I have been hearing from inside sources that BO is terrified of impeachment or a coup to overthrow his regime. He is paranoid as all get out and trusts no one, with the exception of Valerie Jarret. He knows he is wrong. He knows he was not legally elected. he knows he has broken many laws.
He knows he's going to get caught, and so is Valerie Jarett, and Hillary, and Bernanke, and Geithner......etc.
Watch for these people and others to "quietly" try to slip unnoticed out the back door during the rest of this year.
May 19, 2013 at 12:10pm
Here is my observation. When you know you are about to do wrong, you tend to be sheepish and flee as the wrong unfolds. You can’t face it because you feel like “if I don’t watch, I can act like it’s not happening”. I think BO knew what was about to happen to the Amb Stevens. Now, did he anticipate the others coming to his aid and being killed? I don’t think so. It was supposed to be a controlled event, that was orchestrated by the WH (Jarret & BO) and they did know that Stevens would be raped and killed. I think BO was with his “special friend” Reggie Love trying to distance himself from the horror that he OK’d.
May 12, 2013 at 11:09pm
I cannot figure out if she is stupid or if she thinks we are. Either way, she is a big nut.
@Annie-Oakley: I addressed impeachment a few months ago. I had asked if anyone on the blaze could explain to me why this pos hasn't been impeached yet and this was the response I had received. I can't remember who it was. Maybe "Civilwarcometh"?? He said that the impeachment has to start in the Senate and since the Senate is held by Dems there's nothing that Republicans can do. Does anyone know if this is the reason or is the another reason why this pos is still in office?
@TH77 If I'm not mistaken impeachment starts in the House and then tried in the Senate. I suspect that is why we don't see it happening in the House. They know the Senate would never convict him.
Impeachment starts in the HOUSE .... Boehner is the hold up!
The House's Role
"The House brings impeachment charges against federal officials as part of its oversight and investigatory responsibilities. Individual Members of the House can introduce impeachment resolutions like ordinary bills, or the House could initiate proceedings by passing a resolution authorizing an inquiry. The Committee on the Judiciary ordinarily has jurisdiction over impeachments, but special committees investigated charges before the Judiciary Committee was created in 1813. The committee then chooses whether to pursue articles of impeachment against the accused official and report them to the full House. If the articles are adopted (by simple majority vote), the House appoints Members by resolution to manage the ensuing Senate trial on its behalf. These managers act as prosecutors in the Senate and are usually members of the Judiciary Committee. The number of managers has varied across impeachment trials but has traditionally been an odd number. The partisan composition of managers has also varied depending on the nature of the impeachment, but the managers, by definition, always support the House’s impeachment action. "
Article II, Section 4 of the Constitution says, "The President, Vice President and all civil Officers of the United States, shall be removed from Office on Impeachment for, and Conviction of, Treason, Bribery, or other high Crimes and Misdemeanors." In his report, Independent Counsel, Starr accuses President Clinton of committing eleven acts for which he could be removed from office by impeachment. Are any of those acts "Treason, Bribery, or other High Crimes and Misdemeanors?" Well, that's up to the members of the House of Representatives. According to Constitutional Lawyers, "High Crimes and Misdemeanors" are (1) real criminality -- breaking a law; (2) abuses of power; (3) "violation of public trust" as defined by Alexander Hamilton in the Federalist Papers. In 1970, then Representative Gerald R. Ford defined impeachable offenses as "whatever a majority of the House of Representatives considers it to be at a given moment in history." An excellent definition, Mr. Former President. In the past, Congress has issued Articles of Impeachment for acts in three general categories:
•Exceeding the constitutional bounds of the powers of the office.
•Behavior grossly incompatible with the proper function and purpose of the office.
•Employing the power of the office for an improper purpose or for personal gain.
@Oldsarge44 & Catb: Thank you both so very much for responding to my question. I truly appreciate it!
Since impeachment starts in the House then yes, I agree. Boehner is the one holding it up. Even if he may feel that the Senate would not convict this pos, and he would be more than likely right, I would still go full speed ahead with it. It's certainly worth a try!!!
@TH777 -- Agree!
The trial cannot be stopped ... and what a would we learn .. Benghazi, Fast and Furious, Boston, etc ... even if they take the 5th over and over .. the people would see it
@TH777.....At the federal level, Article II of the United States Constitution (Section 4) states that "The President, Vice President, and all civil Officers of the United States shall be removed from Office on Impeachment for, and Conviction of, Treason, Bribery, or other High Crimes and Misdemeanors." The House of Representatives has the sole power of impeaching, while the United States Senate has the sole power to try all impeachments. The removal of impeached officials is automatic upon conviction in the Senate. In Nixon v. United States (1993), the Supreme Court determined that the federal judiciary cannot review such proceedings. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Impeachment_in_the_United_States)
Sounds like the House calls for impeachment, but it is up to the Senate to try him. So, technically yes to your question. If its up to the Democratic Senate, it would probably be dismissed with no trial or cleared with trial. Maybe they are waiting for the 2014 elections to see if the Senate will have a majority of Republicans. However, with Harry Reid still there, I doubt he would ever allow for a trial. So, lucky for Obama, unlucky for America if my understanding of the impeachment process is correct.
@Geneic: So what you're saying is, we do not have a leg to stand on to get rid of this pos, correct? If correct, how very sad for this Country!
April 28, 2013 at 2:04pm
Yes, the best that can come of it is the truth comes out so that the families of the deceased finally know. And, whomever runs against Hillary will have more to use against her.
April 28, 2013 at 2:01pm
Rep Gowdy & Rep Wolf are fighting hard to bring out the truth on Benghazi, and the truth ain’t gonna be pretty.
April 24, 2013 at 11:23pm
Yep, I day dream about seeing Obummer, Holder, and Nap all in handcuffs and being taken away. Free at last, free at last!
April 24, 2013 at 5:51pm
@sosorryforyou: just wondering, do you call all the mean an nutty lefties on HuffPo too? If not, then you are not doing your part to bring us all together.
April 22, 2013 at 3:59pm
@BROTHER_ED: “I am concerned about the precedent being established of not affording a US citizen rights guaranteed under the constitution. Many of the amendments in the bill of rights protect those accused of crimes. I am aware that there has been a ruling on Miranda rights not being given when there is an imminent threat, but who’s to say one day you or I won’t be considered such a threat?”
I agree 100% with your statements, and that is why I agree with affording him his Constitutional Rights. Now, did the US make a mistake in letting him become a US citizen in the first place? Um yes, it seems we did, so we made that bed, we must lay in it.
And, Cornyn and Cruz are also my Senators (thank God), and they hear from me weekly. Cruz gets it. Cornyn, not sure, but I think because of Cruz, he is stepping up his game.
April 20, 2013 at 12:12pm
They will find some way to blame it all on Bush. Watch.
April 20, 2013 at 12:09pm
I think you might be on to something.
April 20, 2013 at 12:07pm
I agree, very very strange.
April 12, 2013 at 9:37am
Unfortunately there is no “weeding it out” because it is pervasive. The cancer has taken over the host, so cutting it out is now impossible.
April 10, 2013 at 2:53pm
You speak the truth.
April 8, 2013 at 6:58pm
This was in Canada.
April 8, 2013 at 6:50pm
When will these folks understand that NOTHING in the proposed bill would have prevented Sandy Hook?