[Pearls Before Swine]

Impeachment without conviction is useless, IMHO.

You only need a majority in the House to impeach, but you can’t get rid of him without conviction in the Senate, which requires 67 votes. If the GOP has 54 seats in the Senate as of January, where are the other 13 Dem votes required for conviction going to come from?

[Essie]

I agree. I also want Obama gone. We have the votes to impeach him, but not the 67 votes to convict him. At this point, I am sure that not a single Democrat would vote to convict him. Please remember that impeaching Bill Clinton make Clinton more popular. Impeaching Obama would generate enormous sympathy for him and probably guarantee the first woman president. Is that what we want?

[DrDude]

They can change the rules and only require 51 votes. Reid did it with appointments. Why couldn’t it be done with impeachment(and some guts).

[Marcella]

“...Senate, which requires 67 votes. If the GOP has 54 seats in the Senate as of January, where are the other 13 Dem votes required for conviction going to come from?”

The other 13 won’t happen, so he won’t be thrown out, but I think the impeachment needs to go forward to document Obama’s willful disregard/shredding of the constitution and laws of this land.

[The Duke]

The Republicans should just announce to the Democrats that a confidential communication channel is open for any Democrats willing to discuss impeachment, and that a certain degree of Democrat participation is a prerequisite to move forward with impeachment. Then the Republicans should just step back.

Just the existence of such a confidential "open channel" may well be enough to give Obama pause.

[dirtboy]

Yep, Obama will only be removed from office if the Dems turn on him, just as Nixon resigned once the GOP leadership went to the White House and told him it was time to go.