of anything.

So that's not a concern.

that is an actual relief to be reminded of, because I would not stand for an impeachment with removal

dont know about any of you

... just a majority. You need 2/3 for a conviction. And they'll do an impeachment even if there is no chance of a conviction (see Clinton, Bill).

If for no other reason than this, we need to pass a law banning conservatives from Congress. They're a menace and will do anything at all to hold on to power.

Impeach the Repukes on the court and find a way to expel the Repukes in the House and Senate.

A House impeachment, not backed up by a Senate conviction, would just be a show, as it was for Clinton.

Been there, done that. If the Rethugs do that to two successive Democratic Presidents on such flimsy grounds, they will be a laughingstock.

...you did specify that. I failed to read your post carefully enough. My apologies.

people have to get to the polls. This plausible out come is scary possible. Krotch Brothers and their Libertarian friends are just salivating for this end game to accure. This has been in the planing since 2008. If you think this can't happen,think again,there are just enough of the Hillbilly Bluedog Dems to make it happen. It's all about the MONEY and the power.

own him, so this does drive them nuts.

the problem of course in reality isnt the Koch's as long as we could act as one, we could seize their entire existence if we had the backing of all Americans, but that would require half of this country growing up and acting like adults

and I fear they not only wont do that but are actually incapable.

to date, there are exactly 0 Dems- Blue Dog or otherwise- participating in the #BENGHAZI! madness and I would be genuinely shocked and surprised to see any of them decide to go along with Republicans with impeachment efforts or jump on the #BENGHAZI! madness now. The fact that there are no Dems involved in this madness just illustrates how much of a partisan witch hunt it is.

Yep, and share the evidence of BushCo warcrimes with ICC.

Bush and Cheney and most prominent republicans should be in jail if the Democrats had done what they were suppose to do after W and Cheney committed crime after crime

I dont know what law and order means anymore

... throwing EVERY Repuke in Jail.

OK, before you say it, I'm not American; but surely putting people in prison for their opinions, even bad opinions, is not what happens in a democracy anywhere.

And do you mean just putting Repub politicians in jail, or all Republican citizens?

However, conservatives are a blight on this country. Their opinions, rhetoric and crimes have to be stopped.

Right-wingers are a blot on every country; but we should be trying to defeat them politically, not criminalize them for their opinions; or we become just as right-wing as they are.

I would hope...

The biggest mistake they could make is try to impeach him midway through his final term. It would be a waste of resources and would only make them look bad. Obama's ratings are not at their highest but the American people can tell a witch hunt when they see one.

it wont give me any satisfaction when I am proved right and you wrong

They do not have the political will.

And impeach all they want, they could never ever ever convict in the Senate because they will never ever ever be able to come up with 67 votes.

If the GOP loses seats in the House, the impeachment will occur during the lame duck session just like the attempt made against Clinton.

There is no way that an impeachment will succeed in that it takes 67 votes to convict.

Are you referring to armed insurrection? "War" implies bullets and killings on a mass scale, after all.

If so, how do you imagine it will ignite?

May I point out that armed insurrections in the US have always come from the Right? There's one going on right now in Nevada, and whatever happens it's not going to end well for them.

Tell me what to do and i will do it, they remove Obama because he is Black

and we do what?

As Gore said at the time, "There's no higher legal authority in the land than the SCOTUS, and there was no other legal recourse." (I'm paraphrasing.) In other words, he specifically ruled out leading the populace into the streets and encouraging an escalation, didn't he?

As for impeachment being illegal, Congress makes the laws -- that's why they are called legislators.

Congress is not likely to impeach President Obama. As another poster pointed out, they could have initiated that process at any time prior to this, and they have not. Instead they are trying other means to deny him an effective presidency.

"Tell me what to do and i will do it" -- You decide what you will do in a hypothetical situation. I will not tell you what to do.

I asked the question because I am always curious when any DUer uses the word "war" in the context of our political system and opposing things they disagree with to the point of rage.

Over my lifetime I have observed (from afar, that is from the US) other countries decay into civil war, countries that no one would have predicted would do so. Yugoslavia. Jordan. Rwanda. Others. Countries with an educated middle class population, slugging it out neighbor to neighbor, flattening ordinary neighborhoods into rubble. Then there are the countries that were predictable, but still a shock, like Ireland's euphemistically named "The Troubles." At a certain point I gave up feeling proud to be an Irish-American, and I know too much to romanticize what they did (and in some cases are still doing) to each other in Northern Ireland.

Not here. Not here. Let the Right Wingers froth and foam at the mouth about what they're going to do with their stockpiles of weapons -- don't let that insanity into our discourse, except as a law-enforcement issue.

Our recourse, as always, is to focus on electing Democrats. It's the only game in town. If we want a SCOTUS with a majority of moderate-to-liberal justices on board, we will never attain that unless we elect a Democrat for President. If we want a Congress that will not waste their time and ours, we must vote for electable Democrats.

Think it over. When you figure out what you mean, let me know.

We or Obama or the Dems did nothing when we had a prez and v prez guilty of torture and war crimes...nothing

We did nothing during an 8 yr term of terrorism by W, literal terrorism, laws broken, monies stolen, etc...

And when the Teaparty forces Boehner to impeach Obama over an alleged cover up of Benghazi, regardless of what the Senate does WE will do nothing, in fact i doubt that many more people will even show up to vote in 2016,. one thing we now know for sure is way too many young people wont vote this Nov

i dont want a war, they do...that is why they will remove our prez if they can against the will of the people...

I guess I am more interested in knowing what we will do, lets say they dont impeach him but we lose the Senate...

I am really interested to see if we can survive that, while climate change is killing us slowly but surely...

Again, the last people on the planet who would see violence as an answer are liberals, so it will never be an option whether it should be or not, but you can be sure many on the right are starting it right now, for instance\

I need you to look at this


http://www.rightwingwatch.org/content/tea-party-nation-now-promoting-operation-american-spring

Operation American Spring, the far-right, militia-aligned group that’s planning a pro-coup rally next month to force President Obama out of office by shutting down Washington D.C., got a shout-out this week from Tea Party Nation.

TPN head Judson Phillips emailed members a column — “Declaring War on Americans” — by Alan Caruba, in which he applauds the militias defending the Cliven Bundy ranch and plugs Operation American Spring, while hinting that the demonstration may provoke a violent response from the government.

In 2000, the SCOTUS had some respectability but that respect has been erased by decisions such as Bush v. Gore, Citizens United, the affirmative action case, the latest prayer case and the gutting of the Voting Rights Act.

The SCOTUS will not get involved other than the CJ presiding over the "trial"

1. If the electorate hands a political party a solid enough majority to impeach and convict a president then it can hardly be called "against the will of the people."

2. Who would fight this war?

2a. Not the military. They do not fight on behalf of personalities, they fight on behalf of the Constitution.

2b. Not a bunch of keyboard panic-mongers.

3. Who would be fought against?

3a. An elected body exercising its constitutionally delegated powers? This would effectively declare that the US is a one-party state where all outside parties will be met with military force. In other words, a dictatorship.

3b. The electorate that elected them? See 3a. We would be the western equivalent of North Korea.

4. If Bush was not impeached that was a failure/calculation (i.e. Cheney would be worse) of those who held the authority to hold him to account.

The poster here implies that the majority of Americans decide who runs the house and senate, where have you been?


http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/the-fix/wp/2012/11/09/democratic-house-candidates-winning-the-popular-vote-despite-big-gop-majority/

Democratic House candidates appear to have won more of the popular vote than their Republican counterparts on Tuesday, despite what looks as though it will be a 35-seat GOP majority.

What constitutes "nothing" to you?

You've "been here" since 2008, but have had only a recent burst of what looks like most of your post-count. So I don't know what you were doing before now in terms of reading DU and grasping the level of activity of the posters here since 2008 or even 2001.

There are many who are politically active IRL, and a lot of politics is discussion. Where were you during the Bush/Cheney administration? Many DUers were in a whirl of activity as well as discussion. If you think that is trivial, think again.

Where were you and what were you doing -- in real life?

As for you, you keep dancing around the issue of violence in the here and now. That's what nonsense, and dangerous nonsense at that.

In the blue districts the population is more dense but the GOP won more in their respective congressional districts. Ergo the Democrats won more raw votes but the congressional seats went to the GOP.

Unless you and the WP are implying congressional districts should be apportioned after popular vote tallies, in contravention to the Constitution, I'm not sure what that article is supposed to bring to light.

If a Democratic President can rattle the wingnut's cages that much then he must be doing something right.

Their real target in all of this is stopping Hillary from running in 2016. They are that afraid of her.

and they will do it with Benghazee to their minds, i hate to be right about this stuff but i am willing to bet impeachment begins Feb 2015

whether it ends up like the Clinton impeachment, also an act of terrorism against the USA which we did NOTHING about or if it ends up worse, their target now is Hillary

but dont misunderstand the length they will go to in order to destroy Obama legacy, any lie works for them

The only congressmen calling for impeachment are fringe wackos or suck-ups to wackos.

Even if Obama were impeached and removed, it's still a legitimate government function. We would just have President Biden and have to suck it up. Plus, everybody involved's careers would be ruined.

Even more far-fetched (it's Aliens! Territory), if someone tried to overthrow the White House, they wouldn't make it far. We're one of the world's most stable countries despite what the chicken littles of DU and the Internet might tell you.

there hasnt been a legally elected repub prez since IKE

but our presidents get impeached over nothing every time

things are much worse than you seem to think, much

By that same logic, wouldn't no Democrat be legally elected either? What is illegal about the elections?

Also, only two Presidents have been impeached, one of which was Clinton. I'd hardly call that "every time." It's just fairly recent.

FYI, no President has ever been kicked out of office. It's unprecedented territory. Nixon might have been, but even that's debatable.

ilegally is the wrong word, the public voted for these piles of filth based on what they thought they knew and they didnt know the shit behind the scenes and had they neither would be elected

They have a public image which is totally disconnected from their true self. This is even true for Obama, and was for Clinton, Gore, etc.

I would surmise that, if we knew everything about all politicians, elections would have a 0.0001% turnout. That doesn't make their positions any less official. It just means that they're deceitful. In a way, you have to be to win.

When Raygun told the Iranians to HOLD ON to the hostages until AFTER the election so he could beat Carter, does that fit into your idea there?

When Nixon negotiated with the NORTH VIETNAMESE sabotaging the Peace Talks so he could be elected, how about that one?

Of course it was their minions who did the actual talking or doing, but these cases are now accepted universally as fact

There's a difference between doing something that's wrong morally and not being elected legitimately. It seems like your opinion is from a moral standpoint, which, while having merit, has nothing to do with law or the legitimacy of a president in the eyes of the law.

You can believe that a President is not legitimate because they lied or pulled scummy tricks, but at the end of the day it's the law that matters. To be unethical doesn't mean your presidency is illegal or that you stole an election.

You don't win by that much just with electoral shenanigans.

If you knew Nixon had interfered with peace talks so as to gain an advantage in the election, would you have voted for him?

If you had known that behind the scenes Rayguns idiot minions were making a DEAL with the hostage takers in Iran?

DimBulb provably lost in 2000 once all the votes were counted.

If they've got enough to impeach and remove Obama, then they won't hesitate to make it a clean sweep and remove Biden too. Which would leave whom as next in line? Boener as the Speaker of the House I believe.

This scenario is totally far-fetched. Arbitrary impeachment has never happened before, and I doubt anyone would get away with it. They might try to fish for a reason to impeach him, but what they were doing would be pretty obvious. Plus, they would essentially be crashing the government.

Anyone worrying about this is wasting their time. Even if they wanted to, they couldn't. The "impeachment" stuff comes from arch-Conservatives pandering to their nut job base and hyperbole, and nothing more. Nothing is stopping the Republicans from trying to impeach Obama now, and yet they don't.

As I said in my post IF they've got enough to impeach and convict Obama, they could impeach and convict Biden too. And so what if it were obvious? Fascists (and the right wing in this country is coming closer and closer to fascism every hour) are only concerned with the fig leaf. IOW, they won't need a reason, just an excuse.

The Ukrainian model, more or less, is what would be used here.

we wont do anything, we never do...read my other posts about that, if we did do anything W would be in jail

Even if the GOP won EVERY ELECTION this cycle (they won't, because there are some safe Dem seats), they'd still be one vote short of the 67 they need.

Obama isn't going anywhere.

tell the truth, when you FIRST heard of this guy and that he was running for PREZ and he was Black and had that name

didnt you say "No Way"

be President, so I should be mindful of his convention speech which was upcoming.

Your Illinois cousin was spot on. I just didn't think he'd be president so soon.

Other than that just a bunch of ifs and hyperbole that are highly unlikely to happen.

... buzzwords with no backup content.

Terrorist? I know, it isnt popular to call them this, which word should I use?

Is the way you keep dancing around the call for violence in this thread.

Pardon me if I find that provocative. Except for the fact that your (apparent) lack of factual knowledge pegs you as young, I keep wanting to check your resume for a stint with COINTELPRO.

Agent Mike would be more adept at playing with our minds, though.

What's to stop a "Ukraine" situation from developing? The militias are already planning a big shindig in DC this month. What if it works? Disrupt the government, threaten the President and VEEP and run them out of town along with most of the Democrats except for some compliant Blue Dogs for non-partisan cover. What's left of Congress impeaches and convicts Obama and Biden leaving Boener as President. Then send out the militia under the guise of "civil activists" to quell anybody who might have a problem with it.

What then?

However, to refer to political opponents as "terrorists" is counterproductive.

"Terrorism" is already a term with an unacceptably vague definition. In practice, the Government applies the term to certain types of violent threat or crime, but not to others. "Terrorist" has come to mean "people or demographics we don't like or wish to exploit." Using that term for the radical right serves to further enshrine this usage. This is very problematic, because naming someone a "terrorist" is like giving the Government a "Get Out of Due Process Free" card.

Can't we just call them assholes?

I just think someone like Paul Ryan or that dipshit who will run the Benghazi hearings or Issa fit the definition perfectly...

Intentional, overt, relentless attempts to destroy the economy and social structure of America...

But if it will get more traction to call them something else, OK with me.

https://twitter.com/DidTheyLetUVote

I think that the erosion of the wall between mainstream and crazytown Republicans that happened during teh Bush years has caused teh whole party to be taken over by the whackos. I honestly think they would be nearly as extreme to any president with a (D) after his name. That's not to say that his ethnicity doesn't add a certain amount of heat but I honestly think if he had done everything exactly the same but had an (R) after his name, they'd be fellating him at the only begotten son of Reagan.

The Senate wouldn't remove Obama anyway. IIRC, a two-thirds majority is needed and while Republicans are projected to win some, there's no way they're going to win that many. Of course, teh House will probably impeach him just for Presidenting While Democratic.

By "We," of course, I mean our Democratic leadership.

It is overwhelming how much of a pussy the Democratic Party has become

and each time we let them steal from us, steal elections, commit crimes all day long, they get bolder and do it right out in the open because they know we wont do anything

We steal an election and you do nothing? Hell, then we are going to lie about WMD and murder hundreds of thousands and steal oil.

Guess what we did about that, we chased Phil Donahue out of show business and the Dixie chicks as well, but the murderers are building libraries and writing books and living lives of luxury you and I cant imagine.

Makes me angrier by the minute

He has to be convicted of something. That means they need to have actual Evidence of a crime.

Rumors, innuendo and ideological disagreement do not make the grade when it come to impeachment. And it has to be something that is believable be the public.

At least Clinton actually did lie about something. Obama hasn't even done that.

The House is not interested in it. The Senate certainly is not. The only place I have ever seen the word "impeachment" is on DU.

but just in case, I would ask what our reaction would be, but it doesnt matter about that either because we wont do anything anyway

mark this thread maybe for next year?

not sure how to do that but I guess I have a bookmark I can do, let me see if i can figure out how to do that again

found it, bookmarked

OK, you are all right and I am wrong...

To the person that said what would the charge be, good question, not sure. Maybe they would just make one up within the framework of Benghazi, not sure.

I love that under W there were multiple embassy attacks and deaths and not ONE republican cared who said what the day after, and they wont care when (god help us) the next stolen election gives them another repub prez if that happens

My question was what IF (I know I said when, so you disagree it wont happen, but what if it does)...

Lets recap, the majority of Americans agree with the dem party on just about everything including gun control, and yet we get nothing that we want, why is that?

So what, I say let them impeach him no biggie. It is not like the pubs will do anything to help the 99% so they might as well busy themselves with impeachment at least they won't be looking for ways to f over the poor.

If I am a Black person in America and the racist filth remove the first Black president for doing absolutely nothing while garbage like W and Cheney CONTINUE to walk free and build libraries about themselves, If I am that person I am pissed beyond getting over it in a few days.

I think it is a problem that most white folks wouldnt fully understand.

Bush and Cheney but he decided to give them a pass.

Take it up with the President he is the one who let them off the hook. If it were up to me Bush and Cheney would be in jail, the GOTEA would be a terrorist organization and all members and supporters of the party would be in jail and all assets seized.

Here is some of the e-mail

There's a book coming out soon, and Republicans are really excited about it. Here's a hint about why: It's about impeaching the President. The thesis is -- well, let me quote it for you:

"Impeachment is not about what the law allows. Impeachment is a matter of political will."

..... Republicans have nothing but the political will to block our President's agenda. In fact they have no real will to do anything else (like their jobs as elected representatives of the American people), and it appears that they'll stop at nothing.

It's up to Democrats to prevent this -- pitch in $10 or more right now to stand with President Obama and help elect Democrats who will fight for him, too.

This isn't about just one loony book. They're talking about impeachment on Fox News and other conservative outlets, and Republicans in Congress have been using the "I-word" for years. (If you can't beat 'em, impeach 'em, I guess?)

If we're fighting against the focused, collective power of the entire Republican Party, let me tell you, we've got to be a lot more worried than we are now. They're going to block President Obama's agenda, they're going to try to repeal laws like Obamacare that have helped so many of us, and once again they're talking about impeachment. If you thought that Democrats could win elections without fighting back against this kind of thing, I have some bad news for you.

as it kills two birds in their twisted minds

a. hurts Hillary, but it wont
b. damages Obama legacy, but it wont either