Impeachment

[GMDino]

Obama's, that is.

Thought it would be fun to see what the GOP wanted to impeach President Obama for over the last eight years.

These are in no particular order.  Just from the first couple pages of a simple Google search.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-fix/wp/2016/05/20/oklahoma-republicans-want-to-impeach-obama-over-transgender-bathroom-rights-even-though-its-futile/?utm_term=.37c07ab29107

Quote:No, states can't actually impeach U.S. presidents. But Oklahoma Republican lawmakers are urging Congress to take up their cause. Reuters reports the Republican-denominated state legislature filed a measure Thursday calling for Obama's impeachment over the administration's recent recommendations that public schools accommodate transgender students in bathrooms.



Lawmakers argue the president overstepped his constitutional authority with that directive. The White House directive was "bibically wrong," state Rep. John Bennett ® said in a statement, according to Reuters, adding that it violated state's sovereignty.


The impeachment call came hours after Oklahoma lawmakers approved a bill that would make abortions a felony and put anyone who performs them in jail for up to three years. If Gov. Mary Fallin, a Republican, signs the bill into law, 
Oklahoma can expect a big legal fight in which its pretty much guaranteed to fail, given Roe v. Wade. (The governor late Friday decided to veto the bill.)


The impeachment push is similarly doomed and therefore highly symbolic. But before we get to that, here's some background: Oklahoma is not the first state to demand the president step down. South Dakota's Republican Party approved a resolution in 2014 calling for Obama's impeachment after the Guantanamo Bay detainee swap to free Sgt. Bowe Bergdahl. Other GOP politicians, like Sarah Palin, have also essentially called for the president to step down. At one point in 2014, Rep. Lou Barletta (R-Pa.) even mused that House had the votes to do it.

http://www.msnbc.com/rachel-maddow-show/gop-back-impeachment-jail-time-obama

Quote:GOP back to ‘impeachment,’ ‘jail time’ for Obama


As the 2014 cycle progressed, the number of congressional Republicans talking about impeaching President Obama faded, and there’s no real mystery as to what happened. GOP leaders, fearing a public backlash, told Republican incumbents and candidates to dial it down a notch. Why rile up Democrats, who too often stay home in midterm cycles, when they’re tuning out?
 
And as a consequence, for months, the “i” word more or less faded. That is, until very recently.
 
Last week, Rep. Brian Babin (R-Texas), less than a month into his first term in Congress, announced his belief that President Obama, without a doubt, “deserves impeachment.” He’s not the only one talking like this.

Quote:Republican Rep. Tom Marino of Pennsylvania says President Obama is “getting close” to impeachment. “People say, ‘should the president be impeached?’ I say, we’re getting close to that,” the Marino said in a video posted on YouTube Wednesday by the local newspaper, the Wellsboro Gazette.
 
Marino said he was talking about impeachment because “it comes up consistently at town hall meetings.”

Well, that’s a good reason. Marino was a little fuzzy on what, exactly, would be the grounds for presidential impeachment, but for many GOP lawmakers, that’s a minor and inconvenient detail that shouldn’t interfere with reckless rhetoric.
 
Rep. Mo Brooks (R-Ala.), meanwhile, has no use for subtlety and is already talking publicly about “jail time” for the president:

Quote:In an appearance on “The Steve Malzberg Show” [Tuesday], Rep. Mo Brooks, R-Ala., continued his crusade against President Obama’s executive actions on immigration reform, calling on the federal courts to find that the president’s actions violated the law.
 
If Obama defies such a ruling, Brooks said, then Congress should pass a contempt citation against the president for his “reckless conduct” and demand that he comply with the court’s decision.
 
He said that Obama would then drop his executive actions since he, like Richard Nixon, doesn’t want to “incur the wrath that comes with a contempt citation with potential fines and jail time.”

At this point, I still consider it unlikely that GOP leaders will go along with the far-right’s impeachment crusade, but conservative media appears to be on board, and the number of congressional Republican talking up the idea since the elections keeps growing.

http://www.nbcwashington.com/news/archive/Impeach_Obama_Groups_Already_Forming.html

Quote:[/url]President-elect Barack Obama won't be inaugurated for another ten weeks, but groups are already forming on the Internet to [url=http://www.breitbart.com/article.php?id=081105214913.k5rna1c2&show_article=1]call for his impeachment.


Several groups exist on the social networking site Facebook, calling for the removal of Obama from office for a number of reasons, including planning to not uphold the Constitution of the United States and campaign finance violations.

Impeach Barack Obama was formed under the assumption that the winner of Tuesday's election will waste little time in violating his oath of office and already has more than 2,500 members on Facebook:

"This group has been created under the assumption that it takes approximately 7 seconds for a modern day President to violate this oath. So we should be ready."

Impeach Barack Hussein Obama seems mostly concerned with the Democrat's prior support for an assault weapons ban and accusations that he's a closet Marxist.

"Obama has voiced support for various unconstitutional programs such as the assault weapons ban, universal healthcare, and various schemes for wealth distribution. What are we going to do about it? RESIST SOCIALISM! IMPEACH HIM!
might as well start before he gets in office." 

The Agence-France Presse notes that there are currently many more groups calling for the impeachment of current President George W. Bush, but the president's had eight years to generate a lot of fodder for critics. Few of those groups seem to have gathered the level of support that Obama impeachment groups have already attracted.

https://www.mediamatters.org/blog/2014/06/03/five-years-of-conservatives-calling-for-obamas/199555

Quote:Five Years Of Conservatives Calling For Obama's Impeachment
New Book Tries To Bring Fringe Impeachment Cause To The Mainstream

https://thinkprogress.org/top-10-reasons-republicans-want-to-impeach-president-obama-b72e97741ba0

Quote:[color=rgba(0, 0, 0, 0.8)]For more than two years, Republicans in Congress have wanted to impeach President Obama.
[/color]

[color=rgba(0, 0, 0, 0.8)]Every few months, they come up with creative new rationales to justify their desire to prematurely remove Obama from office, ranging from his immigration policies to birther hysteria to conspiracy theories about Arctic islands.[/color]
[color=rgba(0, 0, 0, 0.8)]
ThinkProgress has compiled the top ten reasons why Republicans have proposed impeaching President Obama:[/color]

Quote:[color=rgba(0, 0, 0, 0.8)]1. To get Obama’s birth certificate. Rep. Tim Walberg (R-MI) suggested that Congress use the threat of impeachment to force Obama to show his birth certificate. [10/13/10][/color]

Quote:[color=rgba(0, 0, 0, 0.8)]2. “Giving away” seven Arctic islands. Wes Riddle, a Texas congressional candidate, is peddling a bizarre conspiracy theory that Obama gave away seven Arctic islands to Russia. Despite the fact that the treaty ceding these islands was ratified by the Senate in 1991, Riddle said he will push to impeach Obama over the matter. [6/22/12][/color]

Quote:[color=rgba(0, 0, 0, 0.8)]3. Obama’s new immigration policy for undocumented students. Allen Quist, a former state representative running in Minnesota’s 1st congressional district, said that he would lead the impeachment charge against Obama for the president’s new immigration policy that would prevent one million undocumented students from being deported. [6/26/12][/color]

Quote:[color=rgba(0, 0, 0, 0.8)]4. “Refusing to secure the borders.” Rep. Lamar Smith (R-TX) told radio host Lou Dobbs that Obama is refusing to secure the border and it “comes awfully close to a violation of [his] oath of office.” [7/19/10][/color]

Quote:[color=rgba(0, 0, 0, 0.8)]5. Failing to extended the Bush tax cuts. Grover Norquist, author of the anti-tax pledge that nearly every Republican in Congress has signed, told National Journal that if Obama allows the Bush tax cuts to expire, “Republicans will have enough votes in the Senate in 2014 to impeach.” [1/29/12][/color]

Quote:[color=rgba(0, 0, 0, 0.8)]6. Not defending DOMA in court. Rep. Trent Franks (R-AZ) said he “absolutely” supports impeaching Obama after the administration announced it would not defend a portion of the Defense of Marriage Act in court. [3/2/11][/color]

Quote:[color=rgba(0, 0, 0, 0.8)]7. To stop Obama from passing new laws. Rep. Michael Burgess (R-TX) told a Tea Party group that he would push for impeachment just to block Obama’s legislative agenda. “It needs to happen, and I agree with you it would tie things up,” Burgess said. “No question about that.” [8/9/11][/color]

Quote:[color=rgba(0, 0, 0, 0.8)]8. “Shenanigans” in Obama’s immigration policies. Sen. Jon Kyl (R-AZ), second-in-command among Senate Republicans, told radio host Bill Bennett that, because of Obama’s immigration policies, “impeachment is always a possibility” if there are “shenanigans involved.” [6/26/12][/color]

Quote:[color=rgba(0, 0, 0, 0.8)]9. If Obama used the 14th Amendment to declare the debt ceiling unconstitutional. During the debt ceiling showdown, Rep. Tim Scott (R-SC) and other Republicans have floated the possibility of impeaching Obama if he declared the debt ceiling unconstitutional rather than allow the country to default. [7/7/11][/color]

Quote:[color=rgba(0, 0, 0, 0.8)]10. If the government defaults. When Republicans forced the debt ceiling crisis, Rep. Steve King (R-IA) announced on Twitter that if Congress doesn’t increase the debt ceiling and the federal government is forced to default, “Obama would be impeached.” [7/25/11][/color]

Some more:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Efforts_to_impeach_Barack_Obama
Good times...good times.

[SunsetBengal]

So, are we to draw the conclusion that calls for impeachment happen all the time, for unfounded reasons, and they typically pass without incident?

[oncemoreuntothejimbreech]

Every blizzard starts with a single snowflake.

[xxlt]

Well, the President does swear an oath to defend the Bible against all enemies, both foreign and domestic. (And the good ones through in *****, Moose Lambs, and gawdless communists!)

[GMDino]

(05-25-2017, 11:03 AM)SunsetBengal Wrote: So, are we to draw the conclusion that calls for impeachment happen all the time, for unfounded reasons, and they typically pass without incident?

Maybe.  OR we could see that none of those are anywhere near the things being investigated against the Trump administration 4 months in.  And multiple hearing were held on at least a couple of them.  Kind of like the GOP was willing to look at ANYTHING Obama did ask the Trump WH to have "less drama."

[oncemoreuntothejimbreech]

(05-25-2017, 11:09 AM)GMDino Wrote: Maybe.  OR we could see that none of those are anywhere near the things being investigated against the Trump administration 4 months in.  And multiple hearing were held on at least a couple of them.  Kind of like the GOP was willing to look at ANYTHING Obama did ask the Trump WH to have "less drama."

I think the word you're looking for is "hysteria."

[*bfine32*]

Quick quiz to determine relevance:

How long was Obama in Office before members of Congress started calling for Impeachment?

Was there more impeachment talk in Obama's 8 years or Trump's first 100 days?

[GMDino]

(05-25-2017, 11:59 AM)bfine32 Wrote: Quick quiz to determine relevance:

How long was Obama in Office before members of Congress started calling for Impeachment?

Was there more impeachment talk in Obama's 8 years or Trump's first 100 days?

Aha!  Trick questions!

It's not about the calls for impeachment...it's the REASONS for the calls for impeachment.

Was that an attempt at "gotcha"?



Edit: btw, there are REPUBLICANS talking about impeachment with Trump. Hard to wrap your mind around, I know.

[GMDino]

Way back in December of 2008 the odds of Obama being impeached were at 33:1

http://www.gambling911.com/politics/obama-nationalization-controversy-has-little-affect-odds-120508.html

While folks were filing lawsuits saying he wasn't a citizen.

[hollodero]

(05-25-2017, 11:03 AM)SunsetBengal Wrote: So, are we to draw the conclusion that calls for impeachment happen all the time, for unfounded reasons, and they typically pass without incident?

Well, I for myself draw the conclusion that Republicans are hypocrites. Impeach Obama over nothing, oh yeah that guy needs to be gone. But don't even think about impeaching Trump over a whole lot of grave things - or we Republicans call YOU hypocrites and hysterical and sour losers.

But if you're on the republican side, you might draw a different conclusion. And, if I may, a less accurate one.

[oncemoreuntothejimbreech]

(05-25-2017, 11:59 AM)bfine32 Wrote: Quick quiz to determine relevance:

How long was Obama in Office before members of Congress started calling for Impeachment?

Was there more impeachment talk in Obama's 8 years or Trump's first 100 days?

How do your questions about impeachment determine the relevance of calls for impeachment?

[Benton]

(05-25-2017, 11:59 AM)bfine32 Wrote: Quick quiz to determine relevance:

How long was Obama in Office before members of Congress started calling for Impeachment?

Was there more impeachment talk in Obama's 8 years or Trump's first 100 days?

Roughly two years.

The difference is Obama divested himself of investments and and didn't appoint people in the employ of foreign governments, both of which have drawn legitimate questions about Trump's actions and ethics. Obama made his own mistakes (none of which were clearly impeachable offenses), but didn't make them nearly as quickly.

It's not as much an issue of if either had significant missteps, but a difference in how quickly they made them.

[oncemoreuntothejimbreech]

(05-25-2017, 02:03 PM)Benton Wrote: Roughly two years.

The difference is Obama divested himself of investments and and didn't appoint people in the employ of foreign governments, both of which have drawn legitimate questions about Trump's actions and ethics. Obama made his own mistakes (none of which were clearly impeachable offenses), but didn't make them nearly as quickly.

It's not as much an issue of if either had significant missteps, but a difference in how quickly they made them.

You missed bfine's point.

No politician in history, and I say this with great surety, has been treated worse or more unfairly.

For one, just look at his critics questioning his nationality and birth certificate.

[*bfine32*]

(05-25-2017, 02:03 PM)Benton Wrote: Roughly two years.

The difference is Obama divested himself of investments and and didn't appoint people in the employ of foreign governments, both of which have drawn legitimate questions about Trump's actions and ethics. Obama made his own mistakes (none of which were clearly impeachable offenses), but didn't make them nearly as quickly.

It's not as much an issue of if either had significant missteps, but a difference in how quickly they made them.

Or it could have been that one was a career Politician and another was an outsider enter Government Service for the first time. Dude is doing what he has done his whole life.

As I've said (I quite profound you know). Everyone wants a Washington outsider until he/she starts acting like a Washington outsider.

Will Trump be impeached? If I had to bet money I'd say no; however, I seldom, if ever, bet on anything outside of my control. But I will say as ugly as the Trump Presidency has already been on all sides;l we are laying ground rules for future administrations. To include scrutiny of the office, election, and cabinet. Just like the Dems probably now regret enforcing the Nuclear Option as far as confirming Presidential appointees; I fear they will regret the endless barrage of scrutiny they have employed to date.

I'll type the reply to save folks time: Trump is worse than any President to date. He has not been scrutinized he's just done more bad stuff.  

[GMDino]

(05-25-2017, 02:48 PM)bfine32 Wrote: Or it could have been that one was a career Politician and another was an outsider enter Government Service for the first time. Dude is doing what he has done his whole life.

As I've said (I quite profound you know). Everyone wants a Washington outsider until he/she starts acting like a Washington outsider.

Will Trump be impeached? If I had to bet money I'd say no; however, I seldom, if ever, bet on anything outside of my control. But I will say as ugly as the Trump Presidency has already been on all sides;l we are laying ground rules for future administrations. To include scrutiny of the office, election, and cabinet. Just like the Dems probably now regret enforcing the Nuclear Option as far as confirming Presidential appointees; I fear they will regret the endless barrage of scrutiny they have employed to date.

I'll type the reply to save folks time: Trump is worse than any President to date. He has not been scrutinized he's just done more bad stuff.  

I think most people recognize that just because someone is an "outsider" that does not make them a good candidate.

Trump's flaws were/are many.  His lack of self control, thin skin, short attention span, lack of attention to detail, small vocabulary, etc.

There are plenty of "outsiders" that would make much better candidates and who would make "missteps" along the way while learning the job.  Many would probably work very hard to learn from their mistakes rather than send people out to lie and say they never happened and then admit they did it anyway.

Whether Trump has or will reach impeachment level incompetence is yet to be seen.

But I think even members of his own (current) party would rather he just get out of the way.  He's a distraction...not that they didn't know that going in.  He's also a poor "leader."  Good at riling up the base but not good at getting things done.  He leaves that to the people under him...just as he always has.  

Trump is the "idea guy".  And there's "nobody better" than him.  Just ask him. 

Then he has people he trusts (usually family) to do the dirty work.  That's why Kushner has a longer job list than the VP has.

The scrutiny he has received has come mostly from his own words and actions.  And a lot of that has been, again, due to his character flaws.  Flaws that were in full display during the campaign but overlooked because "Clinton can't be trusted" and all the actual baggage that she came along with.

Apologist who now want to make it that his problems are simply because he's an outsider are still fooling themselves.

[oncemoreuntothejimbreech]

(05-25-2017, 02:48 PM)bfine32 Wrote: Or it could have been that one was a career Politician and another was an outsider enter Government Service for the first time. Dude is doing what he has done his whole life.

As I've said (I quite profound you know). Everyone wants a Washington outsider until he/she starts acting like a Washington outsider.

That's a poor and superficial attempt to normalize Trump's behavior as the normal behavior of any Washington outsider. Yeah, because all Washington outsiders would act like Trump.

Starting with the appointment of Flynn:

Obama to Trump: Don't appoint Flynn.

Trump appoints Flynn. Trump fires Flynn. Trump blames Obama after Obama warned Trump to His face about Flynn. Trump aides claim they thought Obama was joking.

Just "normal" Washington outsiders acting like normal Washington outsiders.

Quote:Will Trump be impeached? If I had to bet money I'd say no; however, I seldom, if ever, bet on anything outside of my control. But I will say as ugly as the Trump Presidency has already been on all sides;l we are laying ground rules for future administrations. To include scrutiny of the office, election, and cabinet. Just like the Dems probably now regret enforcing the Nuclear Option as far as confirming Presidential appointees; I fear they will regret the endless barrage of scrutiny they have employed to date.

I'll type the reply to save folks time: Trump is worse than any President to date. He has not been scrutinized he's just done more bad stuff.  

Is the FBI a democrat? Is the special counsel appointed by Trump's Deputy Attorney General to replace Comey a democrat? Are any of the bipartisan Congressional committees currently involved investigating something democrat?

[Benton]

(05-25-2017, 02:48 PM)bfine32 Wrote: Or it could have been that one was a career Politician and another was an outsider enter Government Service for the first time. Dude is doing what he has done his whole life.

As I've said (I quite profound you know). Everyone wants a Washington outsider until he/she starts acting like a Washington outsider.
 

I would say everyone wants someone who reflects their way of life. An overwhelming majority of people aren't professional politicians, so many of them voted for the guy who wasn't a politician. Him going about business as usual doesn't make that acceptable to loot, plunder and abuse public trust.

Not exactly the same, but Illinois has a history of electing people with questionable ethics. They've had several lawmakers arrested in the last decade. Just being elected governor or state lawmaker doesn't give you a free pass to continue abusing the system. Trump, likewise, shouldn't get one just because he' POTUS.

[*bfine32*]

(05-25-2017, 03:39 PM)Benton Wrote: I would say everyone wants someone who reflects their way of life. An overwhelming majority of people aren't professional politicians, so many of them voted for the guy who wasn't a politician. Him going about business as usual doesn't make that acceptable to loot, plunder and abuse public trust.

Not exactly the same, but Illinois has a history of electing people with questionable ethics. They've had several lawmakers arrested in the last decade. Just being elected governor or state lawmaker doesn't give you a free pass to continue abusing the system. Trump, likewise, shouldn't get one just because he' POTUS.

I have no idea how anyone could suggest Trump is getting a free pass. He is being scrutinized about everything:

Russia

Where his wife lives

Where he spends his weekends

Where he hosts dignitaries

What he says to other Government officials behind closed doors

What he tweets

What size paper he puts in folders

The color of his spray tan

The size of his hands

His grammar

Thins that other Republican Officials do that have zero to do with him

Things that conservative citizens do that have nothing to do with him

ect.....

As I have said: I just hope all those pointing to sound as well as the ridiculous are prepared to reap what they sow. I would not care (perhaps) prefer, if he were removed from office tomorrow. I just choose not to cry like a spoiled brat on a daily basis.

[GMDino]

(05-25-2017, 04:06 PM)bfine32 Wrote: I have no idea how anyone could suggest Trump is getting a free pass. He is being scrutinized about everything:

Russia

Where his wife lives

Where he spends his weekends

Where he hosts dignitaries

What he says to other Government officials behind closed doors

What he tweets

What size paper he puts in folders

The color of his spray tan

The size of his hands

His grammar

Thins that other Republican Officials do that have zero to do with him

Things that conservative citizens do that have nothing to do with him

ect.....

As I have said: I just hope all those pointing to sound as well as the ridiculous are prepared to reap what they sow. I would not care (perhaps) prefer, if he were removed from office tomorrow. I just choose not to cry like a spoiled brat on a daily basis.

That's some high gloss paint you used over the things "he is being scrutinized about."

Russia -  need a refresher on all the ties to Russia and how he and his administration have lied about them?


Where his wife lives - Only because of the incredible amount of money being spent.

Where he spends his weekends - Only because of his own hypocrisy on the topic.

Where he hosts dignitaries - Only because of his own statements on how he would handle these things given his unique situation as the property owner.

What he says to other Government officials behind closed doors - Again, because his admin lies for him then he admits it anyway.

What he tweets - Yes, why would someone comment on something he says himself?

What size paper he puts in folders - False. If there was ANY paper in the folders. Given that he STILL hasn't divested from his businesses I'd think most people would care.

The color of his spray tan - No argument there.  It's Orange.

The size of his hands - Not since the debates, but since it bothered him so much that's just for fun. 

His grammar - ...and lack of vocabulary.  It's a great honor to mention that.  Repeatedly.

Things that other Republican Officials do that have zero to do with him - Hey they just look up to him and long for the day they can kick a guys ass.

Things that conservative citizens do that have nothing to do with him - Perhaps a thread on liberals and how they act would make you feel better?

[*Nately120*]

(05-25-2017, 11:59 AM)bfine32 Wrote: Quick quiz to determine relevance:

How long was Obama in Office before members of Congress started calling for Impeachment?

Was there more impeachment talk in Obama's 8 years or Trump's first 100 days?

True, but the confounding variable here is that Obama was a relative unknown before becoming president (which was a strike against him), while Trump has already spent decades acting like a horse's patoot, being accused of a litany of misdeeds, and generally not being very trustworthy.

Trump has built quite the empire on making sure everyone knows who he is so I don't think it's too unreasonable for people to jump to conclusions about the guy based on a mere 100 days in office when he spent 30 years or so showing us the person he is (or presents himself as).  That's marketing for ya.

It's like handing someone a copy of some obscure CD your friend's band made last month along with a copy of Sgt. Pepper and asking the person to listen to both as if they're equally new and unknown.  I wouldn't accuse him of having a closed-mind if he admitted that the saturation of the Beatles made him confident enough to make judgement before giving both a "fair shot."

Short version - Trump very intentionally made sure everyone knew the man he is long before he became president.  Assuming a new office doesn't expunge your prior record, for good or ill.