Thread: An open case for impeachment

Last week, a video surfaced of a recent town hall meeting held in Arizona by Republican Sen. Jon Kyl, in which he explained to a stunned crowd, the real motive behind Obama’s refusal to defend our border with Mexico.

Reporting Obama’s remarks to him in a private, Oval Office conversation, Kyl said: “The problem is, he said, if we secure the border, then you all won’t have any reason to support comprehensive immigration reform.â€

I Do not see any choice but to remove/impeach Obama. Our Democracy is corrupt and broken and must be purged of that corruption in order to restore freedom and liberty.

I've already emailed Senator Kyle and told him he should be screaming for impeachment..did that Friday morning.

WHY WOULD THIS MAN LIE ABOUT WHAT WAS SAID IN A MEETING WITH OBAMA I BELIEVE HIM, AND OBAMA JUST CAN'T HELP HIMSELF AS FAR AS HIS LYING IS CONCERNED.

If I recall, everything inside the WH is RECORDED! All meetings! so, under the FOIA one might be able to access it, or maybe KYL can say "Show us the Tapes" to OB1

http://obamareleaseyourrecords.blogspot ... obama.html

I agree that this idiot Obama should be impeached. But for some strange reason I still believe Obama is a puppet for someone and we need to find out who is pulling the strings.

Anyway, on the impeachment. How can this possibly happen?

Here are the rules of Impeachment

The impeachment process is a two-step procedure. The House of Representatives must first pass by a simple majority articles of impeachment, which constitute the formal allegation or allegations. Upon their passage, the defendant has been "impeached". Next, the Senate tries the accused. In the case of the impeachment of a president, the Chief Justice of the United States presides over the proceedings. For the impeachment of any other official, the Constitution is silent on who shall preside, suggesting that this role falls to the Senate's usual presiding officer. This may include the impeachment of the vice president, although legal theories suggest that allowing a defendant to be the judge in his own case would be a blatant conflict of interest. If the Vice President did not preside over an impeachment (of anyone besides the President), the duties would fall to the President pro tempore of the Senate.

To convict the accused, a two-thirds majority of the senators present is required. Conviction automatically removes the defendant from office. Following conviction, the Senate may vote to further punish the individual by barring him from holding future federal office, elected or appointed. Conviction by the Senate does not bar criminal prosecution. Even after an accused has left office, it is possible to impeach to disqualify the person from future office or from certain emoluments of his prior office (such as a pension). If there is no charge for which a two-thirds majority of the senators present vote "guilty", the defendant is acquitted and no punishment is imposed.

With the Democrats in full control of both the House and Senate Impeachment of Obama is about as unlikely as a snow ball in hell. I am not to confident that too much is going to change in November after seeing the polls in California with Boxer, and Harry Reid in Nevada. Apparently much of America still has not figured it out.

An Overview of the Impeachment Process
http://www.senate.gov/reference/resourc ... 98-806.pdf

Now suppose we impeached Obama and took his job eventually, who is going to step up.....Biden? What if he goes too, Pelosi? I just goes from bad to worse.

I too stand in line to demand the Impeachment of Obama. He hasn't kept any promises not just to Republicans but to our entire country. I do believe he said that to our Senator Kyle.

I also believe every American should be enraged by his lack of following Federal Law and wanting to change laws to agree with his idea of how our country should be controlled.

I think it's time to stop talking about it and each of us take the time to write to our Representatives and demand an Impeachment Process.

Thank you for this post.

i will take Kyl's word on this before i would believe anything coming out of this white house..
their bribes of people to get out of primaries is wrong too

Once amnesty is enacted by executive order, what reason would anybody in government have to truly close the border? They will have rewarded millions of criminals for crossing, stealing ID's, stealing jobs. Never mind the drug cartel incursions and network within the U.S. Obviously they have absolutely no problem with all this criminality so why would they care to secure the border after amnesty?