Quantcast

Comments about ‘Frank Pignanelli & LaVarr Webb: Impeachment, the border crisis and other issues creating political crazy talk’

Return to article »

Published: Monday, Aug. 11 2014 6:46 p.m. MDT

Updated: Monday, Aug. 11 2014 6:46 p.m. MDT

Comments
  • Oldest first
  • Newest first
  • Most recommended
Shane333
Cedar Hills, UT

Nixon was impeached for spying on an opposing political party.

Obama's administration has been caught spying on Congress, spying on the American people, using the power of the IRS to suppress political opponents, running guns to Mexican drug cartels (which were then used to kill US Border patrol agents), abandoning a US ambassador to die and then lying to the American people repeatedly about the cause, enacting Executive Orders to alter laws when he doesn't have the Constitutional authority to do so, etc. Any other president in US history would have been impeached and run out in disgrace long ago. However, with a lapdog Senate and lapdog media, impeachment isn't a realistic option for Obama.

The best that can be accomplished now is to simply render Obama politically impotent and limit his ability to cause further damage to the United State of America until his term ends and he can be replaced with someone more honest and competent.

2 bits
Cottonwood Heights, UT

IMO Impeachment is "crazy talk". Just as it was back when Democrats proposed impeaching President Bush.

The difference is... today some fringe people on the right talk about it. During the Bush Administration it was actual CONGRESSMEN who did it. And Majority of Democrats in the House supported the motion (not just the fringe Democrats). It would have come up for a vote but Bush Presidency ended before they could do it.

There's a difference between a few fringe people who really oppose the President and his policies holding up signs and talking about it... and actual mainstream elected representatives drafting the bill and bringing it up for a vote in Congress (and the majority of Democrats in the House voting FOR it BTW).

So you can't say it never got serious consideration from Democrats back when Bush was President. But majority of Democrats in Congress voted FOR it!

Google "Efforts to impeach Bush" and "Efforts to impeach Obama"...
Wikipedia has a good outline on both. Democrats actually wrote up the articles of impeachment and voted FOR it. Republicans didn't. But Democrats are whining...

Politicians should know... what goes around comes around (eventually).

Tyler D
Meridian, ID

@Shane333 – “… and he can be replaced with someone more honest and competent.”

No doubt the only candidates who will meet this criteria are of both the conservative and Caucasian persuasion.

DanO
Mission Viejo, CA

Shane333, there is a lot of misinformation in your post, starting with your very first sentence. Nixon resigned before the Articles of Impeachment went to the full house. The Benghazi meme has been debunked several times (even by the GOP's own investigations), the gun running was a hold out from Bush policies. The IRS "scandal" has been disproved. And administrations have delayed implementation of legislation in the past. (Bush and Part D).

Tyler D
Meridian, ID

@2 bits – “IMO Impeachment is "crazy talk". Just as it was back when Democrats proposed impeaching President Bush.”

You mean like when Reps actually did impeach President Clinton (only falling short of votes) because they were able to trap him into a lie about a sexual liaison? Do you really want to engage in a “who’s purer” debate when it comes to following the constitutional direction on remedies for “high crimes & misdemeanors?”

My guess is the Right has never forgiven the (almost) impeachment of Nixon just like they have never forgiven the rejection of Bork (and almost Thomas) and until they extract their pound of fresh we will continue to see this partisan playground nonsense.

airnaut
Everett, 00

Shane333
Cedar Hills, UT

Obama's administration has been caught spying on Congress, spying on the American people, using the power of the IRS to suppress political opponents, running guns to Mexican drug cartels (which were then used to kill US Border patrol agents), abandoning a US ambassador to die and then lying to the American people repeatedly about the cause, enacting Executive Orders to alter laws when he doesn't have the Constitutional authority to do so, etc. Any other president in US history would have been impeached and run out in disgrace long ago. However, with a lapdog Senate and lapdog media, impeachment isn't a realistic option for Obama.

======

Seriously?

The process is --

Drum up the indictment.
Hold a Congressional hearing.
Vote.
And
THEN Impeach.

The House GOP hasn't even past the 1st hurdle,
for a single instance you claim.

i.e., CARZY talk, that's what it is, and that's why....

BTW -- your memory of the 8 years under GW Bush is pathetic.

OneWifeOnly
San Diego, CA

From the article: "Republicans have used the word “impeach” or “impeachment” only four times."

There was a photo accompanying the article which was 3 people waving a handmade "Impeach Obama" banner and the U.S. flag. I suppose we are to believe these individuals are Democrats?

one old man
Ogden, UT

Well, the HEADLINE is correct. The rest of the article . . . . . ?

2 bits
Cottonwood Heights, UT

@OneWifeOnly,

Yes the picture shows 3 people holding up a handmade sign. Nobody said they are Democrats. But I think you can find 3 crazy-talkers like this in EITHER party. Probably way more than 3.

We had 251 of them in the House back when Bush was President. The vote in the House was 251 to 166 to refer the impeachment resolution to the Judiciary Committee on June 11 2008. In my eyes that's crazier than 3 people waving their sign on a bridge.

=======================

@Tyler D

This may shock you, or not fit your stereotype for me but... I think it was crazy-talk to impeach President Clinton for his transgressions as well. But remember... he was impeached for lying to Congress, not for what he did with Monica. Perjury and lying to Congress are still a big thing, especially when it's our President. But that whole episode was crazy (IMO).

I don't know if it was Nixon payback. And I don't approve whether it was or not. I'm just saying payback happens in politics... that's a fact of political reality (not something I like or condone).

Schnee
Salt Lake City, UT

@2 bits
" During the Bush Administration it was actual CONGRESSMEN who did it."

You must not pay much attention to House Republicans today.

Tyler D
Meridian, ID

@2 bits – “This may shock you, or not fit your stereotype for me but... I think it was crazy-talk to impeach President Clinton for his transgressions as well.”

Actually I think you can be one of the more interesting characters on this board because there are times you exhibit some real independence of thought & perspective (vs. many who just parrot talking points).

Anyway, glad you think the Clinton episode was crazy too, but I think it’s important to understand why. First, he did not lie (directly) to Congress – he lied to a congressionally appointed special prosecutor who used an open-ended deposition process to blindside him with an embarrassing personal question.

That he lied about it scarcely rises to the level of high crimes & misdemeanors, but that hardly mattered to the rabid partisans out for his blood.

And I would venture to say that most of our elected officials put in a similar circumstance could be in the same hot water (and is why both sides are now scared to death to ever use a special prosecutor again).

Previous comment – should have been “pound of FLESH.”

OneWifeOnly
San Diego, CA

@2 bits:
I don't think Democrats are talking about impeachment of a Democratic president. I do think Democrats are talking about Republicans who are talking about impeachment of President Obama. If you disagree, please name one Democrat who has suggested the House of Representatives impeach our current president.

Historically, the House of Representatives have launched investigations to impeach at least 12 presidents. But an investigation is not the same thing as an impeachment which has happened to only 2 presidents and both were acquitted and not removed from office. The one which most certainly would have removed a sitting president from office was against President Nixon.

On the other hand, it is a fact that U.S. House of Representatives has never sued a sitting president in all of U.S. history.

2 bits
Cottonwood Heights, UT

@Schnee

Re: "You must not pay much attention to House Republicans today"....

That's probably true. I don't pay much attention to House Republicans. They are a joke (IMO). House Democrats and the Senate... equally a joke.

I don't pay much attention to what they say on MSNBC either. Or FOX. What are they saying today... That House Republicans have written up articles of impeachment for President Obama?

Until they do... it's not the same. There will always be some crazy-talkers (both sides). Some inside and outside Congress will bad mouth the President (yes... even Obama). That's nothing new. Impeachment-talk is "crazy-talk". But actually writing up articles of impeachment and submitting them is WORSE. And the majority of your party voting to impeach the President... is even MORE crazy (IMO). Yes... even when it's the evil President Bush...

IF House Republicans write up articles of impeachment for President Obama, and proceed past political crazy-talk, and a majority of them vote FOR impeachment (as Democrats did to Bush)... they will be equal.

Google both of them and at least read the opening paragraph... one side went way further than talk...

John Charity Spring
Back Home in Davis County, UT

No reasonable person can deny that traditional notions of American values is under attack. That includes traditional values that influenced government.

Now, we are faced with attack based politics in which politicians seek to advance their own interests over that of the public. No civilized society cannot withstand this discord.

We cannot ignore impeachment as a tool for saving America. If lawlessness reigns, anarchy will be the inevitable result. As  Abraham Lincoln famously stated "Whenever the vicious portion of the population shall be permitted to gather in bands of hundreds and thousands, and burn churches, ravage and rob provision stores, throw printing presses into rivers, shoot editors, and hang and burn obnoxious persons at pleasure, and with impunity; depend on it, this government cannot last."

GaryO
Virginia Beach, VA

Gosh Webb –

You’re using all the popular “Conservative” Cliché’s . . . And PROJECTING to beat the band.

“Certainly, talk of impeaching the president is nutty — but Democrats are the ones exploiting the issue.”

Come on LaVarr . . . It’s not Democrats who threaten impeachment. It’s Republicans. Dems merely acknowledge that fact, and it if generates money for the NDP, so much the better. BTW, I would like to extend a Thank You to those loud Republicans out there who incessantly harp about impeachment. You’re generating a massive amount of money for the Democratic Party.

“Both political parties and both branches of government deserve outrage and condemnation . . . ” Webb, you KNOW that’s not true. Republicans may be magnanimous in sharing the blame, but the fact is that Democrats are FOR good governance. And a growing number of Republicans are AGAINST government altogether.

That’s why it should be of no surprise that when anti-government Tea Party types are elected, they do everything possible to validate the premise that got them elected . . . That government is bad. Perception has become reality. When Republicans dominate government, then government IS in fact, bad.

Schnee
Salt Lake City, UT

@2 bits
It doesn't matter if one side goes farther if that one side is charging a President with breaking national and international law. With Republicans they decided to sue him and then later decided what they should even sue him for.

Esquire
Springville, UT

@ John Charity Spring, I've asked you before about the Lincoln quote, as have others, and you've never responded. What ARE you talking about?

"If lawlessness reigns, anarchy will be the inevitable result." Of that, you are correct, but what are you saying? Did it apply in the prior Administration as well, or is it just one sided?

TheProudDuck
Newport Beach, CA

Richard Nixon, if he were alive today and a Democrat, would not be impeached.

RRB
SLC, UT

Blaming America for the drug cartels is a pure guilt trip. People all over the world are their customers. And the children came here because Obama is not deporting them. It will continue until we stop it by sending them back.

Does anyone really think that letting them stay will solve the problem in the future?

Rick for Truth
Provo, UT

If I remember correctly, die hard Democrats created a movie where President Bush was assassinated. Extremism it not the sole prevue of the far Left. High Crimes and misdemeanors against the Constitution must be alleged and passed through the House, then a super majority must vote to convict in the Senate. The Presidents actions are only to bait the Republicans into impeachment action to rouse the left's voting base in the upcoming November Election.

to comment

DeseretNews.com encourages a civil dialogue among its readers. We welcome your thoughtful comments.
About comments