So how does everyone feel about impeachment?

[BlueStater]

I mean, didn't we want Bush impeached for the same thing Obama is evidently doing now (among many other reasons, that is)? Just throwing this out there.

[ProSense]

1. What

"So how does everyone feel about impeachment? I mean, didn't we want Bush impeached for the same thing Obama is evidently doing now (among many other reasons, that is)? Just throwing this out there."

..exactly are you "just throwing...ou there"? Do you think Obama should be impeached, and for what?

For the Republican opportunists, Bush actually spied on people.
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10022959557

More perspective: http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=2959872

I haven't mentioned the Iraq war yet.

[rightsideout]

2. Not yet

Obama didn't send soldiers and Iraqis to die over lies about WMDs that weren't there. That was the main drive to impeach Bush.

Once the details about what goes on when we initially hear these "WTF?" things gets flushed out, the reasons don't seem as impeachable. There's alot of details we don't know. I still trust Obama but still can disagree.

[The Magistrate]

3. I Think Your Post, Sir, Is Rank Bull-Shit

There were grounds for impeachment of Bush, but they were not the item you suggest.

[BlueStater]

6. He violated the Constitution he swore to upheld.

What isn't impeachable about that?

[geek tragedy]

8. He complied with the laws as passed by Congress.

Now take your idiocy over to Free Republic where it will be better taken, thank you.

Under your brilliant legal theory, he could be impeached for enforcing the ACA mandate.

[DevonRex]

11. You never went to law school, I see.

[zappaman]

13. He did?

How?

[The Magistrate]

14. Grounds For Impeachment, Sir, Are Crimes Of State

In the case of Bush, the most grave of these were the torture of prisoners of war, in direct violation of international treaty obligations and of U.S. statute enforcing those obligations. The infliction of torture, ordered from the highest levels of the Executive, is a felony under Federal law, an d a grave breach of international humanitarian law. It is a clear-cut crime, and a crime which can only be committed by virtue of holding government office, which is the actual meaning of the high crimes and misdemeanors standard.

The wire-tapping, like it or not, was in accordance with law, and almost certainly would be upheld as Constitutional, at least by the courts then and at present.

You are not going to get much support for impeaching President Obama here, and will make little headway, either, in trying to pretend that demonstrates or reflects some hypocrisy or inconsistency.

[BlueStater]

18. I'm not calling for Obama's impeachment.

The ACLU, by the way, called the NSA spying that occured under Bush illegal and an impeachable offense.

http://www.aclu.org/technology-and-liberty/nsa-spying-americans-illegal
http://cnsnews.com/news/article/aclu-panel-urges-impeachment-over-nsa-spying

[randome]

24. Bush did not bother with legal warrants or Congressional review. Much different.

[hr]
[font color="blue"][center]Stop looking for heroes. BE one.[/center][/font]
[hr]

[BlueStater]

37. Alright.

So, the viewpoint here seems to be that what Obama did is just as shitty as what Bush did in terms of a moral basis but, unlike the latter, it wasn't illegal. Is that correct?

[randome]

40. It's not just Obama. It requires Congressional approval from both Republicans & Democrats.

I would like to hear more of an explanation about why they are doing it rather than the current vague assurances that it's for our own good.

But they are at least paying lip service to the concept of restraint by re-authorizing it for only 90 days and only with a judge's approval.

[hr]
[font color="blue"][center]Stop looking for heroes. BE one.[/center][/font]
[hr]

[ProSense]

46. No,

"So, the viewpoint here seems to be that what Obama did is just as shitty as what Bush did in terms of a moral basis but, unlike the latter, it wasn't illegal. Is that correct?"

...you're misrepresenting the facts and your own case.

You posted a link to the following here (http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=2960846)

NSA Spying on Americans Is Illegal

What if it emerged that the President of the United States was flagrantly violating the Constitution and a law passed by the Congress to protect Americans against abuses by a super-secret spy agency? What if, instead of apologizing, he said, in essence, "I have the power to do that, because I say I can." That frightening scenario is exactly what we are now witnessing in the case of the warrantless NSA spying ordered by President Bush that was reported December 16, 2005 by the New York Times.

http://www.aclu.org/technology-and-liberty/nsa-spying-americans-illegal

The statement is specifically about Bush's illegal wiretapping.

For the Republican opportunists, Bush actually spied on people.
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10022959557

[BlueStater]

50. Um, yeah, the post was typed in regards to Bush.

"The ACLU, by the way, called the NSA spying that occured under Bush illegal and an impeachable offense."

See? Bush, not Obama.

[ProSense]

53. Yes,

Um, yeah, the post was typed in regards to Bush.

"The ACLU, by the way, called the NSA spying that occured under Bush illegal and an impeachable offense."

See? Bush, not Obama.

...I see that. Do you see this: http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=2961252

Note that it pertains to a different comment of yours that draws a bogus conclusion?

[BlueStater]

58. Read my exchange with "The Magistrate" again.

He/she claimed that Bush's wiretapping wasn't an impeachable offense. We weren't talking about Obama at that particular moment. Regardless, how exactly does what Bush did make what Obama is doing any less bad?

[The Magistrate]

25. Actually, Sir, You Are Asking People To Support Impeaching President Obama, Or Say Why They Do Not

That is calling for his impeachment.

The ACLU makes a case for their view that it was illegal, which is far from establishing that it was either illegal or un-Constitutional.

The practice as conducted has been taken as a seizure of business records, which there is statutory authority for. The record is of who called whom and when, and where they were. It is not actual transcription of what was said. It could certainly be used to find ground to seek a wire-tap order on someone.

[BlueStater]

45. Your response is "rank bullshit", buddy.

I never once specifically called for Obama's impeachment. Not one time. All I wanted was some clarification on where people stand on his apparent evasion of privacy vs. Bush's.

[The Magistrate]

47. Trying 'Plausible Deniability' Will Get You Nowhere, Sir

English really is a remarkable instrument for conveying meaning. Yours was quite clear.

[BlueStater]

49. What's quite clear is that you can't read people worth a crap. N/T

[The Magistrate]

54. What is Clear, Sir, Is That You Are Transparent, And Thought Yourself Opaque

"A creme puff masquerading as a hard roll."

[BlueStater]

60. You're a blowhard masquerading as a know-it-all.

I find it extremely amusing that you think you know the intentions of someone you've never met. Keep at it.

[The Magistrate]

61. As The Man Said, Sir: I Only Know What I Read In the Papers

And reading your original post, and earlier replies in the thread, is quite sufficient to know what you meant to communicate.

"It's not rocket surgery."

[Initech]

31. +1

Bush lied us into two illegal, immoral wars, and completely ignored CIA intelligence warnings about an attack on American soil being imminent - the result was thousands of lives needlessly lost. And he wasn't punished. What has Obama done to warrant impeachment?

[uponit7771]

38. +1

[Tx4obama]

4. Obama has done nothing criminal to be impeached for.

The Congress passed the NSA bill and have voted to renew it many times.

Storing 'meta-data' in a database is NOT 'spying'.

A judge has to sign on order (for each individual case) for the data to be accessed.

Nothing illegal about it.

[geek tragedy]

5. I think anyone who suggests it is either an idiot or a rw troll.

But I repeat myself.

(Note that there was a warrant in this instance, so the law was obeyed. Congress has been well aware of this program for 7 plus years, so they don't get to impeach over that).

[Sheepshank]

9. :) :) :) n/t

[BlueStater]

12. But it's still a violation of the Constitution, correct?

I really don't care if Congress is going along with it. Their hands are dirty as well.

And I don't want to impeach Obama. I just want some clarification on where Democrats stand on this. We hated it when Bush violated the privacy of Americans. A LOT of us demanded his impeachment for it. So now that Obama is apparently doing the same thing, what do we think we should be done?

[geek tragedy]

16. According to what authority has Obama violated

the Constitution?

Lots of people think Obamacare and even Social Security are unconstitutional. Should he be impeached for enforcing them?

[DevonRex]

20. No. They wrote the law to specifically allow it.

Data collection has been going on this whole time. You should have known the program was extended by Congress in December. The only thing that has changed is that someone leaked the TSSI court order. The court order is just for the telecom companies for CYA immunity. Undoubtedly a Republican, because that's where all the other leaks have come from. And the IRS thing is from Republicans left from GWB, too.

Is this becoming clear now? This is a republican op. It's a very, very good one. Unfortunately. But it's preying on people who should be smarter than this.

[Laura PourMeADrink]

42. lol

[TheCowsCameHome]

7. Obama is doing the same what? as Bush?

You lost me. Totally.

[randome]

10. Do you understand what a legal warrant is?

Do you understand what Congressional review and approval of this program every 90 days since 2006 means?

[hr]
[font color="blue"][center]Stop looking for heroes. BE one.[/center][/font]
[hr]

[JoePhilly]

27. Shussh ... you'll ruin the outrage ...

with details.

[Cali_Democrat]

15. Is this ridiculous post in relation to the Verizon case?

The Verizon phone record collection was actually legal. They obtained a FISA warrant.

[Kurovski]

17. We can still do George.

Even after he casts off the mortal coil, or whatever.

[riqster]

19. Legal does not always mean "right".

The law sucks, but it's the law. Hard to convict a man for acting within the law.

[BlueStater]

23. Regardless of whatever Congress says is legal or not,...

...do people here personally think what Obama is doing should be illegal along the same sort of vein as the NSA spying? It'd be nice if someone could answer this without personally attacking me or calling me a right-wing troll. I voted for Obama. The last thing I want is to punish him. But in the very end, I'm an American first and a Democrat second and wrong is wrong no matter what party is doing it.

[riqster]

26. I did not attack you.

I addressed your point in a non-confrontational manner. Kindly keep such responses directed where they belong.

[BlueStater]

28. I know you didn't and I'm sorry if you took my response the wrong way. N/T

[pnwmom]

36. Impeachment is for high crimes and misdemeanors.

Obama didn't break any laws. The solution, obviously, is to change the law.

[arely staircase]

21. what law has he broken?

nt

[LWolf]

22. Impeachment is extinct,

as far as I can tell. If it weren't, GWB wouldn't have finished his first term.

Obama? If he's done the crime, he should be accountable for it.

[demosincebirth]

29. Another idea pucked out of...

[FSogol]

30. So how does everyone feel about rat fucking?

[randome]

32. Well, hey, some rats do it for the money.

[hr]
[font color="blue"][center]Stop looking for heroes. BE one.[/center][/font]
[hr]

[FSogol]

34. Groan.

[Squinch]

59. Or to meet nice people.

[pnwmom]

33. That Obama hasn't broken any law so it would be a political vendetta.

If you don't like the fact that the law allows this, then fight to change the law.

[notadmblnd]

35. Did you have the same concerns when this power was bestowed on Bush?

Did you really think the next guy to move into his spot would cede this power?

[BlueStater]

41. In answer to your first question, of course.

As for your second, was it too much to hope for? Apparently so.

[spanone]

39. you so funny...bwahahahahahaaa

[alcibiades_mystery]

43. Obama will be President until January 2017

Put mustard on that and eat it.

[ellenfl]

48. i'm all for it!

scalia or thomas?

[Shrike47]

51. No.

[DesertFlower]

52. you're over reacting. nt

[BlueStater]

55. Do you think what the President is doing is as bad as Bush's wiretapping?

It's apparently not illegal, but it seems to be just as much of a disgusting evasion of privacy.

[Texasgal]

56. And so...

it begins.

UGH.

[one_voice]

57. Impeachment of who?....

Please list the crime(s) that the president is guilty of and should be impeached for. Thanks in advance.


Throw it out there, don't know if it'll stick, but it sure as hell stinks.

[Skip Intro]

62. I think we should focus on learning the complete truth about all this.

Nobody knows the extent of any of this yet. Nobody knows if crimes were committed or not.

I sure as hell hope using the IRS to target certain groups based on their politics is against some law.

Let's learn the whole truth.

[jmowreader]

68. The IRS "scandal" is faux outrage

Political clubs like Tea Party groups shouldn't be tax exempt. IRS officers don't live in a vacuum; they see the same funny web photos we do, hear the same newscasts about tea party groups, read the same newspapers, and come to the same conclusion: tea party groups' idea of social welfare is what everyone else causes partisan politics. As mah pappy says, you don't have to eat every apple in the barrel to figure out they're all rotten.

[woo me with science]

71. That's not what they wanted you to say!

We are supposed to circle the wagons like good Democrats, and move on!

[Enrique]

63. the GOP controls the house

and they support Obama on this.

[siligut]

67. If the GOP thought they could impeach Obama, they wouldn't let that stand in the way

[CakeGrrl]

64. Put down the Greenwald and back away slowly...

[DevonRex]

65. Good idea! I'm pretty sure he bites.

Have you ever noticed his pointy little teeth?

[stevenleser]

66. As many others have said, there are two important distinctions between the two

What the NSA did under Bush did was warrantless wiretapping.

No warrant, and the actual conversation was recorded.

What the NSA is doing under Obama is collecting Meta-data under a FISA warrant.

There is a warrant for the activities, and only information like date, time and numbers called are collected. The phone conversation is not recorded.

[JoeyT]

69. No, we didn't.

We wanted Bush impeached for lying us into wars and multiple violations of the Geneva Convention.

Sadly the spying on American citizens was the least of his crimes, to the point it barely registered. It certainly isn't an impeachable offense now because it's legal. It's immoral and indefensible, but it's still legal. That makes all the difference in the world.

Edited to add: And I'm certainly not one of the people defending the President on this one. It just doesn't rise to the level of impeachable offense. Not even close. It's not even illegal. And even if it were made illegal tomorrow, illegality isn't retroactive. So it still won't have been impeachable.

[Demonaut]

70. fuck that...............fuck the question