is there a logical reason Obama is not facing articles of impeachment?

[dross]

I wish I lived in the world you guys live in.

 

[Kutnupe14]

I can't realistically see Obama being impeached. For one, he's done pretty much everything former presidents have done; albeit more, and secondly no congressman wants, in light of the first reason, to put his name on the roll as voting to impeach the first black/white president. It's sucks that such would even be a consideration if a congressmen honestly thought the charges were valid (they aren't btw), but they're still politicians, and they would face an uphill battle come re-election time.

 

[mrjarrell]

The Constitution is very clear on impeachment. Can someone cite the code and criminal statute he's broken?

[SIZE=+2]The Constitution, Article II, Section 4:[/SIZE]
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.

Coming up with things he's done is all well and good but, unless they are an actual crime you're whistling Dixie here.

Edit: While you might be able to make a case for a "High Crime" it is a huge uphill battle, as the term itself is vague. Add into it that there is no political will in the house, from whence it would have to originate and a certitude of never going anywhere in the senate and it's just a mental exercise, at best. It ain't gonna happen. He just hasn't done anything egregious enough to rise to that level.

 

[gstanley102]

I still don't understand how changing a law by executive order does not fit high crimes and misdemeanors.
He's made around 30 changes to the ACA including directing insurance companies to break the law.

I don't understand how not protecting sovereign U.S. property does not fit high crimes and misdemeanors.

I don't understand how arming drug cartels does not fit high crimes and misdemeanors.

I don't understand how usurping congress's power does not fit high crimes and misdemeanors.

I don't understand how threatening congress with his pen does not fit high crimes and misdemeanors.

Like I said, I am not a lawyer.

I'm afraid that if the only reason not to act is possible political fallout, this man will continue to shred the constitution, our liberties and, our lives.

 

[Kirk Freeman]

unless they are an actual crime you're whistling Dixie here

Why on earth do you believe that it must be an "actual crime"?

“endeavored to obtain from the Internal Revenue Service, in violation of the constitutional rights of citizens, confidential information contained in income tax returns for purposes not authorized by law, and to cause, in violation of the constitutional rights of citizens, income tax audits or other income tax investigation to be initiated or conducted in a discriminatory manner.”

Article II of the Articles of Impeachment of Richard M. Nixon.

 

[gstanley102]

............... Can someone cite the code and criminal statute he's broken?

Coming up with things he's done is all well and good but, unless they are an actual crime you're whistling Dixie here.

What were the criminal statutes Bill Clinton broke?

 

[dross]

What were the criminal statutes Bill Clinton broke?

Perjury and obstruction of justice.

 

[dross]

Why on earth do you believe that it must be an "actual crime"?

“endeavored to obtain from the Internal Revenue Service, in violation of the constitutional rights of citizens, confidential information contained in income tax returns for purposes not authorized by law, and to cause, in violation of the constitutional rights of citizens, income tax audits or other income tax investigation to be initiated or conducted in a discriminatory manner.”

Article II of the Articles of Impeachment of Richard M. Nixon.

Thanks for posting this. How does everyone forget this all the time? BTW, the explanation I've heard for "high crimes" is that it doesn't mean "serious" crimes, it means crimes committed by those in "high" places, in other words the misuse of power.

P.S. Note the language above: "endeavored to obtain." In other words, he didn't even get that done, but he tried to do it. It looks like the Obama IRS actually made it happen.

 

[Kirk Freeman]

To answer the OP's inquiry, the reason that Obama has not been impeached is that the Chateau Generals running and advising the Republican Party (Consultant Class) are cowards or want to be invited to cocktail parties in Georgetown.

 

[spearheadersarge]

I believe that if the Repubs take the Senate, all bets are off. With his penchant for trying to go it alone, I think if he saw the writing on the wall he would just throw in the towel. I don't think he would live with the shame ala WJC.

 

[gstanley102]

To answer the OP's inquiry, the reason that Obama has not been impeached is that the Chateau Generals running and advising the Republican Party (Consultant Class) are cowards or want to be invited to cocktail parties in Georgetown.

I would thank you for confirming my suspicions, but, I was hoping there was some legal reason.
I can't believe cowardice is a legal reason.

Is it possible the fears some of the founders had about the party system are coming true?

 

[Smokepole]

I believe that if the Repubs take the Senate, all bets are off. With his penchant for trying to go it alone, I think if he saw the writing on the wall he would just throw in the towel. I don't think he would live with the shame ala WJC.

I honestly wouldn't hold my breath and/or bet on that. I think the "Chateau Generals" actually want Obama to succeed, because they want the same things. Prove me wrong. Please, I would rather not believe it. But I haven't seen anything to have me believe otherwise.

 

[Bunnykid68]

Yes. It would be like charging my brother with a crime and I get to be the judge and jury. Not guilty.

 

[Cameramonkey]

Two reasons...

1: Illuminati
(optionally) -OR-
2: Everybody's afraid the race card will get played, effectively ending their careers.

After watching the teetotalers on FB regarding beer at the state fair and also HJR3* I have decided that unless you offend the uppity conservative religious base of our fair republic (ala the stains on the blue dress/cigars in her humidor, etc) you arent going to see an impeachment in the current political climate. Everybody is too busy keeping their heads down with the economy, obamacare, jobs, etc hoping to win another election, and rake in more $$ via PACs that turn our representatives into millionaires. Votes for sale anyone?

*yes, Indiana is a microcosm, but I think it reflects the nation as a whole for this specific discussion.

 

[ATOMonkey]

Impeachment? pffftttt.... You don't bite the hand that feeds.

We have record number of people employed by the government or getting money from the government.

The moochers and looters are on a gravy train with biscuit wheels. Why screw that up?

 

[Indy_Guy_77]

Impeachment? pffftttt.... You don't bite the hand that feeds.

We have record number of people employed by the government or getting money from the government.

The moochers and looters are on a gravy train with biscuit wheels. Why screw that up?

And unfortunately, none of that would change even with a successful impeachment and potential removal from office.

 

[HeadlessRoland]

Even if articles of impeachment were introduced to the floor of the House - and the House voted to impeach the treasonous-snake-in-chief - the Senate still wouldn't convict, and then it would be all they need to have the failed effort playing on loop on the major media outlets: "Republicans, overzealous and bitterly opposed to this administration, couldn't even secure the votes they needed! What more weakness do these zealots need to demonstrate before the Executive branch finally asserts its executive authority to bypass these clowns!" No doubt that the sane would come out on the losing side after the spin machine got ahold of it, and that might embolden him further Obama with the 'MC Hammer' ideology: 'they can't touch me!' Who knows what he would try to get away with after a failed conviction on impeachment charges. I agree with GPIA7R on this: obstruct, obstruct, obstruct.

 

[jwh20]

Are you trying to apply logic and reason to politics?

 

[ArcadiaGP]

Even if articles of impeachment were introduced to the floor of the House - and the House voted to impeach the treasonous-snake-in-chief - the Senate still wouldn't convict, and then it would be all they need to have the failed effort playing on loop on the major media outlets: "Republicans, overzealous and bitterly opposed to this administration, couldn't even secure the votes they needed! What more weakness do these zealots need to demonstrate before the Executive branch finally asserts its executive authority to bypass these clowns!" No doubt that the sane would come out on the losing side after the spin machine got ahold of it, and that might embolden him further Obama with the 'MC Hammer' ideology: 'they can't touch me!' Who knows what he would try to get away with after a failed conviction on impeachment charges. I agree with GPIA7R on this: obstruct, obstruct, obstruct.

Hard to say if even that would work.

As we can see with our current President, he's "doing what he wants" without Congress anymore... and no one is really stepping up to challenge him on it. Feels like this is going to be the new status quo as long as people like Reid/Pelosi/etc exist in power.

I don't see a Democratic impeachment occurring in our future. I see many attempts at impeaching a Republican president. I also expect the unrest and divisiveness to grow quickly, and come to a head at some point in our near future. There is little chance to compromise anymore... it's just "my way or no way" with everyone. Politics seem more volatile, but maybe some of the more seasoned members here can tell me if it's been like this before? I'm young-ish (late 20's), so I can't say I know much about how things were in the past.

It feels like our rule of law is on the way out, seeing as no one follows it anymore.

 

[HeadlessRoland]

Hard to say if even that would work.

As we can see with our current President, he's "doing what he wants" without Congress anymore... and no one is really stepping up to challenge him on it. Feels like this is going to be the new status quo as long as people like Reid/Pelosi/etc exist in power.

I don't see a Democratic impeachment occurring in our future. I see many attempts at impeaching a Republican president. I also expect the unrest and divisiveness to grow quickly, and come to a head at some point in our near future. There is little chance to compromise anymore... it's just "my way or no way" with everyone. Politics seem more volatile, but maybe some of the more seasoned members here can tell me if it's been like this before? I'm young-ish (late 20's), so I can't say I know much about how things were in the past.

It feels like our rule of law is on the way out, seeing as no one follows it anymore.

Rule of what now?