Skip to comments.Top House Republican Won't Rule Out Obama Impeachment
Posted on 07/27/2014 9:18:18 AM PDT by kristinn
House Majority Whip Steve Scalise (R-LA) on Sunday did not rule out impeaching President Obama after he was asked three times by "Fox News Sunday" host Chris Wallace.
When first asked whether he would consider impeaching Obama, Scalise dove into a response pinning impeachment talk on the White House.
This might be the first White House in history thats trying to start the narrative of impeaching their own president. Ultimately, what we want to do is see the President follow his own laws, Scalise said. "The Supreme Court unanimously said 12 times the President overreached and did things he doesnt have the authority to do."
Scalise gave a similar response the second time Wallace asked if impeachment was on the table.
(Excerpt) Read more at talkingpointsmemo.com ...
He completely avoided the topic. I guess that could be stretched to “not ruling it out.” Maybe.
“........Ultimately, what we want to do is see the President follow his own laws, Scalise said........”
I don’t know about you all, but I don’t want that SOB following HIS OWN LAWS.
Governor Palin is not the White House. She started the talk last week. This is not leftist strategery. This is the best voice in the conservative movement calling for the rule of law. And it just might work.
The problem in its essence is that Ø *IS* following his own laws. As opposed to the laws of the USA, Congress, etc.
Impeachment won’t get it done. He needs to be arrested, along with his major lieutenants, for crimes against America.
Just a GOTV ploy.
Those gutless punks aren’t going to do a damned thing. More abba-dabba baloney to gin up support for November.
Obama will start flying in diseased children directly from Guatemala, El Salvador, Honduras, etc and placing them in cities across the nation and all these pussies will do is stomp their feet. Obama knows this.
The Smart People in the GOP say this is a dumb idea because it will create sympathy for Obama and rally Democrats to vote in Nov and destroy the R’s chances of taking the Senate.
Suppose your home was burglarized, wife raped, kids terrorized by a Trayvon-like kid - but the Smart People said that if you prosecuted the perp it might create sympathy because “he’s only a kid”.
Since when do we fail to prosecute crimes because we are afraid of some theoretical consequences that are impossible to prove? Are we a nation of law, or a nation of guesswork and theory?
Just like the Obama voters, the GOPe will do whatever it takes, sink to any low, scrape the bottom of any barrel that preserves their way of life.
Leading, providing actual leadership, could cost votes. That they can’t do.
Impeachment would be a foolish thing to try BEFORE the elections. Remember it takes 67 votes. W./O them Obama skates. Before the elections it is nothing but a call to arms for the left voters who would likely stay home this November. The Marxist’s internals show that and they are trying like mad to motivate their base(s). JMHO!
Then what in hell are they waiting for? Impeach and it is their sworn duty when they took the oath.
The White House and their lackeys are indeed trying to urge the Republicans to advance Impeachment. Just because Palin is also saying it does not mean that this is not a real plus for Obama were it to happen. They know that the Senate will never convict, making any House action completely toothless. They know that it will help them and hurt Conservatives.
Quit talking about it and do it, or at least do something. Defund something, arrest him and his posse, don’t approve his appointees, do something. Do something even if it’s wrong. Oh, you did that in Mississippi.
Impeachment would be a foolish thing to try BEFORE the elections. Remember it takes 67 votes. W./O them Obama skates. Before the elections it is nothing but a call to arms for the left voters who would likely stay home this November. The Marxists internals show that and they are trying like mad to motivate their base(s). JMHO!
Impeachment would be an exercise in futility at this point. Even if it makes it in the House who thinks the Democrats will condemn one of their own.
"Since when do we fail to prosecute crimes because we are afraid of some theoretical consequences that are impossible to prove?"
There are arguments on both sides of the issue, but I agree yours is the better of the several.
Perhaps best case: the (R)'s are now preparing a compelling case and will launch a major effort shortly after the upcoming November elections. Concurrently, the House will do everything in the book to tie his hands.
Arguably, anything less than that is professional negligence, a breach of oath and dereliction of duty.