It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.


Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.


Sestak White House scandal called 'impeachable offense'

page: 3
<< 1  2   >>

log in


posted on May, 27 2010 @ 12:31 PM
reply to post by Benevolent Heretic

BH, I think you are in serious denial if you are quick to conclude everything was in the up and up.
I guess to you a bribe is a bribe except when a Democrat is in the White House.

Or perhaps you wish to refer to the incidents that have led to this "scandal" as nothing but a "facilitation favor".
Sorry, please forgive my bad semantics.

How can say people are grasping for straws when even Democrats are beginning to chime in on this:

Even Democrats acknowledge that more information should be released, going by the logic that If nothing nefarious took place, then actually revealing that activity shouldn't be a problem. The quickest way to confirm that no criminal statutes were violated -- as the White House insists -- is to simply offer a more detailed explanation.

Source: Huffington Post

It's time to quit denying and start facing the music, no matter how hard it may be.

posted on May, 27 2010 @ 12:44 PM

Originally posted by Portugoal
So if Sestak is telling the truth, Obama can be impeached. The people that really hate him should be jumping on this soon.

Oh, yes, because hate is a necessary emotion to determining whether or not he should legally be impeached for once again offering up bribery.

Hate is an emotion. Bribery is against the law.

Did it ever occur to you that we dislike his politics for reasons such as this? It's not like one has to dig very far to find a questionable decision, atrocious use of taxpayer funds, or out and out blatant lying to occur.

But no, none of that can be the reason.
And I'm sure this entire Sestak situation will be nothing more than conservative propaganda, right?

One thing people should keep in mind -- having a dysfunctional government, whether you agree or disagree with the current flavor in the White House, helps nobody!

Even those of us that don't like what Obama does can surely admit that having a lame duck President constantly embattled in one controversy after another makes for good fodder, but is not good for business.

I believe we have had plenty to talk about in the last year, but not much has actually been accomplished that benefited anyone -- Democrats, Republicans, Independents, etc.

Wishing a President, YOUR President, to fail is about the most anti-patriotic one can get in my opinion. However, that being said, it doesn't mean you just try to continue to prop him up, cross your fingers, and hope you don't go down with the ship.

At some point your love of country has to rise above your love of status quo. Which in this case, is merely letting yet another President run wild, taking it, and praying you can remain above water until the next election rolls around.

Did it ever occur to anyone that the ship can actually sink?

posted on May, 27 2010 @ 02:12 PM
Clinton was impeached. He wasn't kicked out of office. Food for thought.

posted on May, 27 2010 @ 02:18 PM

^^Update. Obama's going to explain himself shortly.

posted on May, 27 2010 @ 02:58 PM

Originally posted by Alxandro
BH, I think you are in serious denial if you are quick to conclude everything was in the up and up.

Thanks for sharing. It's just what I THINK. In the absence of further information, there's no way we can know. And why are you so concerned with how I feel, anyway? It's really none of your business.

How can say people are grasping for straws when even Democrats are beginning to chime in on this:

I'm not a Democrat and I think Democrats are corrupt, too. The fact that Democrats are also concerned doesn't change what I think. Democrats don't tell me how to think. Nobody does.

It's time to quit denying and start facing the music, no matter how hard it may be.

What music is that?

posted on May, 27 2010 @ 06:58 PM
So bribing Congressmen to vote a certain way on a vote is OK, but bribing someone to throw an election is an impeachable offense?

Both should be in my opinion.


posted on May, 27 2010 @ 07:21 PM

Originally posted by Rowsdowerr
Just remember the media/Democrat outrage over Bush's firing of the attorneys and Bush had every right to do so. Yet, over and over again we see the media turn a blind eye to Obama's indiscretions. Where is the outrage? Once again, we're seeing a completely inconsistent reaction to Obama's response, compared to the way Bush was treated. Are you all starting to see how utterly manipulated you all were and continue to be?

Bush fired the AGs out of nowhere, not at the beginning of a term, as was the custom when the WH changes political parties. The AGs got sacked because they wouldn't play ball with Karl Rove. Apples and oranges comparison.

The WH likely offered the deal to Sestek before they realized how weak Specter would be in the primary. I don't think they really cared who won, they just thought Specter could win reelection, and would prefer Sestek to keep his safe seat. As someone said, this offer to Sestek is pure politics, and nothing out of the ordinary.

The AG in New Mexico getting fired because he wasn't turning the US Attorney's office into another political arm for Rove to bring trumped up charges against political enemies is much worse.

The comparisons to watergate are hilariously out of step with reality.

posted on May, 28 2010 @ 09:13 PM
If Obama is not impeached over this blatant crime, I would be surprised. This IS bigger than Watergate.

posted on May, 28 2010 @ 09:34 PM
You're off your rocker. I'm watching Fox News and their own law expert getting interview "on the record" is saying they didn't break the law, and just said it's much ado about nothing.

posted on May, 28 2010 @ 09:36 PM
reply to post by Schaden

Even FOX is easing off? All I can speculate is that the Republicans equally abuse this system when they are in power, in similar ways, and so don't want to complain now, only to get caught later because the Dems will be keeping an (all-seeing) eye on them.

posted on May, 28 2010 @ 09:42 PM
Fox isn't backing off, the witness actually slammed them for their "breathless coverage". The guest host tried their best to implicate Obama in something and the election law expert said the laws people like Rep Issa are trying to use against Obama were not written for situtations like this, and that offering Sestek the position to drop out was nothing but politics and isn't against the law and is matter of course. There will probably be a re-run again tonight. On The Record with Greta Van Sustern.

Comparing this to Watergate or seriously talking about impeachment preceeding over this or even a special prosecutor is pure rushbo/newt gingrich la la talk red meat for the GOP base. This story will be dead next week.

new topics

top topics

<< 1  2   >>

log in