It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

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

Thank you.

 

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

 

GOP lawmaker: House has votes to impeach Obama ‘tomorrow,’ however

page: 4
11
<< 1  2  3   >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Aug, 13 2013 @ 11:30 AM
link   
Most people make the mistake of thinking that the term "impeach" means to remove from office, when the fact is that all impeach means is to bring someone up on charges. OK, so lets pretend that Obama is impeached, or brought up on charges, in the house. It will be the duty of the DOJ to bring forth evidence to support said charges, and anyone with half of a brain can see that will be a waste of time considering that Holder is just as guilty as Obama in various crimes like Fast and Furious, among others. So what are the chances that the charges are proven? I would argue zilch.




posted on Aug, 13 2013 @ 11:41 AM
link   
The way the GOP is headed, I wouldn't be surprised if the Missouri rodeo clown was elected to the house GOP. It certainly would fit in well with the likes of Ted Cruz, Rand Paul and Louie Gohmert



posted on Aug, 13 2013 @ 11:48 AM
link   

Originally posted by OptimusSubprime
Most people make the mistake of thinking that the term "impeach" means to remove from office, when the fact is that all impeach means is to bring someone up on charges. OK, so lets pretend that Obama is impeached, or brought up on charges, in the house. It will be the duty of the DOJ to bring forth evidence to support said charges, and anyone with half of a brain can see that will be a waste of time considering that Holder is just as guilty as Obama in various crimes like Fast and Furious, among others. So what are the chances that the charges are proven? I would argue zilch.


I think people know that. I mentioned on the other page that he easily could be impeached but it would be impossible to get the Senate to prosecute the impeachment. Now, if the political landscape changes in '14 things could be different.


edit on 13-8-2013 by NOTurTypical because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 13 2013 @ 12:02 PM
link   

Originally posted by NOTurTypical

Originally posted by OptimusSubprime
Most people make the mistake of thinking that the term "impeach" means to remove from office, when the fact is that all impeach means is to bring someone up on charges. OK, so lets pretend that Obama is impeached, or brought up on charges, in the house. It will be the duty of the DOJ to bring forth evidence to support said charges, and anyone with half of a brain can see that will be a waste of time considering that Holder is just as guilty as Obama in various crimes like Fast and Furious, among others. So what are the chances that the charges are proven? I would argue zilch.


I think people know that. I mentioned on the other page that he easily could be impeached but it would be impossible to get the Senate to prosecute the impeachment. Now, if the political landscape changes in '14 things could be different.


edit on 13-8-2013 by NOTurTypical because: (no reason given)


I'm not really sure how you can even think that he could easily be impeached. Regardless of what you or I think or how we feel about Obama, the impeachable offense(s) would have to be so egregious and the evidence so overwhelming that it couldnt be ignored, even by the blindest of the blind. On top of that, even though you only need a simple majority in the House for it to be sent on to the Senate ... it's still a majority. For one second, lets assume that you have every single member of the House in chambers for the vote, you're looking at needing 218 yay votes. There is pretty much zero chance of that happening, even with the Republicans holding 235 seats. And of course, this is all assuming that he has done something that well over 200 House Representatives would even consider as an "impeachable offense."

Then you move to the Senate, with a 2/3 vote required by a Democratic majorty. This is getting into the land of glittery unicorns here.



posted on Aug, 13 2013 @ 12:18 PM
link   

Originally posted by muse7
The way the GOP is headed, I wouldn't be surprised if the Missouri rodeo clown was elected to the house GOP. It certainly would fit in well with the likes of Ted Cruz, Rand Paul and Louie Gohmert


Do you even pay attention to politics? The people you mentioned are going in the opposite direction that the GOP is headed. That's why the establishment is attacking them.



posted on Aug, 13 2013 @ 12:20 PM
link   

Originally posted by supremecommander
What would be the endgame of impeaching the puppet of the elite?

Seriously. ...unless you're talking about an entire removal and restructuring of the federal government, the abolishment of the federal reserve and the end of our two party paradigm...you aren't saying anything.


sad isn't it



posted on Aug, 13 2013 @ 01:47 PM
link   

Originally posted by NOTurTypical

Originally posted by muse7
The way the GOP is headed, I wouldn't be surprised if the Missouri rodeo clown was elected to the house GOP. It certainly would fit in well with the likes of Ted Cruz, Rand Paul and Louie Gohmert


Do you even pay attention to politics? The people you mentioned are going in the opposite direction that the GOP is headed. That's why the establishment is attacking them.


Attacking them because they're trying to keep the GOP brand from being associated with Right wing looneys? The way I see it, the established senior GOP members are trying to oust the tea party to keep the GOP from going off the deep end.



posted on Aug, 13 2013 @ 05:23 PM
link   

Originally posted by Flatfish
You'd think he'd explain what impeachable offense they'd be voting on. Or is he talking about impeachment on the grounds that they just don't like him?


Lock in B, Eddie. They just do not like him, they just want to impeach him - what for? Being a Democrat President!



posted on Aug, 13 2013 @ 05:39 PM
link   

Originally posted by Battleline

Originally posted by Stormdancer777
reply to post by neo96
 



Well yes, it's not going to happen, it would do to much damage, he must not fail.
As a president he has already failed in every way but that is the agenda, to bring this country down any way he can.

He is a race baiter, one of the worst, he is anti American, all one has to do is look at his administration and see who he has surrounded himself with. Everything he and his lackey's do these days is "in your face, what are you going to do about it ".

If your asking what more can he do all you have to do is wait tell the 2014 elections when he regains the House and retains the Senate. What he is doing now will seem trivial..................just my opinion.


Yet what he has done and is doing now are not in any way trivial, yet the majority of Americans could care less.

Their incredibly rude awakening and demise will happen simultaneously.

Mission accomplished.



posted on Aug, 13 2013 @ 05:47 PM
link   
reply to post by Stormdancer777
 





House has votes to impeach Obama ‘tomorrow,’ however...


... it won't happen.

Both parties know how rancid they are and how open to such actions. The Democrats sent Nixon reeling after Watergate. In response, the GOP hounded Bill Clinton to the point where he was also on the verge of resignation.

For now, the see-saw is balanced... and neither side wants to again unbalance it, no matter what kind of criminality they have to endure.

Does this mean that the left or the right is beyond upholding the constitution and protecting the office of the presidency? Yes... and neither have the stones to do that because both parties know their numbers are riddled with imperfections that make any candidate, subject to impeachment.

Honesty, integrity... honor, are not to be found either left or right. Confessing this, however, requires more than simply knowing it is true...



posted on Aug, 13 2013 @ 08:05 PM
link   
reply to post by ausername
 
The majority of Americans don't care because they are being hand fed by this government...........the only good thing about it is when there is no more money, the blood suckers will be the first to know it and become cannon fodder.......................the elites will deal with the non-productive types in there own way, once the election system is no longer needed these people will be disposable, yaaa I know, rude and crude but realism is hard to take sometimes.



posted on Aug, 13 2013 @ 08:44 PM
link   

Originally posted by muse7

Originally posted by NOTurTypical

Originally posted by muse7
The way the GOP is headed, I wouldn't be surprised if the Missouri rodeo clown was elected to the house GOP. It certainly would fit in well with the likes of Ted Cruz, Rand Paul and Louie Gohmert


Do you even pay attention to politics? The people you mentioned are going in the opposite direction that the GOP is headed. That's why the establishment is attacking them.


Attacking them because they're trying to keep the GOP brand from being associated with Right wing looneys? The way I see it, the established senior GOP members are trying to oust the tea party to keep the GOP from going off the deep end.


Oh, so you do agree that these people mentioned are not the direction the GOP is trying to head in. I appreciate that concession. Just as I figured, you don't pay attention to politics. The establishment GOP has been attacking Conservatives in the party since the 70s when Regean took on the incumbent Ford in 76 and almost beat him.

Nothing new whatsoever, and those people you mentioned are certainly not the direction of the GOP. The establishment GOP are progressive, big-government, status quo politicians. They're called "RINO"s for a reason. They make a big stink, but at the end of the day go along with the Democrats in their push for a massive centralized federal government.
edit on 13-8-2013 by NOTurTypical because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 13 2013 @ 10:37 PM
link   
reply to post by Stormdancer777
 


Obama was elected twice even after a good 4 years of this birther nonsense. The GOP doesn't have the legs to stand on in making a case of impeachment. As for anything else, such as the NDAA and the Patriot Act, well the GOP can't afford to impeach Obama on something they clearly support and will continue to support into the next Republican administration.

reply to post by neo96
 


It just perplexes me how birthers continue whining about Obama's eligibility and then blame the Democrats for their own beliefs and motivations. Not sure how that works but this seems to be a prevailing excuse on why this nonsense continues to be trotted around.

As for whether Hillary supporters started birtherism, it's never been proven. Rightwingers had been pimping the birther issue well before the Hilldogs decided to pick it up. The earliest post claiming and theorizing that Obama was born outside of US soil is dated March 1st 2008, it was a post on the website Freerepublic.com, hardly a pro-Hillary Clinton forum especially considering the fact that Hillary was still verymuch a player in the primaries at that time and a threat to the Republicans. Here's the post:


03/01/2008 "Also that Obama’s mother gave birth to him overseas and then immediately flew into Hawaii and registered his birth as having taken place in Hawaii."

www.freerepublic.com...

Another one from the Free Republic website dated March 2nd 2008:

03/02/2008 "I have a question. Supposedly, there was talk of Obama being a dual citizen of Kenya and U.S."

www.freerepublic.com...

From what I understand, there are claims that Hillary supporters started the birther rumor back in April of 2008 (no link to that source from them, it was some post on Snopes.com) but as you can see, even at that birtherism was pimped out earlier by a website well known to be anti-Hillary and anti-Obama. It is true that Hillary supporters pushed the conspiracy further, but to blame it on the democrats is well, silly and false.



posted on Aug, 13 2013 @ 10:47 PM
link   
reply to post by Southern Guardian
 


God YES

Because we all know the left never does anything wrong., EVER !

Thanks for straightening that out.



posted on Aug, 13 2013 @ 10:59 PM
link   
reply to post by neo96
 


So were Hillary supporters the first ones to question Obama's birth Neo? Or are you going to admit you were wrong?



posted on Aug, 14 2013 @ 08:04 AM
link   

Originally posted by Southern Guardian
reply to post by neo96
 


So were Hillary supporters the first ones to question Obama's birth Neo? Or are you going to admit you were wrong?


I fear you may be asking too much of Neo. As this video demonstrates, some people need time to practice the phrase. Then again, some people are just incapable of making that statement at all.


edit on 14-8-2013 by Flatfish because: (no reason given)



new topics

top topics



 
11
<< 1  2  3   >>

log in

join