Congressman Bob Goodlattte assures us that there is no impeachment in the offing

posted at 5:01 pm on July 13, 2014 by Jazz Shaw

Representative Bob Goodlatte took to the Sunday morning chat circuit, specifically ABC’s This Week, to assure his fellow Americans that there was no need to impeach the President and no plans to do so in the foreseeable future. The Corner has the details.

Representative Bob Godlattte (R., Va.) does not believe President Obama has done anything that would merit impeachment under the Constitution.

“We are not working on or drawing up articles of impeachment,” Goodlatte, who chairs the House Judiciary Committee, told George Stephanopoulos on This Week Sunday. “The Constitution is very clear as to what constitutes grounds for impeachment of the president of the United States,” Goodlatte continued. “He has not committed the kind of criminal acts that call for that​.”

Before we get to the specifics of the crimes in question, here’s the video.

I personally haven’t shown much interest in impeachment, primarily because the odds of it being successful seem even less likely than with Clinton, particularly given the current structure in Washington. But Goodlatte does leave room for some long standing questions to be addressed. What sort of criminal acts would it take for Bob to change his answer?

The Constitution isn’t exactly crystal clear for those reading it in 21st century language on this subject. Article II, Section 4 says that it would happen on conviction of, treason, bribery, or other high crimes and misdemeanors. Treason is pretty well defined in the founding documents and would be a hard case to make. The same with bribery. But I’ve always struggled with the “high crimes and misdemeanors” part. Obviously the use of misdemeanors is a bit different than what we think of today, or else you’d be impeaching people for jay walking. But the origins are apparently quite different. Jon Roland of the Constitution Society has a pretty good primer for the layman.

The question of impeachment turns on the meaning of the phrase in the Constitution at Art. II Sec. 4, “Treason, Bribery, or other high Crimes and Misdemeanors”. I have carefully researched the origin of the phrase “high crimes and misdemeanors” and its meaning to the Framers, and found that the key to understanding it is the word “high”. It does not mean “more serious”. It refers to those punishable offenses that only apply to high persons, that is, to public officials, those who, because of their official status, are under special obligations that ordinary persons are not under, and which could not be meaningfully applied or justly punished if committed by ordinary persons.

Under the English common law tradition, crimes were defined through a legacy of court proceedings and decisions that punished offenses not because they were prohibited by statutes, but because they offended the sense of justice of the people and the court. Whether an offense could qualify as punishable depended largely on the obligations of the offender, and the obligations of a person holding a high position meant that some actions, or inactions, could be punishable if he did them, even though they would not be if done by an ordinary person.

One of the chief and most likely applicable examples Roland cites is that of “perjury.” (Which quickly swings us back around to Bill Clinton if we’re not careful.) But the current understanding of the word – as in lying under oath – isn’t the same as what the founders had in mind when it comes to those in high office. Roland makes the case that they defined it differently for Presidents, translated as “violation of one’s oath (or affirmation)”.

The oath in question is pretty easy to find also:

“I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will faithfully execute the office of President of the United States, and will to the best of my ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States.”

Since I’m not a constitutional scholar, I won’t even try to break that down for every possible scenario, but by Roland’s reading, it certainly seems to leave a lot of gray area where a variety of failings of the chief executive could apply. But in any event, assuming Goodlatte is correct, this remains an academic discussion anyway.


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

Comment pages: 1 2

Malfeasance, misfeasance, and nonfeasance in office isn’t grounds?

Ignoring legal court orders isn’t grounds?

The President, Vice President and all civil officers of the United States, shall be removed from office on impeachment for, and conviction of, treason, bribery, or other high
crimes
and misdemeanors
.

Don’t know about anybody else, but I take “high crimes” to mean felonies.

formwiz on July 13, 2014 at 5:07 PM

Rs need to stay focused on the border crisis, and not give him a single penny he requests EXCEPT FOR BORDER ENFORCEMENT. He wants to use the money for other purposes, like housing and feeding the illegals and providing them with “free” medical care.

Secure the border. That is all.

cat_owner on July 13, 2014 at 5:09 PM

Treason is defined as giving aid and comfort to enemies during a time of war. Something that only the stupidest and most dishonest could claim that Obama’s action when releasing 5 of the Talibans top commanders and paying 5 million dollars to obtain the release of Bowe Bergdhal. That all by itself is sufficient grounds for Impeachment.

oscarwilde on July 13, 2014 at 5:09 PM

Heresy!!!! How dare he contradict saint Palin? He must be hang at the ballot box.

coolrepublica on July 13, 2014 at 5:11 PM

Goodlatte’s such a drip. While the country goes to pot, he’s more concerned about the perks of office. Maybe when the cough he develops turns out to be TB he’ll change his mind.

Flange on July 13, 2014 at 5:12 PM

To the inside the beltway types, Goodlatte is a prime example, there is nothing the elite could do that is impeachable. The entire lot of them need to be removes from office.

whbates on July 13, 2014 at 5:12 PM

Does dereliction of duty count?

Joe Mama on July 13, 2014 at 5:13 PM

“He has not committed the kind of criminal acts that call for that​.”

You’re all criminals-so I guess your definition of “crime” is rather relative.

Dr. ZhivBlago on July 13, 2014 at 5:15 PM

Crimes? Obama is systematically destroying the US, enriching his liberal friends and cronies and erasing the middle class.

His refusal to enforce immigration law, not to mention changing laws on his own and ignoring ones he doesn’t is sufficient to warrant impeachment.

darwin on July 13, 2014 at 5:15 PM

Whatta TOOL!

SMACKRUNNER on July 13, 2014 at 5:16 PM

It was in response to an illegal alien heckler at an immigration pep rally last year that Obama declared:

“With respect to the notion that I can just suspend deportations through executive order, that’s just NOT the case. Congress passes the laws.”

And even back in May of 2011, he understood that he had no legal authority to defer deportations: “Sometimes when I talk to immigration advocates, they wish I could just bypass Congress and change the law myself, but that’s not how a democracy works,” Obama said.

DACA IS ILLEGAL. IMPEACH BARACK.

azpatriotsdotcom on July 13, 2014 at 5:24 PM

To Jazz and Goodlatte—this isn’t even a close call on whether the despot has committed impeachable offenses. The issue is whether impeachment is politically ‘feasible’. Goodlatte insults us and the Constitution when he says no impeachable offense has been committed. I would have appreciated honesty on the subject had Goodlatte simply said that it’s not politically possible.

cthemfly on July 13, 2014 at 5:25 PM

I personally haven’t shown much interest in impeachment, primarily because the odds of it being successful seem even less likely than with Clinton, particularly given the current structure in Washington. But Goodlatte does leave room for some long standing questions to be addressed. What sort of criminal acts would it take for Bob to change his answer?

Clinton was impeached.

You are conflating impeachment with removal from office. Clinton and Andrew Johnson were both successful but removal of a drunk and a serial rapist was not.

Happy Nomad on July 13, 2014 at 5:26 PM

And didn’t Goodlatte go along with Boehmers stupid idea to sue the despot based on a constitutional offense….these republican establishment types are gutless, clueless, loathsome critters.

cthemfly on July 13, 2014 at 5:29 PM

Allahpundit needs to pen these articles so he can tell these Repubs that its OK to come out of the closet and embrace their metrosexualism.

nemo on July 13, 2014 at 5:30 PM

Spoken like a true POS RINO!

nobama1267 on July 13, 2014 at 5:33 PM

What was the point of this, to muddy the waters or raise the bar?

But in any event, assuming Goodlatte is correct, this remains an academic discussion anyway.

What is this? Elitist code for only a certain group of people can tell us what impeachment entails?

Sorry folks. These are just a bunch of rhetorical questions. We all know what this fuss is about. Meanwhile, “executive action” gets all sorts of leeway. Heh…

Dongemaharu on July 13, 2014 at 5:37 PM

So what crimes has he committed. By the way, can Obama pardon himself?

HiJack on July 13, 2014 at 5:37 PM

It is apparent to the most casual observer that Rep Goodlatte is not very familiar with the Constitution that he swore to support and protect. Politicians should be changed like baby diapers, and for the same reason.

savage24 on July 13, 2014 at 5:40 PM

Over two years of destruction to endure.

justltl on July 13, 2014 at 5:40 PM

OT: NSA knew yesterday that Germany would win….

d1carter on July 13, 2014 at 5:40 PM

“He has not committed the kind of criminal acts that call for that​.”

You’re all criminals-so I guess your definition of “crime” is rather relative.

Dr. ZhivBlago on July 13, 2014 at 5:15 PM

You might be onto something. :) The political class, as a gaggle, might not be the people to ask what constitutes “no bigs.”

Axe on July 13, 2014 at 5:40 PM

Not enforcing our immigration laws…..We Americans need to get right in the faces of these RINOS and LIBERAL AMNESTY SHILLS like Goodlatte…..

Realdemocrat1 on July 13, 2014 at 5:42 PM

cthemfly on July 13, 2014 at 5:25 PM

Precisely. It is not an academic question but a political one.

J.B. Say on July 13, 2014 at 5:43 PM

There isn’t a single D who will impeach him. Not even many Rs would.

But let’s just say for the sake of argument that most Rs could be persuaded.

It would be seen by the public as nothing but a highly partisan move. Nixon resigned because BOTH Rs and Ds were prepared to impeach. That will never be the case now.

So he’s made into a martyr. Plus, impeaching the first black President, with only the R party voting in favor….. what could possibly go wrong with that?

That’s why I say Rs need to keep the focus ENTIRELY on the border crisis and lay the blame where it belongs…. with Obama.

That’s exactly what Ted Cruz is doing right now.

cat_owner on July 13, 2014 at 5:47 PM

To what degree can a President ignore the law and to what degree can a President attempt to assume dictatorial powers before it, as a whole, constitutes an impeachable offense?

The problem is that the act of gradually eroding Congressional power isn’t necessarily considered a high crime.

It seems to me that future Presidents could usurp even more power over the Legislative branch and continue to get away with it as long as the media favors the President’s actions. Those that are ok with this are most certainly fascists. There is no other way to define it.

corkie on July 13, 2014 at 5:51 PM

Impeachment is a political, not a criminal proceeding. And yes, I agree, getting a conviction is not possible. However, actions much less than what Obama has committed got impeachment out of committee with Nixon; I followed the hearings closely. Obama’s executive orders, as with the House’s suit, IMO, fulfill the Constitution’s requirements for impeaching Obama. As much as I disliked Nixon, he thought more of his country than to want to put it though the rigors of impeachment than either Clinton or Obama.

amr on July 13, 2014 at 5:53 PM

The fraternity of politicians is very strong, they’ll argue , scream and call each other names but they are all in the same fraternity. To survive on Capital Hill you go with the flow or anything you propose will die without the vote of the fraternity. To survive you vote for the junk your fraternity brother proposes or you dry up on the vine like a grape. his is not rocket science.

mixplix on July 13, 2014 at 5:56 PM

Malfeasance, misfeasance, and nonfeasance in office isn’t grounds?

Ignoring legal court orders isn’t grounds?

…………………………………….

Don’t know about anybody else, but I take “high crimes” to mean felonies.

formwiz on July 13, 2014 at 5:07 PM

Why wouldn’t Malfeasance be a reason? Your take on “high crimes” doesn’t even come close to Mister Roland’s simple explanation above. Malfeasance does however fit very well.

whbates on July 13, 2014 at 5:57 PM

So what the heck was Nixon impeached for? Covering up a 3rd rate burglary is nothing Compared to BENGHAZI, FAST & FURIOUS, IRS, NSA, VA, IMMIGRATION ETC., ETC., ETC.!

Bambi on July 13, 2014 at 5:59 PM

Hey Bob Good n late,

We are going to impeach all of you by method proscribed to us by our forefathers in the constitution and associated writings. Someday all your pensions are belong to us.

Exninja on July 13, 2014 at 5:59 PM

That’s not negligence negligence.

That’s not adultery adultery. It doesn’t count when she’s really your soul mate, or when you don’t technically, you know.

That’s not gun running gun running. It’s not illegal when the government does it.

They’re not dead dead, and even if they were, how is the President responsible?

That’s not rape rape.

They will tell you that the Americans who sleep in the streets and beg for food got there because they’re all lazy or weak of spirit. That the inner-city children who are trapped indilapidated schools can’t learn and won’t learn and so we should just give up on them entirely. That the innocent people being slaughtered and expelled from their homes half a world away are somebody else’s problem to take care of.

^ Those aren’t strawmen strawmen.

I hope you don’t listen to this. I hope you choose to broaden, and not contract, your ambit of concern. Not because you have an obligation to those who are less fortunate, although you do have that obligation. Not because you have a debt to all of those who helped you get to where you are, although you do have that debt.

It’s because you have an obligation to yourself. Because our individual salvation depends on collective salvation. And because it’s only when you hitch your wagon to something larger than yourself that you will realize your true potential – and become full-grown.

Our Past, Our Future & Vision for America
July 12, 2006

And real leadership is reading things aloud.

Axe on July 13, 2014 at 6:00 PM

Thank you Mr. Goodlatte, You are a true patriot.

The ones calling for impeachment are treasonous traitors.

Ned Pepper on July 13, 2014 at 6:01 PM

Good night goodlatte. The Founders, who some were Virginian are not proud of you. May you hear their voices in your sleep. In other words the current gop doesn’t have the testicular fortitude.

crosshugger on July 13, 2014 at 6:03 PM

Impeachment is a political, not a criminal proceeding. And yes, I agree, getting a conviction is not possible. However, actions much less than what Obama has committed got impeachment out of committee with Nixon; I followed the hearings closely. Obama’s executive orders, as with the House’s suit, IMO, fulfill the Constitution’s requirements for impeaching Obama. As much as I disliked Nixon, he thought more of his country than to want to put it though the rigors of impeachment than either Clinton or Obama.

amr on July 13, 2014 at 5:53 PM

As attorney Turley said, Nixon didn’t get away with what 0bama has done with the IRS. HE TRIED AND WAS REBUFFED.
I’m thinking Nixon’s impeachment should be revisited.

BTW, hag Hillary was in the middle of all of that and was kicked off for lying.

Bambi on July 13, 2014 at 6:03 PM

I think he should be impeached for weaponizing the IRS but I agree, it isn’t going to happen so just keep his shortcomings in the public eye.

Cindy Munford on July 13, 2014 at 6:03 PM

Ned Pepper on July 13, 2014 at 6:01 PM

Obama is a treason traitor.

Cindy Munford on July 13, 2014 at 6:04 PM

Kristol: Palin Makes Republicans look “Extreme”

In an on-air subtweeting Sarah Palin, Weekly Standard editor Bill Kristol and GOP strategist Ana Navarro dismissed the talk of impeaching President Barack Obama bubbling up on the right, arguing that it was limited to the irrelevant fringes, while GOP leadership is focused on House Speaker John Boehner’s (R-OH) lawsuit against the president.

“No responsible elected official has called for impeachment,” Kristol said. “The Republican task is to elect a Republican Senate and elect a Republican president in 2016, not create a phony issue which allows Democrats to make Republicans look extreme.”

http://www.mediaite.com/tv/kristol-navarro-nobody-of-relevance-is-talking-impeachment/

Ned Pepper on July 13, 2014 at 6:05 PM

Heresy!!!! How dare he contradict saint Palin? He must be hang at the ballot box.

foolrepublica on July 13, 2014 at 5:11 PM

Shut up and eat your chicken.

slickwillie2001 on July 13, 2014 at 6:05 PM

Sorry Jazz but you be wrong here. The effete be damned. The people will decide if and when Obama will be impeached. Just listen.

gracie on July 13, 2014 at 6:08 PM

I am loving how this impeachment talk is becoming another litmus purity test on the crazy right.

Keep on fighting, Chumps!!

LOL!!

Ned Pepper on July 13, 2014 at 6:09 PM

“The Constitution is very clear as to what constitutes grounds for impeachment of the president of the United States,” Goodlatte continued. “He has not committed the kind of criminal acts that call for that​.”

Close enough for Government work!

Emperor Norton on July 13, 2014 at 6:09 PM

I’m thinking Nixon’s impeachment should be revisited

Nixon was never impeached. Clinton was impeached.

Emperor Norton on July 13, 2014 at 6:10 PM

The R’s sure are looking weak and disorganized on this.

I would have not said a word until winning the Senate, then just done it without so much as a public nod to it, all bloodless and quiet.

Which is why I’ll never be a politician.

Tard on July 13, 2014 at 6:10 PM

“He has not committed the kind of criminal acts that call for that​.”

So…what sort of criminal acts has he committed?

BobMbx on July 13, 2014 at 6:12 PM

Goodlatte, who chairs the House Judiciary Committee

He should be relieved of those duties in January, when the new Congress meets.

Emperor Norton on July 13, 2014 at 6:15 PM

By the way, can Obama pardon himself?

HiJack on July 13, 2014 at 5:37 PM

Yes.

BobMbx on July 13, 2014 at 6:16 PM

GOP establishment is now reaping what it has sown for the past 6 years.

Encouraging birther talk, Muslim talk, traitor talk..and now they want to tamp down all this impeachment talk..

Well after the birther issues had been settled, Boehner was asked why did he not take lead in telling his caucus that the President is born here and that birther talk is crazy. Boehner, not wanting rock his speakership, replied in lamest possible way, “It is not my job to tell others what to think.” What a leader!!

Now the crazies are out with impeachment pitchforks and Boehner, Goodlatte are trying to control the crazies..

LOL!! Good luck Boehner..

Ned Pepper on July 13, 2014 at 6:17 PM

So…what sort of criminal acts has he committed?

BobMbx on July 13, 2014 at 6:12 PM

None. Zero . Zilch. Nada. Null.

Ned Pepper on July 13, 2014 at 6:18 PM

Is he guilty of impeachable offences? Perhaps but, impeachment proceedings would give him what he and the Democrats need to change the topic from the border and all of the other things that have his ratings in the tank and impeachment will fail.
Impeachment will be sold heavily by the press as persecution by extremists (because he is black) will change the debate to his favor and will gain back the sympathies of the people who are presently feeling squeamish about their vote for him.
Frankly I am surprised that the Republican brain trust hasn’t fallen for this incredibly bad idea.

notalemon on July 13, 2014 at 6:19 PM

“Setting an example is not the main means of influencing others; it is the only means.”

– Albert Einstein

ShainS on July 13, 2014 at 6:21 PM

How about impeachment for CONSPIRING WITH A FOREIGN GOVERNMENT TO ORCHESTRATE THE FOREIGN INVASION OF AMERICA?

1. Mexico’s announcement of their agreement with Guatemala to facilitate the transit of illegal aliens (via Mexico’s Death Trains to our spouthern border):


http://www.eluniversal.com.mx/nacion-mexico/2014/impreso/mexico-y-guatemala-protegeran-a-migrantes-216921.html

(See google translation at the bottom of this comment)

2. US embassy’s statement that they are proud of their collusion FOR OVER A YEAR in this plan:

http://mexico.usembassy.gov/press-releases/embassy-statement5/embassy-statement.html

Embassy Statement

Mexico City, July 08, 2014 – We applaud yesterday’s announcement by Mexican President Enrique Pena Nieto regarding Mexico’s strategy for its southern border. The Mexican government has been working on this strategy for more than a year, and has routinely briefed the U.S. government on Mexico’s objectives. …

Google translation of Mexican plan:

southern border program seeks to improve transit

President Nieto with his counterpart in Guatemala, Molina, yesterday announced a series of actions to garantizer more security and respect human rights of those entering to the south mexico

Guatemala and Mexico to protect migrants BEACHES Catazajá, Chis -. Tuesday July 8, 2014

Upon starting the program Frontera Sur, Enrique Peña Nieto president warned that Mexico is convinced that the migration must be addressed from a regional, co and human perspective.

Accompanied by the president of Guatemala, Otto Perez Molina, the governors of Chiapas, Quintana Roo, Campeche and Tabasco, and cabinet members, President Peña Nieto said that this program, with five lines of action, has a dual purpose: protect and safeguard the human rights of migrants entering and transiting through Mexico and sort international crossings to increase the development and security of the region.

The Southern Border program envisages strengthening actions against national security cabinet criminal groups that attack migrants intelligence work of Mexico and Guatemala along the border and exchange of biometric information in real time between the two nations. President Peña Nieto was in favor of achieving a safer south, and ordered that the relationship with Central help develop the entire Mesoamerican region border.

“In the past, the Central American countries and Mexico work together to end the conflict and bring peace to the region. If you were able to overcome that challenge, today, I’m sure we can also improve the conditions of regional migration, “said federal executive. If countries said, unite wills and undertake efforts, will ensure dignified, humane treatment for migrants. In his speech, President Perez Molina said the program specific actions for a prosperous, modern, secure border, with orderly migration flows and with respect for human rights. Highlighted the vision of President Peña Nieto that “instead of putting walls, obstacles and difficulties,” has vision of togetherness. Shares for a secure border Peña Nieto detailed the five lines of action of the program begins with the ordering of border traffic for crossing minimum of information.

To encourage formal access to Mexico to obtain the card Regional Away Guatemalans and Belizeans for free and with which the wearer can enter up to 72 hours to the states of Campeche, Chiapas, Quintana Roo and Tabasco be provided. Agents of the National Migration Institute (INM) and other authorities should ensure full respect for the rights of cardholders.

The second point focuses on providing more security for migrants, so the proper operation of the 12 official border crossings will ensure 10 with Guatemala and Belize and two points will be converted into customs review of Comprehensive Care Centers Border Traffic with participation of the INM, the SAT, the Federal Police, the Department of Defense and the Navy of Mexico, among other agencies.

Peña Nieto President gave instructions to the Cabinet to increase security measures against crime; Segob, along with officials from Guatemala, strengthen intelligence work. The third point of protection and social action centers on duplicate medical units, improve shelters and detention centers, and support centers DIF “Outdated” by the growing child migration. The fourth point of regional responsibility, is aimed at putting in place the mechanism for special care of children and unaccompanied migrant, with El Salvador, United States, Guatemala and Honduras.

Finally, the coordination is created for Comprehensive Migration in Southern Border, so the President instructed the Secretary of the Interior, Miguel Angel Osorio Chong, immediately define its holder.

fred5678 on July 13, 2014 at 6:21 PM

Congressman Bob Goodlattte assures us that there is no impeachment in the offing

WHEW!!!! I was a afraid the spineless, gutless, POS repub-o-cRATs in the House might PUT AMERICA and AMERICANS FIRST, DO THE RIGHT THING and IMPEACH THAT F-ING CRIMINAL DICTATOR. Now I can relax!

MicahStone on July 13, 2014 at 6:22 PM

Complete deriliction of duty of the office enough??

sorrowen on July 13, 2014 at 6:25 PM

Of course there won’t be any impeachment before the elections. Only an absolute idiot would do such a thing right now. This being published here is designed to stoke a food fight in the comment thread due to Palin’s public statements for impeachment. That gets ad views up and increases revenue.

Ok, say the Republicans produce articles on impeachment. There will be a “trial” presided over by the Chief Justice with the Senate acting as the jury. Senate will not be able to come up with the 66 votes needed for conviction, Republicans lose, press rubs their noses in it.

The Democrats are corrupt. Obama could nuke Canada and the Democrats would not impeach. Also, acquittal would let Obama off the hook even if additional charges came up later.

It would be an extremely stupid move. The discussion on the topic is an issue being created to stir controversy for the sake of it. It is just stirring the pot and profiting from the discontent.

crosspatch on July 13, 2014 at 6:26 PM

So you’re saying it’s even more unlikely than seven IRS hard drives failing in the same month, then.

rogerb on July 13, 2014 at 6:26 PM

My headline: Eunuch politician confirms he has no balls.

SouthernGent on July 13, 2014 at 6:28 PM

Instead of impeachment the military … which is sworn to uphold and protect the Constitution … should just arrest him.

darwin on July 13, 2014 at 6:28 PM

So…what sort of criminal acts has he committed?
 
BobMbx on July 13, 2014 at 6:12 PM

 
None. Zero . Zilch. Nada. Null.
 
Ned Pepper on July 13, 2014 at 6:18 PM

 
+1. None of his actions have been ruled unconstitutional.

rogerb on July 13, 2014 at 6:30 PM

Heresy!!!! How dare he contradict saint Palin? He must be hang at the ballot box.

coolrepublica on July 13, 2014 at 5:11 PM

She really gets under your skin, doesn’t she?

formwiz on July 13, 2014 at 6:31 PM

Ned Pepper on July 13, 2014 at 6:18 PM

You have your bunny slippers on the wrong feet again.

katy the mean old lady on July 13, 2014 at 6:32 PM

Instead of impeachment the military … which is sworn to uphold and protect the Constitution … should just arrest him.

darwin on July 13, 2014 at 6:28 PM

Never thought I’d say this in my lifetime — but at this point in time: I’d be okay with that …

ShainS on July 13, 2014 at 6:32 PM

Obama is the worst President in this country’s history. He has no respect for the rule of law. He deserves impeachment. Stalecoffee is 100% wrong about that.

Having said that, trying to impeach is beyond pointless at this time.

DisneyFan on July 13, 2014 at 6:32 PM

+1. None of his actions have been ruled unconstitutional.

rogerb on July 13, 2014 at 6:30 PM

Got nothing to do with whether they’re impeachable, but I seem to recall about a dozen have been ruled unconstitutional by SCOTUS, a few unanimously.

PS Letting 4 guys get slaughtered in Benghazi when help was nearby is not nonfeasance (or malfeasance) in office?

Inveigling kids from Central America to come flooding across the border and refusing to deport them in the face of established law isn’t an impeachable violation?

formwiz on July 13, 2014 at 6:37 PM

It would be an extremely stupid move. The discussion on the topic is an issue being created to stir controversy for the sake of it. It is just stirring the pot and profiting from the discontent.

crosspatch on July 13, 2014 at 6:26 PM

Sounds like it to me. Not a single R is in favor of it, at least publically.

Keep the focus on the border/national security crisis instead. This is just a distraction.

cat_owner on July 13, 2014 at 6:37 PM

GOP Infighting Scorecard

1. To Impeach or not impeach: Impeachment talk is led by Alaska grifter Sarah Palin. GOPer Establishment hard at work to tamp down the crazy talk.

The issue is becoming a litmus purity test. Love it.

2. Ricks “Oops” Perry vs. Rand “I worship false god Aqua Budda” Paul

Rand Paul has, in 4 short years, gone from tea party darling to a squish. Paul has said GOP has gone too far with voter ID, that the drug war has harmed the blacks and browns more – all true statement but things which must not be said in GOP circles.

Obamacare – Repeal only or Repeal and Replace.
The crazies want none of the replace part. The establishment knows they look nuts with only repeal. LOL!

Thad Cochran vs. Crazy McDaniel.. enough said.

Eric Cantor using his clout with GOPer establishment to sabotage David Brat.

This is shaping out to be different than 2010. There were no such GOper on GOper fights back in 2010. Obama-hating was a strong bond. Not so in 2014.

Ned Pepper on July 13, 2014 at 6:38 PM

Ned Pepper on July 13, 2014 at 6:18 PM

Ned, just a word of friendly advice.

When attempting to make a point by insisting everybody but you is crazy, its important to use lots!!!!! of exclamation points !!!!! and multiple lols. Actually strings of lolololololols work very well to get the logic of your point across.

If you’d spend a little bit of time researching the truly memorable proggies who have posted here, you would see the validity in what I’m saying to you now.

Good luck in the future.

Dolce Far Niente on July 13, 2014 at 6:40 PM

Having said that, trying to impeach is beyond pointless at this time.

DisneyFan on July 13, 2014 at 6:32 PM

The point would be to alert a sleeping public to the indefensible actions of this president. It would never pass his henchmen in the Senate. Everything from encouraging Russia by killing the eastern Europe missile defense to his lies about Obamacare, to his ignoring US law.

Even if one was to be as generous as possible he should be removed simply for being inept.

darwin on July 13, 2014 at 6:40 PM

Ned Pepper on July 13, 2014 at 6:38 PM

Stop bolding everything. You’re coming across as some nut who missed his lithium this morning. Not that that’s far from the truth …

Maybe you should take a time out.

darwin on July 13, 2014 at 6:43 PM

PR & politics trump principles.

Unfortunately, that’s the world we live in now.

22044 on July 13, 2014 at 6:44 PM

When attempting to make a point by insisting everybody but you is crazy, its important to use lots!!!!! of exclamation points !!!!! and multiple lols. Actually strings of lolololololols work very well to get the logic of your point across.

Dolce Far Niente on July 13, 2014 at 6:40 PM

Great tips. Hopefully Ned takes your sage advice to heart.

darwin on July 13, 2014 at 6:44 PM

It would be seen by the public as nothing but a highly partisan move.

cat_owner

You don’t know that at all. That’s what they want you to think. Ironically, the same people who have convinced you of this are the same ones who say republicans are doomed if they don’t pass amnesty.

xblade on July 13, 2014 at 6:45 PM

Screw thinking whether it would work or not.

Is it the right thing to do?

I’ve thought it was since Brian Terry died right down the road, and I found out why.

Now I’m being invaded.

And I know both were/are on purpose.

People argue how do you impeach him,, I argue how do you not.

There’s a lot of innocent dead bodies on his watch. And a world in flames.

wolly4321 on July 13, 2014 at 6:45 PM

There were no such GOper on GOper fights back in 2010. Obama-hating was a strong bond. Not so in 2014.

Ned Pepper on July 13, 2014 at 6:38 PM

Yes, there were. This is normal by the way. People expressing their views and opinions that differ from others.

That’s quite unlike the left, which doesn’t tolerate differing viewpoints or opinions. We all know that if one is to succeed in the “progressive” party one must not vary from the party line.

That’s so oddly reminiscent of some other countries I just can’t seem to remember at the moment.

darwin on July 13, 2014 at 6:48 PM

Can he be impeached for fraud??? Look up his Social Security number. It is not his. It was issued in Conneticutt or some other yankee state, not Hawaii. But the guy to whom it was issued died in a hospital Obama’s aunt worked in.

Zelsdorf Ragshaft on July 13, 2014 at 6:49 PM

I am loving how this impeachment talk is becoming another litmus purity test on the crazy right.

Keep on fighting, Chumps!!

LOL!!

Ned Pepper

Are you trying to convince us or yourself? Somebody can see November from their house and they don’t like what they see, lol.

xblade on July 13, 2014 at 6:53 PM

In an on-air subtweeting Sarah Palin, Weekly Standard editor Bill Kristol and GOP strategist Ana Navarro dismissed the talk of impeaching President Barack Obama ….

Kristol and Navarro – talk about a pair of losers.

bw222 on July 13, 2014 at 6:58 PM

So…what sort of criminal acts has he committed?
 
BobMbx on July 13, 2014 at 6:12 PM

None. Zero . Zilch. Nada. Null.
 
Ned Pepper on July 13, 2014 at 6:18 PM

+1. None of his actions have been ruled unconstitutional.
 
rogerb on July 13, 2014 at 6:30 PM

Got nothing to do with whether they’re impeachable, but I seem to recall about a dozen have been ruled unconstitutional by SCOTUS, a few unanimously.

PS Letting 4 guys get slaughtered in Benghazi when help was nearby is not nonfeasance (or malfeasance) in office?

Inveigling kids from Central America to come flooding across the border and refusing to deport them in the face of established law isn’t an impeachable violation?
 
formwiz on July 13, 2014 at 6:37 PM

 
Sure, but other than twelve or so rulings by the Supreme Court saying the constitutional scholar acted unconstitutionally, letting our soldiers and ambassadors get slaughtered while trying to get a good night’s sleep for a fundraiser, a weaponized IRS, exporting guns but importing illegal aliens and sending them to local schools, nothing he has done has been ruled unconstitutional.
 
Clearly you’re just an Obama-hater living in 2010, racist.
 
(Truth be told, I doubt Ned knew about the SCOTUS’ NLRB rulings and the like.)
 
(Or cared, frankly, because by any means necessary, comrade.)

rogerb on July 13, 2014 at 7:01 PM

Hey dirtbag Ned,, a fraud from day one.

Can we see those college transcripts yet?

Why not?

wolly4321 on July 13, 2014 at 7:05 PM

This is exactly why we shouldn’t talk about impeachment! Impeachment is dead not because of wimpy Republicans in 2014. Impeachment is dead because it hasn’t been successfully done in our 230-plus year history as a nation (that a president was actually REMOVED)! Do we honestly think there haven’t been other presidents that should have been impeached and removed??? Didn’t FDR take a lot of unilateral actions with the New Deal? Even Clinton couldn’t get convicted! And lets not forget lefties wanted to impeach Reagan over Iran-Contra, and W. Bush over Iraq’s lack of WMDs.

No president in history has been impeached (and convicted) because impeachment isn’t a practical tool at ALL. It’s STUPID to even think about. It’s an extreme solution.

Talking about impeachment gives Obama/Holder/Dems/Dem-controlled media a red HERRING to talk about instead of their own miserable failures. Obama, Holder and the media love Sarah Palin. They love when she talks about impeachment. The media can’t WAIT to ask Obama and Holder about Sarah Palin, instead of about the border crisis!

I think we should keep the focus on Obama’s FAILURES.

Nicole Coulter on July 13, 2014 at 7:05 PM

rogerb on July 13, 2014 at 7:01 PM

I’m sure those were just errors.

Cindy Munford on July 13, 2014 at 7:06 PM

But I’ve always struggled with the “high crimes and misdemeanors” part.

Not tough at all. Much like a declaration of war, a high crime and misdemeanor is exactly what Congress says it is, or is not…

JohnGalt23 on July 13, 2014 at 7:07 PM

Nicole Coulter on July 13, 2014 at 7:05 PM

Forget about that. Is it the right thing to do? Does he deserve it?

Just answer that for me. Forget the rest. No political calculation.

Does. He. Deserve. It.

wolly4321 on July 13, 2014 at 7:09 PM

“He has not committed the kind of criminal acts that call for that​.”

Oh? Well then what type of criminal act, exactly, has he committed?

Texas Zombie on July 13, 2014 at 7:12 PM

? Well then what type of criminal act, exactly, has he committed? Texas Zombie on July 13, 2014 at 7:12 PM

Shipping weapons to drug cartels?

Not just illegal,, an act of Wsr.

wolly4321 on July 13, 2014 at 7:16 PM

Texas Zombie on July 13, 2014 at 7:12 PM

Criminal acts aren’t the requirement.

Cindy Munford on July 13, 2014 at 7:17 PM

I think we should keep the focus on Obama’s FAILURES.

Nicole Coulter on July 13, 2014 at 7:05 PM

That’s exactly what impeachment does … keep impeaching the traitor, one count at a time [h/t ThePrimordialOrderedPair]. Put him on the defensive, keep his failures in the news for two years, and minimize any further damage he can do.

And set an example for future would-be tyrants …

ShainS on July 13, 2014 at 7:17 PM

xblade on July 13, 2014 at 6:45 PM

So an impeachment, supported by Rs but not a single D, would not be seen by the public as a partisan move?

Have you forgotten Bill Clinton?

Remember that most of the public do not follow things as closely as people posting here do. The majority are quite happy watching the Kardasians, playing with their X boxes and so on. Many people are not familiar with the issues, or only vaguely.

It does not help that the MSM ignores most of them, like the VA scandal for example.

So yes, it would be seen as strictly a partisan move by many people, and it would backfire.

This is just a distraction the media is loving because it’s taking attention away from the border crisis.

cat_owner on July 13, 2014 at 7:18 PM

Goodlatte can NOT be trusted. He is one of those Pro illegal Immigration Attorneys. His interest is in Amnesty. Don’t be fooled. Just Google him.

Nat George on July 13, 2014 at 7:22 PM

Let him do it the cowboy way.

We will loose rein him, give him all the slack in the rope he needs, he seems to be real good at the “self impeachment” .

Just stand back, he is going to do what he is going to do, let him do himself.

APACHEWHOKNOWS on July 13, 2014 at 7:33 PM

cat_owner on July 13, 2014 at 7:18 PM

Apart from that, does he deserve it?

Is it the right thing to do, morally?

Screw the politics of it.

“Dear Wolly, don’t say the word impeachment and vote for rino’s”

I’m done with that noise. For the rest of my life I’ll call for justice.

Probably with a rifle before it’s all over. Not by choice.

wolly4321 on July 13, 2014 at 7:36 PM

Forget about that. Is it the right thing to do? wolly4321 on July 13, 2014 at 7:09 PM

No, it’s not the right thing to do. You may think it’s “right” for you to win the lottery, too, but odds are against you, so why waste your time and money????

The RIGHT thing to do is to campaign our butts off and retake the Senate.

The RIGHT thing to do would have been to campaign our butts off to help Mitt Romney defeat Obama in the fall of 2012.

I’m getting a sense that the same people clamoring to remove Obama from office in 2014 are the same people who did NOTHING to help remove him from office in 2012.

Because President Mitt Romney would have been worse or something …

In the land of reality, unless you can win an election, it’s just NOISE. And it may even be self-defeating NOISE.

Nicole Coulter on July 13, 2014 at 7:36 PM

All of you that say we shouldn’t ,,

Does he deserve it?

wolly4321 on July 13, 2014 at 7:38 PM

Well, if there’s “no impeachment in the offing,” we’ll just have to keep pointing out Obama’s malfeasances until impeachment IS “in the offing.”

At least Palin got the country talking about it, even if the go-along-to-get-along types are desperately trying to derail the conversation.

Aitch748 on July 13, 2014 at 7:41 PM

All of you that say we shouldn’t ,,

Does he deserve it?

wolly4321 on July 13, 2014 at 7:38 PM

Sadly, you’re wasting your time with these unprincipled, brilliant, HA-commenting, GOPe strategists here, Wolly.

It’s PARTY over PRINCIPLE/HONOR/VIRTUE/COUNTRY/CONSTITUTION/RULE OF LAW/ET. AL. — no different from the traitorous Dems …

ShainS on July 13, 2014 at 7:44 PM

Nicole Coulter on July 13, 2014 at 7:36 PM

Oh crap. Here I was thinking that the colossal failure of the Romney campaign was his fault, but nope, it must be mine for >screw that vote I cast for him< not campaigning my butt off

And I guess I need to campaign my butt off for the good RINOs like Cochran to take the Senate too, because, well, no they won’t repeal Obamacare and they will push for amnesty and they won’t pass a real budget or hold Obama accountable for anything but otherwise- yay!! our side winning!11!!!Eleventy!!

Hell of an argument Nicole- but you forgot to say TruCons and purity.

Dolce Far Niente on July 13, 2014 at 7:46 PM

wolly4321 on July 13, 2014 at 7:38 PM

I’m one of those who says we shouldn’t but hell yes he deserves it. If we had a media it might be worth a try.

Cindy Munford on July 13, 2014 at 7:46 PM

Nicole Coulter on July 13, 2014 at 7:36 PM

I did all that. I even got drunk and voted for mccain, Ms. Coulter.

It didn’t work.

It opened my eyes.

I’ll never again make the mistake of forsaking my principals..

Come hell or high water,,

And you answered with political calculations.

Those aside,, does dogeater DESERVE to be impeached?

Not whether we can.

DOES HE DESERVE IT?

wolly4321 on July 13, 2014 at 7:48 PM

Dolce Far Niente on July 13, 2014 at 7:46 PM

Well, we only voted for him once. I wish I lived in Mississippi so I could vote for the Democrat.

Cindy Munford on July 13, 2014 at 7:49 PM

Comment pages: 1 2