I'm afraid a kind of voluntary impeachment is more and more likely.

[pnwmom]

Pres. Obama might have to cite the 14th amendment and ignore the debt ceiling, knowing full well that the Rethugs will then start an impeachment action against him. But only the Senate can CONVICT him, and they won't -- even if they get a majority in 2014. Because it takes a super-majority to convict.

Still, if Obama is facing this we should work our tails off to keep the Senate majority in the 2014 elections. We should anyway. If the Rethugs take both houses, Obama's only power will be with a veto pen.

[brush]

1. Impeachment unlikely

Even the teapublicans wouldn't try that after the mess they've caused, especially with the ACA being so popular.

They will cut their own throats for 2014 if they even start to mention it seriously after this debacle.

[HereSince1628]

11. I dunno, it would make Congress dysfunctional for a couple more months...

and the teahad seems willing to cut off it's own nose to achieve that.

[brush]

16. Well . . . you're right

There is that.

[Samantha]

14. You reason it out well except for the fact THEY ARE NOT THINKING PEOPLE

It is impossible to address an irrational situation with a rational argument. I have learned this from past experience.

Sam
PS Of course you know, they are already discussing impeachment....

[brush]

22. I know a couple of the extreme kooks . . .

in the teaparty have publicly flirted with the word "impeachment" to get attention, but maybe I am giving the rest of them too much credit too to think they wouldn't attempt it.

God! That bunch of radical crazies have burrowed a nest for themselves inside the already crazy repug House and "Boner" can't do anything about it — or won't because he likes being Speaker too much. Guess any job you can drink on and not do much else but get tanned (oranged really) and play a little golf can't be so bad, huh?

[pnwmom]

27. It wasn't rational when they impeached Clinton for being evasive about

sex with another consulting adult.

[HeiressofBickworth]

42. That is not what the charge against him was

Clinton was charged for lying under oath in a legal proceeding about sex with another consulting adult. The offense was lying under oath. He brought it upon himself -- he should have said something along the lines of, yup, I had sex with her. Then there would have been no charge to bring because having sex with another consulting adult, even if married, is not an impeachable offense. Lying under oath is.

[pnwmom]

44. They shouldn't have been asking him about sex. That wasn't what

the prosecutor was supposed to be investigating, and no other President in history had been subjected to that kind of questioning.

And he hedged, and he was evasive, but I don't think he actually lied -- not that it was any of their business.

[HeiressofBickworth]

51. From Wikipedia

The trial in question WAS about sex. He was charged by Paula Jones with sexual harassment. "In his Paula Jones deposition, he swore, "I have never had sexual relations with Monica Lewinsky. I've never had an affair with her." Months later, Clinton admitted that his relationship with Lewinsky was "wrong" and "not appropriate." "

Lying in a deposition is the same as lying on the witness stand. The charges against him were perjury and obstruction of justice.

While you and I may think that asking any questions at all about someone's sex life is harassment at least, the fact remains that he lied under oath and the case was about sex. I have always thought he should have respectfully hung his head and admitted it. The wolves at the door would have found nothing to use against him.

With regard to President Obama, he has done nothing impeachable. Article Two, Section 4 of the Constitution: "The President, Vice President and all civil Officers of the United States, shall be removed from Office on Impeachment for, and Conviction of, Treason, Bribery, or other High crimes and Misdemeanors." Differences of opinion on the treatment of the debt ceiling does not fall into these categories of impeachable offenses.

[pnwmom]

54. The prosecutor was not charged with investigating sex.

He was charged with investigating Clinton's business affairs, like Whitewater, but he just kept moving further and further afield, expanding his investigations in every direction, till the Paula Jones matter surfaced.

Clinton should have handled it differently, but the fact remains that no President had ever been attacked for his private relationships before.

And with regard to Obama, the House could impeach on on whatever grounds the House chose. It's not up to US to decide whether he has done something impeachable. It's up to the House. And I don't trust the people in the House while they're in this pathetic thrall to the tea party crazies.

[Nevernose]

46. That's not accurate

The two parties had already stipulated as to the definition of sex: intercourse. As far as that legal proceeding, only vaginal intercourse was considered sex. So when he was asked if he had had sex with Monica, legally speaking he had not had sex with her. Morally he was a liar and a cheater, but legally -- i.e. the grounds for impeachment -- he was telling the truth. It is a matter of semantics, but where the law is concerned, sometimes semantics are everything.

In short: Clinton didn't lie under oath.

[DURHAM D]

53. Correct

[2naSalit]

2. I think that

Waaay before that, especially if these asswipes pull off a shutdown and debt ceiling crisis, he can declare a national emergency and make some serious changes that could cut them off at the pass with the sweep of a pen... since they are blatantly displaying insurrectionist attributes. There are ways that the president can thwart these guys but he kind of needs to let them have enough rope to hang themselves with their stupidity before he kicks the stool out from under them. And hopefully before they hang us too. It's definitely a three dimensional chess game at this point and the TPs haven't got the savvy to play at that level.

[liberal N proud]

3. After this stunt, another waste of time impeachment would be the death neel of the GOP

The American people are fed up and they couldn't endure such a farce.

[brush]

31. My thoughs also. nt

[Vanje]

4. Nonsense.

[xfundy]

5. unrec.

[gopiscrap]

6. I'd love to see those fucking repukes try it

they'd get their asses nailed in the next election.

[kestrel91316]

7. I said years ago that the Repukes were going to impeach every Democratic President to come along

after Clinton because they got away with impeaching Clinton. I've been expecting it with Obama. He's probably completely prepared for it - I'm sure he's expecting it, too.

[Bjorn Against]

8. I think if they tried we would hear the words "please proceed" from Obama

I think there is a good chance that they do try such a thing, and I suspect that Obama would be popping corks on champaign bottles if they tried such a thing, it would be the first time in history in which being impeached would actually be a blessing. The fact is that if Obama were to cite the 14th Amendment most Americans would agree with him doing so, most Americans aside from the most rabid right-wingers wants the shut down to end.

Clinton got lots of supporters standing up for him despite the fact that most of those supporters were disappointed with his actions. If they were to impeach Obama for an action that the large majority of Americans agreed with him taking however his level of support would go far beyond the already substantial level of support Clinton got. Honestly, Obama would have every reason to celebrate an impeachment attempt in such circumstances, it would only build his support and destroy the Republicans.

[grantcart]

18. Yep. It would have a 20 year impact.

[treestar]

9. Why do people tie it to impeachment?

It would not be a crime. It would be an interpretation of the law, to be tested in the courts and that's it.

[Cha]

12. Because the gopricks keep talking about it and we know they

have been laying in wait for the slightest excuse.

It would actually be a huge badge of honor to be impeached by idiots.

[pnwmom]

40. Democratic people wouldn't. But tea party people

would be chomping at the bit for any excuse to impeach, and the "reasonable" R's don't seem to be able to control them anymore.

[Cha]

10. I've been kind of thinking the same thing, pnwmom.

I know the President will do everything in his power for the country and not let these fucking terrorists win.

Thinking they have the most brilliant Dem Lawyers workin' on it now..

[Rex]

13. Kewl story!

Not a chance.

[Motown_Johnny]

15. Ya know... he could lose that court battle

With a crazy RW Supreme Court majority like we have now, they just might decide that the debt ceiling law is more important than the 14th amendment.

If that happens, we are screwed.

[Volaris]

33. Wouldn't happen.

Roberts is a Corporatist FIRST, and a Republican second. If he gets to weigh in on the intentional tanking of the global economy (not so good for profits) vs. NOT tanking the global economy (GREAT for profits), guess what's gonna happen?
This combined with the reality that The Chief Justice actually wants historic and Public Opinion of his court to end up being more good than bad, and the fact that the country doesn't NEED a debt ceiling at all vs. the notion that the 14th Amendment is actually part of the US FUCKING CONSTITUTION means Obama wins that legal battle walking away, even IF it ends with the precedent of handing the Executive yet ANOTHER of Congress' responsibilities, this time by default.

Yeah, Fat Tony, Sammy the Bull and Uncle Thomas might dissent, but that's par for the course.

[pnwmom]

41. Don't forget about the clause about borrowing being reserved to Congress.

Under Article I, Section 8 of the Constitution, Congress has the power to "borrow money on the credit of the United States." Only the Congress has this power.

When there is a conflict in the Constitution itself, anything could happen.

[Volaris]

47. Listed specifically AFTER the sentence where it has a responsibility to pay the Nation's bills...

I'm PERSONALLY of the opinion that Congress doesn't get to decide which of it's responsibilities its going to excercise based on the political winds of the day, and I'll admit that's probably a pretty weak legal argument. If a Constitutional Crisis is going to be forced, then it's CONGRESS that's doing it in this case, and the President is doing what he can to NOT have that happen. I think this is a situation where the "tie goes to the runner", so to speak.

But, it would be precedent-setting either way no doubt, and a total pain in the ass for America until the SC gets it sorted out.

[pnwmom]

48. I doubt that the SC would get involved.

It's up to the House whether they want to impeach or not, and they only need to have enough grounds to satisfy THEMSELVES -- not the Supreme Court.

But if Obama is impeached (which is like an indictment), the next step would be a trial in the Senate, and the Senate will not find him guilty.

[Volaris]

52. agreed.

It would be the ultimate form of Public Self-Pleasuring of the 'Bagger contingent, and the rest of Congress (and the country) would just have to sit there and watch them make a spectacle of themselves, in all their orgiastic joy-glory.

[Motown_Johnny]

56. You should never make a bet you are not willing to lose

and I don't trust Roberts anywhere near enough to make that bet.

You could be right but maybe not.

[Pretzel_Warrior]

17. I think th normal non-crazy Repugs won't allow it.

It would be GOP part-wide suicide to do it.

[Liberal_in_LA]

19. how did this crazy comment get 9 recs?

[joshcryer]

21. you don't think they will try to impeach?

[Rex]

23. Because 9 crazy people want him impeached imo.

IF that is what I understand from the Usual Suspects when people post about Obama and impeachment...hmmm funny don't see them in this thread anywhere.

Strange.

[pnwmom]

24. I don't want him impeached. But it won't reflect anything bad on him

if it happens.

It would just be more one more unjustified attack by the Rethugs.

[Rex]

26. It would be justification that the system is crap.

Impeachment should be for really important things like high treason. Obama is simply enforcing a law that Congress passed and is telling them to get back to work.

There is NO grounds for impeachment.

[pnwmom]

28. Were you paying attention during the Clinton era? There were no grounds

for impeachment then either. No President EVER had been impeached on such trivial grounds.

[Rex]

30. They caught him in a lie or pretended to...so where is the big lie that they

are going to catch Obama in? This is apples to oranges, there is nothing...rationally or irrationally...that they can use to impeach the POTUS. I see none.

They shutdown the govt...and everyone paid attention. Let the freak out commence.

[pnwmom]

34. They don't have to catch him in a lie. All they have to do is

charge him with not following the debt ceiling law. And when he cites the 14th amendment, then they'll cite Article 1, Section 8 -- and impeach him BECAUSE THEY CAN. They don't need to be right. They don't care about that. And there's no one to stop them from impeaching if they choose.

OTOH, the Senate will be reasonable and won't convict.

[Rex]

35. Never happen.

I tell ya what, if it does I will come back in here and say sorry I was wrong.

[pnwmom]

37. I might not see it. Please P.M. me.

But I'm hoping you're right.

[Rex]

39. Me too...well if it happens you know there will be a thread on it in GD.

And if so I will say it there, we will probably be there posting in it anyway.

[joshcryer]

29. wtf

[Rex]

32. I don't really believe it, but it is a double standard I've seen

used here on DU.

[pnwmom]

36. Do you think I want him impeached? You're completely wrong.

But I don't put anything past those people in the House and I think we should be mentally prepared.

[Rex]

38. No it is a double standard around here some people seem to be

allowed to use the 'I' word and others get shouted down if bringing it up with this POTUS. It is strange how that works if you ask me. Feel lucky you are not getting swarmed for mentioning it.

[joshcryer]

49. We're just saying if he raises the debt ceiling, the GOP will impeach.

The whole "voluntary impeachment" analogy is that if he doesn't raise the debt ceiling then he won't get impeached.

In other words, he would probably be raising it, if he does, under the possibility that he will get impeached.

[pnwmom]

25. What is crazy about it?

Don't you think it is possible the Rethugs will allow us to go into default and -- to avoid that --Obama will have to ignore the debt ceiling? And that if he did so, the Rethugs would impeach him?

I think we should be prepared to support him if this happens, which feels like a 50/50 chance to me at this point.

[Liberal_in_LA]

57. i disagree. obama pretty good at out foxing the gop

[woolldog]

20. He should just let the country default.

the republicans would be crucified by the public if that happened.

[malletgirl02]

43. Default

Could Obama also be impeached if he lets the country default? That would also be breaking the law, because it means the government failed to meet its obligations.

[pnwmom]

45. The Congress can impeach him for ANYTHING

that they can find the votes to impeach him for. It's entirely up to them.

[joshcryer]

50. Indeed, impeachment is a political process.

It has nothing to do with the judiciary at all, whatsoever. There is no defense in an impeachment (though you can do a defense, to tell your side of the story, it is not necessary).

[hrmjustin]

55. I hope they do not pull a stunt.