McConnell Concedes GOP Senate Will Not Mean Obamacare Repeal

NPR ^ | October 29, 2014

[william clark]

As you said, Clinton’s trial wasn’t a ‘sham’, it was a political act and so would be Obama’s.

You misquoted me. Clinton's trial was absolutely a sham, because the GOP in the Senate was too cowardly to actually present the evidence. If there are enough in the current GOP with the guts to do it, an actual trial of Obama, where the massive amount of evidence is presented for all to see, should have a very different result. They have loads more to work with than what Henry Hyde was able to hand off to Trent Lott (chief coward at the time).

Also important to remember that the most damaging evidence against Clinton was that of his more serious sex crimes, but they weren't actually a part of the indictment and consequently didn't come close to being revealed in a fully public forum. Obama, on the other hand, has been acting in plain sight. It only remains for a demonstration of how these acts violate his oath, the Constitution, and the law in a public, organized setting, as opposed to prime time shouting matches on cable news networks.

[LostInBayport]

I didn’t realize that. Explains why she was called Kay Barely Republican.

[DugwayDuke]

I apologize for any misquotation. That was not my intent.
From one perspective, Clinton’s trial was a sham. I was trying to make a distinction between criminal trials and trials to remove.

Removal trials are not trials with an impartial jury who make their decision on the law and facts. Impeachment trials are, first and foremost, a political act, and cannot be judged on the same basis as a trial in a criminal court. Think of it as jury nullification. Doesn’t matter if the defendant is guilty as hell, he will be judged on a political basis. That’s why Clinton’s trial was not a ‘sham’.

Quite frankly, the democrats in the Senate don’t care about Obama violating his oath or offenses against the Constitution. They share Obama’s disregard for the Constitution. They are progressives who see the Constitution as an impediment to their objectives. The things you see as crimes, they see as things necessary to achieve their objectives. They will only vote to remove if their political lives depend upon it. They would see a not guilty vote as enhancing their political lives.

Then, there is simply this. The GOP would regret for decades voting to remove the first black president. He would become a martyr and the GOP would not be perceived as defenders of the Constitution but as racists.

It is a necessary condition that the overwhelming majority of the American people support Obama’s removal from office. You think you can achieve that condition by investigations. I think that if six years of Obama’s time in office has not achieved that condition, those investigations will have little effect. If you doubt that, think about how the media would cover those investigations.

[pfony1]

OK, I’ll “play”...

Suppose the House and the “new” Republican-led Senate pass a bill that repeals Obama-care with no Democrat votes.

Then, suppose that Obama vetoes that bill, saying Obama-care is “needed”.

Now, I would like to know how YOU would advise Boehner and McConnell to get the votes needed to override that veto.

Please consider that “our” goose-stepping Democrats have voted WITH Obama more than 90% of the time...