Obama can absolutely be impeached for his lawlessness, Congress just doesn’t want to do it…

Like always the impeachment process is always a debatable topic. Lots of speculation and opinion about the way it’s done. Doing a little research, I took a look at Richard Nixon’s articles of impeachment which you can find, here

There were a lot of claims that in order to get impeached there needs to be hard evidence and absolute proof. Take a look at all of Nixon’s charges in the link above. Does all that stuff pretty much match what Obama is doing? You can absolutely compare Nixon’s lawlessness to Obama’s. Everything in Nixon’s charges is similar to Obama’s crimes and scandals: Benghazi, Operation F&F, the NDAA, the U.S. having no border and allowing illegals to enter our country, etc. There are even charges of lying and obstruction of justice, that’s all Obama too. Executive orders are also on there.

Watch the video below for further proof of what I mean. Alex Jones of InfoWars breaks it down perfectly.

I’m believing that Congress is totally protecting Obama. Not just democrats, republicans too. Which is why I’m starting to get pissed off at both parties. I’m considering going independent or libertarian. Not sure.

Kev

 

28 thoughts on “Obama can absolutely be impeached for his lawlessness, Congress just doesn’t want to do it…”

  1. Congress is certainly reluctant to move to impeachment. It would be considered “opening up a can of worms”. Just about every president that I can remember does things and each term someone wants to impeach them. If Obama gets impeached then Republicans fear retribution.

    When I speak of hard evidence my point is that when you move to impeachment it better come through. It doesn’t matter if it SHOULD, the question is WILL IT?

    People are guilty of things all the time. Doesn’t mean they get punished for it.

  2. How many YEARS have I been trying to tell you this? And now you finally get it.

    All those time I was saying “he won’t be impeached”, “ain’t gonna happen”, etc, etc…wasn’t in support of him.

    It was exactly this: Congress simply will not do it. End of story. It’s about time you finally woke up to see the light.

    And as 280dude points out, my comments on “hard evidence” are the same thought as his. No one is going to act without evidence. They won’t do it unless they know they can win, and they can not win with out the evidence.

    And considering what it takes for removal (the vote), even with evidence it’s likely that it still won’t happen. So, no matter how many of us want him gone, it just does not matter. Nobody is going to take action. Too many democrats in there and not enough Conservatives.

    And why bring Nixon into it? I thought you hated comparing other Presidents? It doesn’t matter what anyone has done in the past. Clinton, Nixon…it’s pointless.

    Every single President since George Washington has done something they can be impeached for. Yet, how many times has it happened?

    1. And as 280dude points out, my comments on “hard evidence” are the same thought as his. No one is going to act without evidence. They won’t do it unless they know they can win, and they can not win with out the evidence.

      Well, Nixon’s “smoking gun” of the Watergate scandal was that they found tapes that proved that he had knowledge of a coverup of Watergate. Then comes Obama’s Benghazi “smoking gun” that proved that Obama knew of a Benghazi cover-up. That was proof that Obama knew something. Nixon faced impeachment for that but Obama didn’t. I bet you can’t explain that one.

      And considering what it takes for removal (the vote), even with evidence it’s likely that it still won’t happen. So, no matter how many of us want him gone, it just does not matter. Nobody is going to take action. Too many democrats in there and not enough Conservatives.

      Well, when too much information gets out there for Obama’s scandals like say Benghazi for example, it should be good enough to take him down. Whenever Obama is exposed for Benghazi, it should be good enough. I don’t see how Congress would let him go on that one. If he’s found responsible for the attack and the cover-up, then they would have no choice but to impeach him.

      And why bring Nixon into it? I thought you hated comparing other Presidents? It doesn’t matter what anyone has done in the past. Clinton, Nixon…it’s pointless.

      Nixon did all the similar things that Obama have done. We have every reason to bring Nixon into it. Well… at least Nixon gave himself up and took responsibility while Obama acts like a little baby and plays innocent victim most of the time.

      Every single President since George Washington has done something they can be impeached for. Yet, how many times has it happened?

      Presidents facing Impeachment happened 3 times actually… Andrew Johnson, Nixon and Clinton. Sure, Nixon resigned before even the impeachment hearings started to happen but he still counts.

      Maybe past presidents didn’t get impeached ’cause they didn’t really do anything impeachable or not enough “evidence” to prove it. Everybody wants to blame Bush on 9/11 but no evidence to prove it, just conspiracy theory.

      Kev

      1. Every single President since George Washington has done something they can be impeached for. Yet, how many times has it happened?

        George Washington, get impeached??? HAHAHAHAHA! That’s the funniest thing I ever heard. You don’t even get your history right. At the time, George could do whatever he wanted. He was picked as president unanimously. Plus there was no political parties at the time. There was no republican or democrats parties then. He couldn’t be impeached although people begged him to step down.

        Kev

      2. At the time of George Washington’s election there were no political parties, that’s what I meant.

        Kev

    2. He’s saying that each president FOLLOWING George Washington has done SOMETHING that could he could technically be impeached for. I’m not sure it is 100% but quite a few for sure.

  3. Well, whatever… you can’t always assume that just because past presidents haven’t been forced to remove from office doesn’t necessarily mean the same thing will happen to Obama. There can always be a first time. I’ve said that repeatedly. There is always hope.

    Anyway, if Obama is ever caught with one of his crimes, he’ll probably step-down like Nixon did. Once too much information gets out there, Obama will resign. Just my prediction.

    Kev

    1. I mean, it doesn’t make a bit of sense that John Boehner would rather sue Obama instead of impeachment. It’s pretty ridiculous I must say. What is Boehner hiding? What is he afraid of?

      Kev

      1. Something tells me that traitor Speaker Boehner knows way too much about Obama’s crimes than anybody. He’s using the lawsuit as a way to protect Obama if that makes any sense.

        Kev

  4. Anyway, if anything… when Obama gets caught for any of his crimes like Benghazi, Operation F&F, IRS, NSA, etc. he will neither get impeached or resigned. What will happen is that the Sgt. At Arms will probably arrest him. Sgt. At Arms has the power to arrest the president. Remember that. Whenever there’s proof of Obama’s crimes, he’ll get arrested.

    Kev

    1. The Sergeant-at-Arms of the Senate can’t just go over to the White House and arrest Obama. Obama has to violate the rules of the Senate, which means Obama at the very least just stays out of the Senate chamber. Read the websites:

      http://www.senate.gov/reference/office/sergeant_at_arms.htm

      “The Sergeant at Arms is authorized to arrest and detain any person violating Senate rules, including the President of the United States.” Violating Senate rules.

      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sergeant_at_Arms_of_the_United_States_Senate

      “The Sergeant at Arms can, upon orders of the Senate, arrest any person who violates Senate rules.”

      Violates Senate rules.

      Sorry, no go there.

      1. I brought this comment back ’cause I figured I do have something to say about it.

        “The Sergeant at Arms can, upon orders of the Senate, arrest any person who violates Senate rules.”

        Violates Senate rules.

        You’re full of shit like usual, dude. Sorry.

        Barack just did violate the rules of the Senate with the recess appointments. The Supreme Court just proved the recess appointments of the Senate unconstitutional so the Sgt. At Arms can do something about it at any time.

        Sorry. Nice try, though.

        Kev

      2. Recess appointments are not “rules of the Senate.” That’s a constitutional issue.

        Rules of the Senate are things like order in the chamber. If the president was disruptive in the chamber while the Senate was in session, the Sergeant-at-Arms has the authority to arrest him. Or anyone else.

        It does not mean the Sergeant-at-Arms is able to leave the Senate, stroll over to the White House, and arrest the president over a constitutional issue. That’s not his role.

      3. Um, part of the rules of the Senate is obeying the Constitution at all times. What part of that don’t you get? You’re just a delusional liberal like the rest of ’em.

        Kev

      4. I am doing some reading on this right now. Plenty of info that presidents can get arrested over the recess appointments. You guys gotta stop making things up as you go along.

        Kev

      5. Obeying the constitution is not a “rule of the Senate”, it’s a rule of the constitution that the president and Senate both follow. But it’s not something the Sergeant-at-Arms can or needs to enforce. Lots of deliberative bodies have Sergeants-at-Arms, and they’re to keep order within the body’s assembly chamber. Things like when to speak, how to come to order, etc. The S-at-A is there to keep order, not to go arrest people on behalf of the Senate. The federal agencies like the FBI arrest people outside the Senate chamber, usually by order of (wait for it…) the president.

        Obama’s appointments happened in the White House, so the S-at-A has no jurisdiction. You’re not reading the duties of the S-at-A right.

        And I’m not a liberal. You only think I am because I present something you don’t want to hear. That makes you narrow minded.

        Bet you don’t post this, either.

      6. I said it time and time again, that I run my blog how I want to and nobody tells me how to run it. I’m about to post some information and prove you guys wrong. You guys are both way off.

        Kev

      7. It is amazing though how every bad thing that Barack does, it’s either you can never see him get in trouble or don’t want to see him get in trouble no matter the situation. It’s nuts. All you guys do is just make up a bunch of lies and assumptions to make it look like that he can’t get in trouble. That’s he untouchable. I’ve had it. That’s why I delete a lot of your shit.

        Kev

      8. Fuck you if you don’t like it. Barack Obama needs to be held accountable and if you can’t see that. You need help.

        Kev

      9. No one’s defending Obama. It’s just that clutching to absurd notions like the Sergeant-at-Arms of the Senate going over to the White House to arrest him based on a misreading of his duties is what’s getting you disagreements. You’re just wrong. It’s not a support of Obama, it’s correcting your wrong statement.

      10. I’m letting you know that you guys are wrong of you thinking that the rules of the Senate have nothing to do with the Constitution. Part of the rules of the Senate is the Constitution. Read the rules of the Senate yourself. It’s all there. Even the Oath is there.

        When the President is elected, he takes the Oath in which he must preserve, protect and defend the Constitution. That goes for all three branches of government. The Constitution matters. You break the Constitution, you break the rules.

        I don’t think I’ll bother posting the info ’cause all you lunatics gonna do is debunk everything I put out there anyway.

        Kev

      11. I’m about ready to end commenting on my site completely ’cause you guys won’t stop being assholes. You can’t get the hint. I try to get some of you to go away but sure enough you keep trying to come back which further proves that you guys are obsessed with me.

        Kev

      12. What makes you guys believe that you’re right on everything? You’re not my fucking teacher. I will never bow down to you guys. Nobody is smarter than me on here. Remember that.

        Kev

      13. You guys are the biggest egos I’ve ever seen, thinking you’re right on everything. It is my opinion that I think you’re the one who is uninformed on a lot of things and I’m sticking with it. I’ll never let you guys be victorious over me. Never. I’m not that dumb. I know what I’m talking about on everything I post here.

        Kev

Comments are closed.