Will House Republicans vote to impeach Barack Obama?

[Bojack Horseman]

Will the GOP make it 2 Democratic Presidents in a row that faced an impeachment trial on trumped up charges? I'm wondering if this is what they're going to do to every single Democrat to win the Presidency. Will Jimmy carter be the last Democratic President that the House didn't vote to impeach?

[Snowstalker Mk. II]

I rather doubt they're dumb enough to do it.

[Heimdal]

There are obviously members of the House Republican Caucus that would love to impeach the President. However, I think it is very unlikely that anything will come of it. I think the Republican leadership remembers how it went the last time they tried it. The base of the party already hates the President, and an impeachment would alienate a lot of moderates and independents that they need to win in 2014 and 2016. There is nothing for them to gain by it.

[SUSAN CRUSHBONE]

I rather doubt they're dumb enough to do it.

they were dumb enough to shut down the government...

[LeBron]

I rather doubt they're dumb enough to do it.

they were dumb enough to shut down the government...

And are dumb enough to vote for the 51st time to repeal Obamacare or major parts of it that are working for over 4 million Americans. They currently have their eyes set on impeaching Eric Holder, but after the midterms, if the Republicans still the control the House which is very likely, then they will do whatever it takes to issue articles of impeachment against President Obama before he leaves office. It's their dream and if they fulfill it, my random guess is that it will be Huelskamp introducing them.

[windjammer]

I'm not sure Boehner will allow that. It would be extremely stupid.

[NewYorkExpress]

My Guess is Boehner won't have a choice but to allow it if he wants to remain speaker, but I think there are enough compotent/not raving lunatic Republicans + Democrats for impeachment to be defeated in the House.

As for who introduces it? I think it has to be another member of leadership (to give it any credibility at all) so I'm going to say that'll either be Conference Vice-Chair Lynn Jenkins Conference Secretary,Virginia Foxx, or if he's angling for a Presidential or VP Spot (2016 or 2020) Majority Leader Eric Cantor.

[DevotedDemocrat]

When can we expect this?

[SPC]

Unless they can pick up literally every Senate seat up for grabs next year and then some, then no.

[Queen Mum Inks.LWC]

Will the GOP make it 2 Democratic Presidents in a row that faced an impeachment trial on trumped up charges? I'm wondering if this is what they're going to do to every single Democrat to win the Presidency. Will Jimmy carter be the last Democratic President that the House didn't vote to impeach?

Perjury is not a trumped up charge.

[NewYorkExpress]

My Guess is Boehner won't have a choice but to allow it if he wants to remain speaker, but I think there are enough compotent/not raving lunatic Republicans + Democrats for impeachment to be defeated in the House.

As for who introduces it? I think it has to be another member of leadership (to give it any credibility at all) so I'm going to say that'll either be Conference Vice-Chair Lynn Jenkins Conference Secretary,Virginia Foxx, or if he's angling for a Presidential or VP Spot (2016 or 2020) Majority Leader Eric Cantor.

No way. Cantor wants to be speaker. Badly.

Well if he wants to Speaker, than introducing Articles of Impeachment against President Obama will surely earn him the respect and adulation of his Republican colleagues.

[hopper]

I would say no. They would have voted to impeach Obama already.

[SWE]

Will the GOP make it 2 Democratic Presidents in a row that faced an impeachment trial on trumped up charges? I'm wondering if this is what they're going to do to every single Democrat to win the Presidency. Will Jimmy carter be the last Democratic President that the House didn't vote to impeach?

Perjury is not a trumped up charge.

http://www.huppi.com/kangaroo/L-clintonperjury.html

[IceSpear]

I highly doubt it. They have enough to worry about in 2016 without an impeachment circus making things even worse for them.

Although if Boehner is thrown out and a Tea Partier is installed as speaker after the election, all bets are off.

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

I highly doubt it. They have enough to worry about in 2016 without an impeachment circus making things even worse for them.

Although if Boehner is thrown out and a Tea Partier is installed as speaker after the election, all bets are off.

Even with a Tea Partier as Speaker, it's highly doubtful the House leadership would pursue an impeachment beyond possibly subcommittee hearing or two into possible charges.  I don't think anyone in the GOP is under the illusion that going after Obama on flimsy charges is a sure-fire recipe for political disaster for the GOP.  There are only a few loons who don't care about that at all, and a few more loons who might convince themselves Obama has actually done something worthy of impeachment.

[Joshgreen]

Hopefully. That would result in some all-around fun times.

[pbrower2a]

House Republicans voted in lockstep against censure of Darrel Issa for his antics with a microphone. By so voting they have in supreme folly endorsed a Democrat as a Committee Chairman doing so when the Democrats  have a House majority.

They are crass enough to do impeach the President on specious or trivial charges. The question is when.

They could technically impeach the President for mismatched socks.

[Bojack Horseman]

Based on the antics of the "Enforce the Law Act" earlier this week, there's a new push to install Trey Gowdy (R-Cuckoo's Nest) as the Speaker of the House in January. God help us all...

But yes I do think they'll vote to impeach the President, and I hope that come 2016, these clowns will have been run out of Washington for good. Impeachment usually does not bode well for the party that does it.

But this is the stark contrast between Democrats and Republicans. Both Presidents that have been impeached and faced trial in the Senate were Democrats who were impeached by Republicans on trumped-up charges. Andrew Johnson was impeached by a Republican Congress that was angry about the fact that he vetoed all their priority legislation, and because Johnson had no VP, the Speaker of the House was next in line for the Presidency: Schuyler Colfax, a Republican from Indiana.

Then there was Clinton, who while he did give honest answers during a grand jury investigation, was impeached in a purely political last-ditch effort to get rid of the hated Clinton by Newt Gingrich. It was simply the abuse of a sex scandal to give a symbolic middle finger to the President.

Democrats on the other hand have used impeachment only once: Richard Nixon, though he resigned before the impeachment process could take its course. The Democrats in Congress were going to impeach Nixon for abusing the Presidency for personal gain, sending his henchmen to break into the Watergate hotel to bug the office and steal confidential information. That absolutely warrants impeachment, and definitely falls within the context of the phrase "High crimes and misdemeanors." Nixon himself knew that if he faced a trial in the Senate, despite Democrats only having 57 seats, that he would be convicted and removed from office, that Republicans would even vote to convict a member of their own party.

Yet Democrats still have been reluctant to use impeachment even when it was completely necessary and warranted. After Democrats took back Congress in 2006, then-Speaker Nancy Pelosi blocked impeachment proceedings of George W. Bush and Dick Cheney. Bush and Cheney committed war crimes that not only warranted being impeached and removed from office, but also to be dragged to the Hague and tried in an international court. And yet, the House Judiciary Committee still took no action on the Articles of Impeachment filed by Dennis Kucinich and Robert Wexler.

[hopper]

To respond to something the last poster said:

Clinton should have been impeached but the beef I have was Newt was having an affair with another woman while he was blasting Clinton for his own cheating during the impeachment process. That's just backwards.

[DevotedDemocrat]

To respond to something the last poster said:

Clinton should have been impeached but the beef I have was Newt was having an affair with another woman while he was blasting Clinton for his own cheating during the impeachment process. That's just backwards.

The problem with the Republicans is that while Clinton did lie under oath, and that is an impeachable offense, it seemd petty and desperate on their part; they had practically been trying to impeach him almost since he came into office, and had tried to assassinate his and his wife's character so many times with Whitewater, Hairgate, Travelgate, Nannygate etc that it was like the boy who cried wolf.

The GOP cried "SCANDAL!", "LIES!", "CROOKS!" against the Clintons so much throughout the '90s that when Clinton finally DID do some illegal, no one really cared anymore. And the fact that it was over a blowjob....They made his impeachment more about his personal character, more about his cheating and lack of morals, than his actual lawbreaking. If they'd stuck to the issue of illegality, maybe more of the public would've supported the cause of his impeachment....But the high and mighty Gingrich Republicans made it seem like a moral issue, a sexual issue, rather than simply an issue of no one being above the law....It killed it for them.

Like with Nixon, if more issue had been made about the dirty content of the tapes (Nixon cursing and so on), the message might have been lost that it wasn't his language that mattered, it was what he said, and his actions....It would've seemed petty if the investigators in the Watergate affair made it all about his use of curse words.

[hopper]

To respond to something the last poster said:

Clinton should have been impeached but the beef I have was Newt was having an affair with another woman while he was blasting Clinton for his own cheating during the impeachment process. That's just backwards.

The problem with the Republicans is that while Clinton did lie under oath, and that is an impeachable offense, it seemd petty and desperate on their part; they had practically been trying to impeach him almost since he came into office, and had tried to assassinate his and his wife's character so many times with Whitewater, Hairgate, Travelgate, Nannygate etc that it was like the boy who cried wolf.

The GOP cried "SCANDAL!", "LIES!", "CROOKS!" against the Clintons so much throughout the '90s that when Clinton finally DID do some illegal, no one really cared anymore. And the fact that it was over a blowjob....They made his impeachment more about his personal character, more about his cheating and lack of morals, than his actual lawbreaking. If they'd stuck to the issue of illegality, maybe more of the public would've supported the cause of his impeachment....But the high and mighty Gingrich Republicans made it seem like a moral issue, a sexual issue, rather than simply an issue of no one being above the law....It killed it for them.

Like with Nixon, if more issue had been made about the dirty content of the tapes (Nixon cursing and so on), the message might have been lost that it wasn't his language that mattered, it was what he said, and his actions....It would've seemed petty if the investigators in the Watergate affair made it all about his use of curse words.

I agree with you on Watergate in that the cover-up was worse than the scandal itself.

Assassinate  Clinton's character? Like what the Dems did to Bush W. and like what the Republicans are doing to Obama now? That's nothing new(like in the last 20 years) for the opposing party to slam the presidents party in power.

Clinton did some stupid stuff like Whitewater and Travel Gate though. Was Travel Gate a scandal? No probably not but it was an act of stupidity.

I could see your post saying the Republican cried wolf too many times on so-called scandals or during Bill Clinton's impeachment. Well at least Congress got stuff done back then even with bickering between which ever party was in power at the Congressional Level and which party had the presidency. No you see all bickering and no good pieces of legislation getting passed. I'm tired of Obama's executive orders and the Tea Party Republicans listening to whatever Conservative Talk Radio wants them to do. Either pass good pieces of legislation or quit.

I will say this ok Clinton or Gingrich they weren't friends but they left idealogy for the most part at the door and worked for the American People and didn't base policy choices on some whacked out idealogy or listening to whatever Conservative Talk Radio or the liberal media wanted them to do.

[Joshgreen]

To respond to something the last poster said:

Clinton should have been impeached but the beef I have was Newt was having an affair with another woman while he was blasting Clinton for his own cheating during the impeachment process. That's just backwards.

The problem with the Republicans is that while Clinton did lie under oath, and that is an impeachable offense, it seemd petty and desperate on their part; they had practically been trying to impeach him almost since he came into office, and had tried to assassinate his and his wife's character so many times with Whitewater, Hairgate, Travelgate, Nannygate etc that it was like the boy who cried wolf.

The GOP cried "SCANDAL!", "LIES!", "CROOKS!" against the Clintons so much throughout the '90s that when Clinton finally DID do some illegal, no one really cared anymore. And the fact that it was over a blowjob....They made his impeachment more about his personal character, more about his cheating and lack of morals, than his actual lawbreaking. If they'd stuck to the issue of illegality, maybe more of the public would've supported the cause of his impeachment....But the high and mighty Gingrich Republicans made it seem like a moral issue, a sexual issue, rather than simply an issue of no one being above the law....It killed it for them.

Like with Nixon, if more issue had been made about the dirty content of the tapes (Nixon cursing and so on), the message might have been lost that it wasn't his language that mattered, it was what he said, and his actions....It would've seemed petty if the investigators in the Watergate affair made it all about his use of curse words.

I agree with you on Watergate in that the cover-up was worse than the scandal itself.

Assassinate  Clinton's character? Like what the Dems did to Bush W. and like what the Republicans are doing to Obama now? That's nothing new(like in the last 20 years) for the opposing party to slam the presidents party in power.

Clinton did some stupid stuff like Whitewater and Travel Gate though. Was Travel Gate a scandal? No probably not but it was an act of stupidity.

I could see your post saying the Republican cried wolf too many times on so-called scandals or during Bill Clinton's impeachment. Well at least Congress got stuff done back then even with bickering between which ever party was in power at the Congressional Level and which party had the presidency. No you see all bickering and no good pieces of legislation getting passed. I'm tired of Obama's executive orders and the Tea Party Republicans listening to whatever Conservative Talk Radio wants them to do. Either pass good pieces of legislation or quit.

I will say this ok Clinton or Gingrich they weren't friends but they left idealogy for the most part at the door and worked for the American People and didn't base policy choices on some whacked out idealogy or listening to whatever Conservative Talk Radio or the liberal media wanted them to do.

There is no such thing.

[Torie]

The Dems only wish. Heck the Pubs got over their shut down the government via the debt ceiling limit to get leverage thing. They are house broken. They know the road to power is in the opposite direction from such fun and games, which while maybe self satisfying, lead to defeat, leading to the ultimate dissatisfaction for these political entrepreneurs of course, where winning is just about everything, damn the rest.

[Representative Joe Mad]

No.

[politicallefty]

I really don't think they're that stupid. If they are, I think they'll have signed away the Presidency and both Houses of Congress for 2016.