The most memorable part of ex-Sen. Dale Bumper’s (D-AR) speech in defense of Bill Clinton during his Senate impeachment trial was the following:
It was a breach of his family trust. It is a sex scandal. H.L. Mencken said one time, “When you hear somebody say, ‘This is not about money,’ it’s about money.”
(LAUGHTER)
And when you hear somebody say, ‘This is not about sex,’ it’s about sex.
It wasn’t actually about sex. It was about political power. The Republican Party lost a little power by insisting on impeaching Bill Clinton but it probably helped them “win” the presidency two years later.
Impeaching Obama could actually repeat that trend. It would severely hurt the GOP’s prospects in November by outraging moderates and motivating Democrats, but it would define the status quo as illegal, thereby giving a leg-up to the 2016 presidential contenders. This is what the Obama administration didn’t understand when they let the torturers go scot-free.
It depends. Best case would be that impeachment costs the Republicans the House. That be the end of the impeachment, and then the Democrats would have a chance to show the voters what a functional Congress can do.
But yes, if the Republicans hold the House it will be a lot more complicated. I’m not really concerned that this is going to sweep Rand Paul or Ted Cruz into the White House, but I am concerned about the damage that they’re doing to our institutions.
Democrats had that chance in 2008-2010, but Harry Reid blew it and Obama didn’t have the experience to be effective.
Never again will I vote to elect someone without executive experience to become President. My candidate would have to have been a Governor, Mayor, high General or Admiral, someone who knows how to force things to be done instead of debating.
I think it would be different this time. At least with Clinton they had a big scandal to make hay out, even if it was still an absurd farce. This is different – they have nothing on Obama. The court of public opinion would be entirely against them. The country would explode with outrage. And the idea of impeaching the first black President… well, no one outside the hardcore RWNJs should even want to contemplate going down that road.
And meanwhile they’re refusing to do anything about climate change, immigration, gun violence, the economy, and pretty much everything else.
I fear that only part of the country would explode with outrage — the part that is already outraged at Republicans, not just for talking about impeachment but for their obstruction in general, plus a few more people who weren’t paying attention. Another part of the country would yawn. And another part of the country would cheer.
Gingrich and his crowd used Clinton to trivialize both impeachment and the office of independent prosecutor, killing two birds with one stone. Part of me wishes Obama would act like the dictator the GOP says he is, so the GOP can watch their defanged protections against presidential tyranny fail them.
This is why we have to hold the Senate. The House has and will most likely keep the simple majority in the chamber and the judiciary committee. They can and most likely will draw up articles of impeachment, and get them passed. If we maintain control of the Senate, then that’s as far as it goes, right? But if we lose control of the Senate, then….
I think a vote of conviction requires 2/3 not a simple majority.
Article 1 Section 3:
Given how hard they continue to go to bat for the deep state in all its scandals, might there be a gun at someone’s head, figuratively speaking?
The political fallout of a military brass mutiny at the start of the administration seems to have been a political danger, given the performance of the corrupt generals (McChrystal, Petraeus, Alexander…) who have been cashing in on their government “training” and information.
If they don’t bring the lawsuit/impeachement up before the August recess, maybe President Obama should call the Congress back in session to get the appropriations done and hold them there until election day if they don’t. At least give them a pouty unpopular reason instead of just drifting into it.
figurative gun, I’d guess yes. do you have any thoughts how this might relate to current situation in Ukraine?
Clinton was amoral and had lied. ( I didn’t give a shyt, but this is what it was).
Barack Obama is guilty only of being President while Black.
period.
Probably applies to every President with the possible exception of Jimmy Carter. Certainly applied to FDR and LBJ.
So Watergate wasn’t about a burglary and subsequent coverup?
Imagine that.
(With Clinton, it was about perjury.)
An ordinary crime, not a High (State) Crime.
Continuing my previous thought, Watergate was about using Presidential power to thwart justice, thus being a High Crime. If Nixon personally had burgled someone’s home to steal say a diamond ring, it would be a crime but not a High Crime. Covering for someone who burgled the ring by using his office would be a High Crime as would using his governmental powers to to cover up his own crime. If Clinton had sent the FBI or NSA to steal the court records or intimidate a witness that would be a High Crime. If he just bribed a witness with his own cash, it would be an ordinary crime.