and that sincethe enemy is undefeatable, there is no other duty left but grabbing all the goodies you can, now, and hoping that you are eaten by the crocodile last.

Don’t try William Travis, Davy Crockett and Jim Bowie; Surrender yourselves and your men now: Santa Ana has the deck stacked against you, and your sacrifices will be meaningless.

LegendHasIt on July 8, 2014 at 4:11 PM

“This is ridiculous. An Attorney General isn’t committing a high crime or misdemeanor by refusing to appoint an independent prosecutor. I know we’re all upset about it, but the penalty of impeachment is reserved for specific acts and omissions, and this isn’t one of them. We always preach respecting the Constitution, so let’s practice what we preach.”

Another person who does not understand the impeachment process.

“impeachment is reserved for specific acts and omissions”…absolutely incorrect.

“this isn’t one of them.”…please list them, if you can.

Impeachment is a political and not a legal process. A person of “high” office (that is what the “high” in high crimes and misdemeanors stands for) who is subject to impeachment (only specific offices are) can be impeached for whatever the House charges them with in the articles of impeachment. It does not necessarily have to be a crime, as in a legal statute. It can be as simple as a charge of “abuse of power.”

rjh on July 8, 2014 at 4:11 PM

Never mind.

davidk on July 8, 2014 at 4:12 PM

And you wondered how Hitler got away with what he did.

Something about owning the media, the 47% plus some corporate cronies. And they won’t know what hit them until it is THEY who are heading for the gas chambers and mass graves.

MistyLane on July 8, 2014 at 4:06 PM

The DimocRat party is now only a couple tiny steps away from being a carbon copy of Hitler’s National Socialist party of 1930′s Germany.

The travesty that was Hitler could very well happen here, and a lot sooner than many think.

Meople on July 8, 2014 at 4:14 PM

You could, if you intend to lose the election.

Walter L. Newton on July 8, 2014 at 3:30 PM

I’d say it’s less delusional that you thinking you’re going to win with an ‘electable moderate’. That’s worked out so well with Dole, McCain and Romney.

You’ve had your chance(s). Step aside.

trigon on July 8, 2014 at 4:16 PM

Don’t be stupid.

Democrats will NEVER turn on Obama. They may run away from him due to sinking public support, but they CANNOT EVER vote to remove him from office, or even to authorize independent investigations.

Without the black vote coming in at least 88% for them, Democrats would win very few places, and never nationally. They cannot do without it, EVER.

Removing Obama would mean at the very least a strongly depressed black turnout for a cycle or two. At least. Democrats in the Senate understand that there will be far fewer of them if they try anything like that.

Adjoran on July 8, 2014 at 4:22 PM

why would Democratic shills in the Senate refuse to convict Obama but agree to convict his attorney general?

I don’t think enough would agree to convict his attorney general, but maybe a few might vote to convict Holder.

The difference between voting to convict Obama and voting to convict Holder is that some low-information voters don’t know who or what the attorney general is, and they wouldn’t pay attention to an attempt to impeach him, whereas all low-information voters know who Obama is.

Thus, an attempt to impeach Holder would be less harmful among the Democratic base than an attempt to impeach Obama.

J.S.K. on July 8, 2014 at 4:24 PM

Impeachment doesn’t happen in days or even weeks. It is a long, protracted procedure. It would take months, perhaps 12-18 months if the attorney’s decided to draw it out.

During that time, while in the process of impeachment, Obama would still be president and would still be able to conduct business as usual.

Ken Starr, an independent counsel, was charged to conduct what became a lengthy investigation that covered everything from “White Water”, the suicide of Vince Foster, to Monica Lewinsky. He began the investigation into “White Water” in August of 1994.

Starr was criticised by Democrats for spending $70 million on an investigation that substantiated only perjury and obstruction of justice. Starr submitted “The Starr Report” to congress and also published it in its entirety online. The Starr Report was an investigative account of United States President Bill Clinton by Independent Counsel Kenneth Starr and released on September 11, 1998.

Since Ken Starr had already completed an extensive investigation, the House Judiciary Committee conducted no investigations of its own into Clinton’s alleged wrongdoing, and it held no serious impeachment-related hearings before the 1998 mid-term elections. Nevertheless, impeachment was one of the major issues in the election. In November 1998, the Democrats picked up seats in the Congress. (The previous mid-term election, in 1994, had been a major debacle for Clinton’s Democratic Party, though the Democrats gained eight House seats in November 1996.)

Impeachment proceedings were initiated during the post-election, “lame duck” session of the outgoing 105th United States Congress.

Upon the passage of H. Res. 611, Clinton was impeached on December 19, 1998, by the House of Representatives on grounds of perjury to a grand jury (by a 228–206 vote), and obstruction of justice (by a 221–212 vote).Two other articles of impeachment failed – a second count of perjury in the Jones case (by a 205–229 vote), and one accusing Clinton of abuse of power (by a 148–285 vote).

So, from the appointment of Ken Starr as independent counsel tasked with continuing the “White Water” investigation to the impeachment of Bill Clinton spanned from August 1994- December 19, 1998.

thatsafactjack on July 8, 2014 at 4:30 PM

If you have democrat representatives, get on the horn and ask their minions why they are comfortable with enabling 0bama’s lawlessness.

Why are they not moving to impeach him? Do they want their party tainted this badly?

CurtZHP on July 8, 2014 at 4:57 PM

Nixon was forced out because there were enough Republican Senators who put principles above politics, and allowed a meaningful investigation to take place, which led to the very real threat of impeachment in the House and conviction in the Senate.

Obama doesn’t have to worry about the Senate Democrats suddenly being infected by a case of integrity. Harry Reid has seen to it that they have all been fully inoculated.

s1im on July 8, 2014 at 5:01 PM

…Obama doesn’t have to worry about the Senate Democrats suddenly being infected by a case of integrity. ….
s1im on July 8, 2014 at 5:01 PM

Or even Republicans, with just a few very rare exceptions

LegendHasIt on July 8, 2014 at 5:03 PM

No shit… But still I see why they invoke Nixon. Nixon is still the ultimate boogyman of political corruption thanks to decades of media spin.

ConstantineXI on July 8, 2014 at 3:29 PM

President Richard M. Nixon was a piker compared to JFK, LBJ, or Bill and Barry.

slickwillie2001 on July 8, 2014 at 5:07 PM

Conclusion: When the Founders devised their system of checks and balances, they never accounted for population segments so completely immune to decency and moral norms. Moreover, short of (hopefully very unlikely) massive genocide or deportations, these segments are not going anywhere. That automatically makes every Democrat president a tyrant. So no wonder we wound up with one…

Rix on July 8, 2014 at 3:36 PM

No, as Christianity was pervasive at that time. But they (at least some of them) knew that only a moral people could keep the Republic.

“Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other.” – John Adams

IrishEyes on July 8, 2014 at 5:13 PM

but if you like the idea of impeachment as an expressive act of no confidence in the administration and you’re worried about a public backlash at the polls from going after Obama himself

That’s me. I also think there might be some Dems that would vote to impeach Holder. Regardless, the stench of guilt by association would be on Obama and that’s a good thing in the long run.

Occams Stubble on July 8, 2014 at 3:31 PM

The idea has merit.

IMO the Clinton impeachment was pretty ridiculous. That’s why Clinton survived it so well. Jefferson had many illegitimate children who was his wife’s half sister and no one batted and eye. JFK was moving on anything in a skirt. FDR had a mistress in the Shite House. These actions had no significant effect on public policy, or the economy or the balance of power or checks and balances. It’s a waste of time and money to go after someone for personal flaws.

Obama and Holder’s offenses have dramatic, far reaching political consequences that affect most Americans, as well as hving an international impact. They should be brought into the spotlight.

talkingpoints on July 8, 2014 at 5:15 PM

I guess we couldn’t have Perry/Cruz ’16.
Be great tho.
Or Perry/Cruz/Palin. Easy to remember. PCP.

vityas on July 8, 2014 at 3:25 PM

Nope. Shamnesty Shill Perry is still a non-starter for way too many for him to have a prayer.

Cruz may make some disconcerting overtures to the racist groups, but I think he’d at least be a rule-of-law-comes-first type.

CapnObvious on July 8, 2014 at 5:18 PM

“Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other.” – John Adams

And leftists know that, which is why they push lawlessness, depravity, and moral ambiguity at every turn.

CurtZHP on July 8, 2014 at 5:19 PM

IMO the Clinton impeachment was pretty ridiculous.

I know.. rape and perjury? Dems are above such petty trivial infractions.

CapnObvious on July 8, 2014 at 5:21 PM

You can always find an excuse not to impeach.

Doing it, however, puts it on the record.

formwiz on July 8, 2014 at 5:22 PM

I don’t want 0bama impeached on some Mickey Mouse procedural charge.

I want him to continue on his lawless path. I want him to push things way too far, so there’s no other choice but to frog march him from the White House in shackles.

CurtZHP on July 8, 2014 at 5:24 PM

While it’s obvious to us that Obozo is cut from the same cloth as Nixon yet clearly far worse, how many people hear any of this? The MSM has been shamelessly partisan and got him elected with no scrutiny, we really should go after THEM to reduce these events in the future.

Tard on July 8, 2014 at 5:24 PM

Low risk with the potential for some reward.

Including, perhaps, leading Holder to resign rather than face trial. Hey, I can dream can’t I?

irishspy on July 8, 2014 at 5:32 PM

The Democrats ever impeach another Democrat?

Are we insane for even entertaining the idea?

Enabling Obama? Hell, the Democrats have already drafted up the Ermächtigungsgesetz and Reid will likely scare the Republicans into voting for it.

Reuben Hick on July 8, 2014 at 5:35 PM

I don’t want 0bama impeached on some Mickey Mouse procedural charge.

I want him to continue on his lawless path. I want him to push things way too far, so there’s no other choice but to frog march him from the White House in shackles.

CurtZHP on July 8, 2014 at 5:24 PM

Who do you think is going to bring a prosecution that gets Obama arrested? Attorney General Eric Holder?

J.S.K. on July 8, 2014 at 5:41 PM

I think impeachment of Obama is inevitable, because he seems to want it, and will keep baiting until he gets it.

That said, Holder would be a great place to start. Fast and Furious, being found in contempt of Congress, and the New Black Panther Party voter harassment being summarily dropped are all solid grounds for impeachment.

I beieve I would start by demanding a special prosecutor for the IRS investigation. And when he refused that, move directly to impeachment on the grounds of failure to carry out his duties, along with the above grounds.

There Goes the Neighborhood on July 8, 2014 at 5:55 PM

Who do you think is going to bring a prosecution that gets Obama arrested? Attorney General Eric Holder?

J.S.K. on July 8, 2014 at 5:41 PM

Wouldn’t be necessary. The malignant narcissist will snap one of these days. They’ll have no choice but to restrain him to keep him from killing someone (else).

CurtZHP on July 8, 2014 at 6:02 PM

Just a thought. Thinking about Hillary’s statement of donating here speaking fees to the family foundation. It looks as though the foundation is with out a doubt a tax dodge, money laundering operation that should be renamed as Influence Pedaling University.

Here is the question, “Who approved and maintained the tax exempt status with the IRS?”.

Why it was Louse Learner of the IRS fame. And the correspondence was all in the “Missing E-Mails”. From the “NON-recoverable” hard drives.

The Demarcates are obstructing this to protect their preemptive candidate, not because of her accomplishments but because of the influence she controls.

Bad reason for President.
Good reason for a Dictator.

jpcpt03 on July 8, 2014 at 6:38 PM

Ted Cruz: Harry Reid and Senate Dems are enabling a worse abuse

…well…we all know they are “enablers”…in every aspect of life!

JugEarsButtHurt on July 8, 2014 at 6:39 PM

You can’t impeach a president whose party is neck-deep in the tank for him unless you’ve got 67 Senate seats, and even under the best-case scenario, the GOP won’t have anything close to that next year. So why bother trying? – AP

Seriously? Is this a question?
I don’t know anymore. Why do we even have an oath of office, or a pretense that officials are supposed to abide by the law, if the political question trumps the law. Midas on July 8, 2014 at 3:32 PM

I agree not because I would try an Obama impeachment now (since most of the House are surrender-bunnies and would leave the rest holding the bag as they wept on cable news) but because there is a propaganda war ongoing to make the public believe they no longer have a right to challenge the corruption

Cruz was castigated for his fillibuster against Obamcare during the government shutdown, but he not only revived the tea party , but destroyed what I believe was a plan to run amnesty through on the pretext that Obama would not help the GOP on the pending gov shutdown, unless we gave him amnesty

McConnell on the other hand, had a bass ackwards way of fighting Obamacare: make sure it gets to the floor for a vote Perhaps he had more important concerns:

In the middle of the Cruz blowup, talking points suddenly appeared that Ryan would meet with Obama to discuss the crisis in (What the?) Social Security while Pelosi et al opened the closed mall to hold an amnesty rally with illegals. IMHO those talking points had been set up long before, as was the amnesty rally, and Cruz ruined their game.

Cruz didnt have a chance in Obamacare because of his own traitorous party, but he turned the war. Cruz is smart which is why the RINOs hate him. His idea on Holder is great because even if Holder stays in office, impeaching him would lay out all his stink. And the weepers can say they did it to save Obama

Hmmm, nice of Cruz to issue this. Coming in tandem
with Palin. I like this two fisted Conservative Team.
Better than any two I’ve seen in a long time.
ToddPA on July 8, 2014 at 3:28 PM

Not many real ones out there so they stand out

entagor on July 8, 2014 at 7:01 PM

entagor on July 8, 2014 at 7:01 PM
Five months ago, I had a senior Democratic House congressman give me the exact same explanation. He used the Dr. Stangelove metaphor. Obama was the bomb, and his party was riding it down to the end. Back then they knew their numbers were bad. Today, it must be much much worse. Otherwise, there is no other reason for this non-policy on the border, and Reids blocking action in the Senate.

flackcatcher on July 8, 2014 at 9:29 PM

Jeez, they passed Nixon on the second day.

DrZin on July 8, 2014 at 10:20 PM

…does the rule of law still matter(??

Midas on July 8, 2014 at 3:32 PM

If you have to ask that question, then you haven’t been paying attention, but the answer is, “No.” So I suggest you ignore it as well. The government is lawless and this is a banana republic. F all of them!

earlgrey on July 9, 2014 at 9:17 AM

That is a point too few people understand. Impeachment is a political action. Not a criminal proceeding. It is never taken by other than an opposing party for political reasons to show loss of confidence. It is lengthy and potentially extremely damaging to a country’s moral. Not to mention the media circus and unintended consequences on the world stage. Grandstanding by the Congress, late night comedy further eroding our dignity…I’ll pass.

Let history show Obama for the empty suit he was. And the terrible lost opportunity of America’s first black President.

Nana on July 9, 2014 at 11:22 AM

“Fundamental Transformation”… is a code word for preparing America for the New World Order.

3 things have to happen to change our form of government so that we can be  
proper members of New World Order.

 1) Do away with our Constitution. Communist’s don’t allow that much freedom. 

2) Do away with our Bill of Rights. Communist’s like total control.

3) Confiscate ALL of our guns. Communist’s only allow police to have guns.

After 9/11 our Elected Officials in the Federal Government passed the Patriot Act, revised the National Defense Authorization Act(NDAA) and passed the  Authorization for Use of Military Force (AUMF). These laws are evil and took collusion by ALL 3 branches to pass and remain standing. 

For all of that to happen they must CREATE a way to put us under Martial Law.

Martial Law automatically suspends Habeas Corpus and the Bill of Rights. At that point FEMA and the DHS will take over ALL Law enforcement in the United States. Not even your Governor can stop them or tell them what to do. They will go door to door and confiscate ALL guns. There will be NO search warrant. If you resist they will use whatever force necessary to get your guns. If you are belligerent or hostile and the government agent’s feel their life is threatened, they will kill you… That is their rules of engagement.

In my opinion their planned method of creating a crisis severe enough to put us under Martial Law is by creating a Financial Crisis. We have been under a National State of Emergency since 9/14/2001. GW Bush initiated it 3 days after 9/11 and Congress and Obama has kept it active.  The CBO recently said we are nearing a financial crisis now. If our dollar is no longer the reserve currency of the world, our economy will crash and that will create MASSIVE civil unrest. Under a National State of Emergency the President has extraordinary power and declare martial law without consulting Congress. 

To finish this project to CREATE a financial crisis… They are right on track. Bush spent 5T more than the treasury took in, in just 8 years. Obama… 8T in just 6 years and got the debt limit increase approved with NO fight from Congress. The Federal Reserve has been flooding the world economy with funny money… Which devalues ALL US currency. 

When we can’t borrow any more money from China or our dollar crashes our economy will evaporate and there will be massive civil unrest. That event allow’s Obama to put  us under martial law, suspend Habeas Corpus and our bill of rights and FEMA will start the process of confiscating all of our guns like they did during Katrina. Katrina was their dry run and they got all the people’s guns without a single shot being fired.

The UN/NWO wants this to happen before they take over because they know we are the most armed society in the world. Under martial law they operate under military law, not civil law. They must follow the International Rules of War. Thats why Congress and the President declared that America was part of the “battleground” of the War on Terror in the NDAA. That makes internment and resettlement camps legal. That’s why a month ago Justice Scalia said “I would not be surprised to see internment camps in America again”.

All of this is spelled out pretty clearly if you read the Patriot Act and the National Defense Authorization Act, Authorization for Use of Military Force (AUMF) and then review all of the active Executive Order’s.
If you do your reading you will realize the way our laws have been written that we are 1 crisis away from a Dictatorship.

Our Constitutional Republic. Our Constitution, our liberty and our freedom is in great jeopardy!

Perhaps it can be summed up succinctly in the words of arch-conservative activist Howard J. Ruff. “Since the enactment of Executive Order 11490, the only thing standing between us and dictatorship is the good character of the President, and the lack of a crisis severe enough that the public would stand still for it.”

The ONLY way this will be stopped is IF… Our Military does their sworn DUTY to preserve, protect and defend the Constitution from ALL enemies, foreign and DOMESTIC! 

They don’t need approval from the Federal Government or anyone else to do their DUTY. They took NO oath to the President or to the Federal Government!

wartface on July 9, 2014 at 1:20 PM