... but that is certainly a chilling article by Jonathan Capehart. Yes, I have no doubt that the Tea Party would use impeachment as a political tool, instead of a legal remedy (that the Democrats should have used during Bush's term). Should the Senate be flipped to the Tea Party infused GOP, I have little doubt that they would attempt to convict, however, I'm not so sure they would have the two-thirds necessary to convict.

But just the spectacle is frightening.

Last edited Sat Jun 21, 2014, 02:28 AM - Edit history (1)

But, it would be the final nail in their collective coffin...

I think the majority of the American people would see it for what it is--willful and intentional hatred of the Elected President. Not for legal reasons either, mind you, but because that makes for good politics among their lowbrow, uneducated racist base.

So yes, I can see this happening. They would forfeit the next election cycle almost without question, likely the White House after that, and since they put Impeachment (SEE--investigation and prosecution for crimes committed against The People and Constitution),BACK on the table I would bet like hell that SOMEBODY would get themselves dragged in front of a Congressional WarCrimes Inquest as soon as Dem's retook the Congress.

At, least any Democratic led Congress that would have the least little bit of self-respect...

I Hope they try it...

Just like the Government shut-down, vote suppression, & their Holy Grail; Benghazi; Impeachment would drive us to the Motivated frenzy we need to be in for 2014 & 2016... plus it would continue to scare the shit out of every Moderate & center-right sane Republican left ...

Go ahead, make my day; punk!!!!

Where? They'd be rare enough to equal male calico cats.

welcome any such suicidal move by the GOP. It would be sort of like Selma.

and new Kings of America. Look at all the power they have to destroy the democracy. We should all be very afraid...We are powerless to stop them...We'll be forced to act like the Sunnis did to the Shia. If divide and destroy government is the goal of these idiots they will end up destroying themselves. They got nothing on Obama and for once they are in the minority and transparent. I refuse to be afraid because of this conjecture. Let no one forget how republicans have destroyed the nation at every chance we gave them. Compared to the damage republicans have already caused impeachment is miniscule.

I would argue that at least half of the President's agenda would have been passed already, but for the fact that he's declared a Democrat.
It's not that Republicans don't want these things done or that they think they are bad policy ideas, they just don't want anyone else getting credit for passing them.
That's how callous, crass and childish they are.
If rank and file Democrats had any sense of self preservation, they would be pointing this out on a nearly hourly basis, and the President would wake up every morning, walk down to the white house press room, and review all the dumb or hateful things the GOP did in the last 24 hours.
That that isn't happening is an indication of how crass and callous OUR side can be. It's why impeachment was "off the table".

If they waste our time with another impeachment charade people will surely go midevil on their lame asses. Revolt will happen and people will protest outside the homes of those idiots. And I totally agree...focus on 2014 not 2016. I wish Hillary would fade into the background and stop absorbing the airwaves.

We make fun of the French, but the don't Fuck around when it comes to protests.

We should all be the French!

I'm really, really liberal. And I believe in representative democracy. That's why, regardless of the 'greater evil' of whatever Republican presidential ticket is propped up for 2016, I absolutely will not vote for Hilary Clinton.

Family political dynasties are anathema to the democratic process. Well, so are two permanently institutionalized political parties, but family dynasties are particularly ugly consequences of that type of system.

I absolutely cannot bring myself to vote for a presidential candidate who is the spouse of a former President. Period. Or a son or daughter. It's deeply corrupting.

And neither can touch RFK or his brother.

For the first time in my life, I would vote for a candidate for president who is not a member of either of the two dominant parties. I'm very, very tired of always voting for the 'lesser of two evils.' In this case, I strenuously believe that a spouse of a former President who has been angling for a shot at becoming the President herself for years is not a person who should hold the office.

I haven't voted Republican for decades, and that's not a possibility, but I will, if necessary, and with a clear conscience, vote for a third party candidate.

difference between the two parties.

That is the kind of logic that gave us bush and the republican takeover.

and yes, you will be irrelevant in that case

Have a good day

The remarkable thing is that you are condemning me already for saying that I have a moral aversion to voting for one particular possible candidate for the office of the President of the United States. Two years before the election.

I won't 'join Ralph Nader.' If it comes to it, I'll vote my conscience.

The Democratic party has become virtually enslaved by Wall Street, while the Republican party is as well, moreso, while opportunists without a concept of a conscience, and, in some cases, just rabid lunatics, fill its ranks.

So yes, there is a difference. However, as I grow older and, perhaps/perhaps not, wiser, the actual differences are becoming blurrier.

the Democratic candidate if it is Hillary, which the odds say it will be.

If the nominee was a overt racist I could buy it. Obviously, you do not believe what she is saying now, so there is nothing to convince you otherwise. However, if you look at Obama, his policies are not the same as they were in his first four years, and yes, he has moved more toward a progressive approach especially in regards to war, the environment, gay rights, women's rights, etc. Hillary has professed a similar transition in her current interviews.

The Democratic party has become enslaved by wall street? I don't think so. Dodd/Frank is not something wall street is thrilled about, and it is a start, same with the ACA. Yes, I know everyone wanted Medicare for all and repeal of Glass Steagall(sic), etc. but that was not going to happen with the blue dogs in the party, and the reasoning from Obama was it is better to get something through than nothing.

You are right there are too much special interests involved in our political system, and thanks to "citizens united", it is worse than ever. However, the only way progressives are going to get control is if they are able to capture back some states that used to be traditionally blue like Ohio. Actually, the dynamics are moving slowly in some traditional red states, and as demographics change, which they inevitably will, we should see a more progressive transition in power provided we don't lose some key positions, and the Presidency is one of those. Yes, I am going to name the Supreme Court, which has been a large contributor to the "wall street" takeover that you rightly dislike. The next president will determine the Supreme Court.

American citizens not actively engaged in direct hostilities with American forces should be a very clear example of a 'High Crime and Misdemeanor.' It's just plain murder. But, in the absence of prosecution of Bush administration officials for war crimes, it looks like the bar has been raised way too high for 'national security ' crimes.

If the House of Representatives actually impeached the President, it might just be the permanent end of the Republican Party, so I'm all for it. There's absolutely no way, as in the Clinton case, that the Senate would confirm, and the whole thing would stink to high heaven to the American people. Except the 'Tea Party,' which is a fringe fad that'll fade quickly enough when there is no longer an African American man in the White house. So - I don't see a downside.

outcome would be a 1 vote majority for the repukes, and that won't convict

It is a waste of time and money

They're fucking deranged loon bastards but don't count on dems to back Obama up like the rightwing covered Reagan and bush the greater and lesser. And I concerned on these troops going back to Iraq for a number of reasons but one of them is they will be on Obama's ass if one gets killed or kills a civilian or gets captured. That story and the optics that would go along with it would bring dems on board. This is why I am not impressed with the new found anti war sentiment from the loons. They are gearing up for a repeat of the fall of Saigon. I hope Obama had this figured out. So far I have backed most of his foreign policy decisions. If he escalates this dems are not going to back him up.

If the Right Wing gets a majority, its not a given it will pass. Impeachment trial in the Senate is 2/3 majority, but its also a double edged sword and the right knows it. Impeaching a President who becomes a lame duck, accomplishes nothing, but if a right winger becomes president and a majority of Dems control house then they are always on the hot seat...

to 'debate' for months. One technique of disinformation is to create the appearance of a real event and keep talking about it as if it is real... The GOP knowing their minions as they do, know this will be enough to convince them that there must be something there.

He is fear mongering and nothing else.

I wouldn't place any bets!

Impeachment would be insanity. They wouldn't get one Democratic senator to support that.

Was Gore persuaded to put Lieberman on the ticket?

Joe was anointed to secure the Jewish vote and money, that's just politics.
The irony was the hanging chad votes came from a heavily Jewish area of Fla. and the poorly crafted ballot was
I believe fabricated by a Dem. Two mistakes that changed history.

We should've purged the party of them after the Iraq War vote.

The Jewish vote has been reliably Democratic for quite some time now. I think he chose holy joe because joe was the democrat who came out and loudly criticized Clinton for the Monica mess. It was Gore's way to try and shield himself from that.

and, would be the focus of media attention while important issues like jobs were put further back on the backburner

Conviction in the Senate requires a 2/3rds majority. Even if Republicans win a small majority, they will not have 67 votes to convict for some random bullshit from the House.

If he's talking about impeachment but no conviction, we've seen that story before. It didn't go well for the Republicans, and there's no reason to believe it would go well for them now. For example, Republicans are much less popular than Obama. Teabaggers poll even worse. The only thing polling worse than teabaggers is Congress.

All impeachment would do is make people more angry at Republicans.

Really, aside from the idiocy of this article in thinking 2/3 of the Senate would ever vote to convict, it completely ignores the huge political risk it would be to attempt impeachment.

and that will set him up well to be elected in 2016.

It would be a suicidal leap for the tea baggers...

I mean, they can't actually use the vague nonsense they use to smear him with can they? I thought this avenue required actual specific charges backed up by some sort of proof, but I suppose it has been several decades since civics classes and I could be mistaken.

The House has to lay out specific charges in it's impeachment vote. They don't have to be true.
The Senate has to hold a trial, and then they can vote to convict on the false charges.

What stops such is the realization that it would really piss off the electorate.

Thank you for the answer, however depressing the truth may be.
Kangaroo court it is then, so the fight is all about denying them two thirds of the senate vote, I hope that will be as difficult as it sounds.

Not enough Democratic seats up for election for them to win a 67 seat majority.

The President is subject to impeachment for high crimes and misdemeanors. The Constitution gives no clue what that means. What are "high crimes and misdemeanors"? One would think that impeachment should at least require it was a high crime. In our legal system misdemeanors are usually subject to a lesser punishment. I would have expected the President could be censured or something like that for "misdemeanors". But it isn't clear that the crime has to be one that is specifically enunciated in the U.S. Code.

But even with that the Republicans will not have a 2/3 majority to convict. I like Mr. Capehart but he is fantasizing here. While they might be able to peel off 2-3 Democrats in very red states they would never get 2/3 unless Obama does something that is truly worthy of impeachment and removal from office.

gives no examples of high crimes and misdemeanors.

The Democratic Party refuses to acknowledge that they are under siege.

Please, everyone, stop speculating and second-guessing, and GET TO WORK for Democratic candidates in 2014!

...which is what removing Obama from office requires.
There is every reason to GOTV this fall, but fear-mongering lies are dishonest and RWesque.

I have started noticing more and more recently that an undercurrent is present on DU that I have not seen in my 8+ years of lurking around here. I have always been aware of the mindless lemming syndrome of right wing noise machines - there is an easily discernible pattern to anyone who wants to see it, something like this:

- I heard "X"
- Yeah, I believe "X"
- Yeah, all "Y" love "X" and I hate that and them because of it!
- "X" is the down fall of humanity and "Y's" eat the children of their enemies!!!
- ZOMG! "Y" is the reason for "Z" too!
- (objection made)
- HEATHEN!!! YOU ARE SO "Y" IT'S MAKING ME QUIVER!!!

Lather. Rinse. Repeat.
Lately, I have seen more and more of it, a lot more even than the ugliness of Hilliary-Barack 2007-2008.

The acceptance of nonsense without facts is deplorable.
The cheerleading of nonsense without facts is Republican.

Don't forget the real enemy here....we need to focus on staying reality based and pointing out the cases where the GOP is clearly off the reservation and in imaginary world (Benghazi, IRS, Birthers, Teahaddists, Women's rights, Immigration, Equal rights for all, etc.).

When the truth is on your side, the hardest thing to do is to keep on point because it can be boring compared to the wild eyed charges spewed out on the right...but the correct move is to put them in the spotlight for what they are and avoid embellishing and fighting the same style. That does not mean be passive, it just means be smart in our attacks and avoid unnecessary hyperbole.

It also means staying together in common cause, even if we disagree over common tactics at times. The right wing is united behind a bunch of raving lunatics...I think we on the left can do a better job of avoiding their model...

Last edited Mon Jun 23, 2014, 05:40 PM - Edit history (1)

will the impeachment proceedings be the focus of the media, or will things like jobs, climate change, repairing the infrastructure, etc be the focus?

Republicans knew they'd never get 67 votes against Bill Clinton, either, but they kept at it.

They were tossed out next election, and Clinton's favorability #'s reached the highest of his presidency.
For sure an Obama impeachment would be a media circus. And Dems will for sure be pointing out the "do-nothing" House is wasting time and money on a baseless and partisan political stunt.
They may or may not try it... who knows? If they're looking bad in polls they may do it to throw red meat at their wingnut base. But the chances of a guilty verdict by the Senate is zero, and the GOP would again pay the consequences the following election.... independents, and even a few republicans, will correctly view an impeachment as a cheap and pointless stunt.

I could swear that in the next election (i.e. 2000) the GOP got (stole) the WH, and held onto both the Senate (or at least a tie, which was de-facto control w/Cheney as VP) & House.

IIRC, it wasn't until Jeffords switched parties that Dems took charge of the Senate in either late 2001 or early 2002 (iirc) by one vote.

They may've lost some seats but they (sadly) didn't get 'tossed out' of power in the 2000 election. Though they sure as shit should've (from the Senate & WH), for obvious (theft) reasons.

... a couple of which were part of the 13 House impeachment managers. A couple more lost Senate races in 2000. And Dems held on to 50/50 Senate, which gave Dems control when Jeffords switched. Gore lost, due to several factors, but it's debateable whether locking away Clinton during the election helped or hurt him. Clinton's poll numbers rose during and after the impeachment. So yes, it bit the republicans in the ass. At least they had a charge, albeit feeble. Can you imagine the House impeaching Obama over Benghazi, his birth certificate, or PWB? The GOP House members would be a laughingstock (moreso than now).

caught several prominent Republicans in a snare as well. House Speaker Livingston stepped down after being exposed to having had numerous affairs and the new House Speaker Gingrich was outed as an adulterer as was impeachment official Senator Hyde. Rep. Dan Burton's love child was exposed to the world and Rep. Helen Chenoweth also was cornered into admitting a long affair with a married man. If Obama's charged with any specific 'crimes', it's a sure bet that they're ones Republican presidents have also committed. Politicians can't afford to throw stones. They all live in glass houses.

The 2013 shutdown pissed off the electorate to no end. If they hold a shutdown close to the election and it gets pinned on the GOP, all the gerrymandering in the world won't save their majority.

That's teabagger SOP, tho; they blame Obama for things that he's not responsible for.

Consider the infamous light bulb ban. Every teabagger in the world is convinced President Obama signed a law that will force them to go through their houses and unscrew their old-fashioned light bulbs. Problem with that theory is, the law was signed in 2007 - when Obama was still a senator. "But...but...but he VOTED for that law!" Yes he did, and so did enough other senators and congressmen to put the law on Bush's desk. And apparently he thought the law was a good thing or he would have vetoed it.

In the non-teabagger world, the majority rightly blame the GOP for shutting down the government. And there aren't enough teabaggers to swing the vote all by themselves.

Very few things set up a presidential candidate for re-election like incumbency does. If Obama is impeached and convicted, Biden becomes President. Since this would have to happen after the mid-way point of Obama's second term, it would mean that Biden would be eligible for two more terms as President after finishing Obama's term. By impeaching Obama, Republicans could be setting the country up for an additional 8 years of Democratic presidency.

That Bush and Cheney live and walk freely.

-p

impeachment, the American public will shred you like the chickenhawks in the salad you are. Give it a go, I'm game.

How about you?

That could be a problem, given that there will not be any more republican presidents for the foreseeable future. We are turning into one of those intractable nations where democracy just refuses to take root. Kind of like Iraq.

We voted for this President.

If Republicans are going to try to impeach every Democratic president, what they are really saying is they do not accept the sovereignty of the American people - i.e. they are opposed to democracy.

So, I'm up for a trip to D.C. to oppose the House in such actions. Let's have mass arrests of citizens who are demonstrating against a House that refuses to acknowledge the will of the voter by blocking access to their offices.

If they want to do this shit, we can respond.

will be subject to scandals, upteenth investigations, series of blame games especially anything whatsoever dealing with American deaths/Embassy attacks, et al. Anything whatsoever that GOPers feel is not in their interest, screw the America and its people, they will always try and impeach.

Then to claim they are only doing what "The American People*" WANT them to do.

* The small minority of purple with rage idiots who believe Republican propaganda.

Do you seriously think that DUers who spend sometimes hours but at least minutes almost every day reading about politics are going to stay home and not vote in an election?

That is the most absurd thing I can imagine.

This should be posted on FaceBook and sites that are not political in nature. But on DU?

Why?

other Democratically-minded citizens to register to vote, and then to actually vote, and, beyond voting, to really work to get Democrats elected in this very important election.

My speculation of 2016 in no way impedes me from working, donating and voting in the midterms.

The off-year election in 2014 consists of a large number of district-level and state-level fights. The appropriate national focus for these fights is the crazy obstructionism of Republicans in Congress and the resulting dysfunctionality of the national legislature: we want people to notice Congress, and so most messaging should cleanly involve what's been happening in Congress -- the Republicans, for example, are so committed to posturing that they ignore the national interest

I suppose if we lose 2014, that could produce impeachment moves in the House, but (as posters here have pointed out up-thread) such moves would discredit Republicans and so seem unlikely. Moreover, I see no upside to speculating about how Republicans might act in 2015 and 2016, when we have so many examples to use showing how they are currently acting and have recently acted

“@CapehartJ: RT @TPM: South Dakota Republican party calls for Obama's impeachment http://bit.ly/UZDl93 <— ahem….”

https://twitter.com/capehartj/status/480467502997438464

The House might be stupid enough to impeach, but they'll never get 67 votes to convict in the Senate.
An impeachment will carry all the weight of the 53 House votes to repeal Obamacare... where did they end up?

After almost SIX YEARS of trying to hang a scandal on Obama's administration the GOP stooges have failed to file a single credible indictment much less secure a conviction on any high ranking administration official.
The ethical purity of this administration is unprecedented.

If Republicans take the Senate, they will do this. But they won't and they will lose the House too because Americans are sick of this shit and will put an end to it in November. At least I hope so.

Myself, the first thought in my mind every morning is how can I stick it to the GOP today?

There's no way Republicans will have 2/3rds of the Senate. The article points out you need 2/3rds in the Senate to remove a president, and then says Obama could be removed.

Basically, it's full of shit.

Thanks also to Jonathan Capeheart for his "wake-up call"

We need to remember that these Teapublicans in Congress are the same bunch that has worked to sabotage President Obama on every single issue since day one of his presidency.

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2012/06/08/1098434/-Eric-Cantor-Paul-Ryan-Kevin-McCarthy-Plot-To-Sabotage-US-Economy-with-Frank-Luntz/

However, many actual conservative republicans claim that a move to impeach Obama would spell certain damage to the Republican party in 2014 or 2016. I feel like some in the GOP sense that it would be a suicidal move to beat Hillary if they try to vote in the House for impeachment of Obama. Im still convinced that most run of the mill republicans dont have the balls to do it. They talk a big game.

republican party has become

and LISTENING to the 99% instead of Goldman Sachs, Bill Gates, and others who can afford to buy politicians.

Obama needs to get more creative and daring with executive action that works around Republican obstruction.

convict. Not sure where Capehart's math is coming from

Dick Cheney tells us that Obama is guilty of treason. I'm confident these lunatics can find grounds for impeachment. That action by the house will drive the economy into the ground and embolden our enemies at home (eg the the South) and abroad whatever the Senate does.

The thin margins caused in part by Left disengagement and Nader votes allowed the theft of our nation to occur, and thus 8 years of wanton death and destruction that is still being cleaned up today.

And people on this thread say they'll sit it out or cast protest votes AGAIN? Christ on a hockey puck, really?

No, seriously, really?

The hard left does not want the hard right to win.

Worry about independents in the center, whom Obama is to the right of. These are young voters. These are the ones who will stay home when forced to chose between someone to their right or far right.