Can Obama force Reid and Pelosi to go away? Is that possible?

A Freeper article greenlit?

This is going to be fun.

/gets rain slicker to deflect rage-produced spittle

Ok, once again, this is a GREAT idea. Bush and Cheney resign. In order to become president, Pelosi would have to RESIGN her house seat, and she won't be able to run again until 2010.

She can do a LOT less damage in 6 weeks as president than two years as speaker.

You Can't Fix Stupid: A Freeper article greenlit?

Don't confuse the Detroit Free Press with freerepublic.com. The "Freep" is a bit misleading.

If we could get rid of both of their inept asses at once, we would be much better off.

UFIA, mr. president?

Considering the markets go into apoplexy if the right person even sneezes, I have to say, "Bad idea."

"...submitted a resolution demanding that Bush stop issuing "pre-emptive pardons of senior officials in his administration during the final 90 days of office."

Jesus Christ. The Constitution would like a word with this idiot.

That opinion piece was insipid. How quickly does this mental midget think the impeachment process could happen? Does she really think they will call a special session during the holidays to get that done with him leaving in less than two months? And on the grounds of the bad economy? Good lord, do they let any brainless simp with a keyboard write editorials there?

While I said that appointing Rahm Emanuel as Chief of Staff was hypocritical of Obama given Emanuel's hyper partisan ways I am somewhat glad he appointed him since Emanuel will be used to keep these morans at bay.

Wouldn't there have to be some evidence showing where he did something Illegal?

I mean, at least Clinton lied under oath, so there was an initial crime.

I'm also not sure about holding two trials at same time. If you impeach Bush, and convict with two thirds of the senate, which couldn't happen, then cheney would be President, then what, do it again?

Do we really need to waste money on something like this? Is this really the best use of tax payers dollars that are left after everything thing else that is going on right now?

sullyman: If we could get rid of both of their inept asses at once, we would be much better off.

Could you not accomplish the same thing by the house electing a new speaker and waiting a month and a half?

pandabear: the house electing a new speaker

I don't think that's very likely. Although I'd like to see Kucinich as speaker, just for the Lols.

Pelosi: "we'll hold them accountable and make positive change"
Pelosi: *Passes non-binding resolutions*
Pelosi: "taa-daa!"

It's fairly pathetic how little some people know and understand about the Constitution and our political process. It's even more pathetic that these people get op-eds placed into major newspapers.

Article: The only hope for the economy is if we force Nancy Pelosi to impeach Bush right now. After that it gets a little weird

Yes, I am quite aware that the headline refers to the linked article.

bulldg4life: Can Obama force Reid and Pelosi to go away? Is that possible?

THAT is change that EVERYONE can believe in.

Crosshair: bulldg4life: Can Obama force Reid and Pelosi to go away? Is that possible?

THAT is change that EVERYONE can believe in.

I might even take back some of the things I said about him if he were to do this.

Right now Bush and Obama are working hand in hand towards the same goal of bandaging the economy, however idiotic the means - at least they're working together.

bulldg4life: Can Obama force Reid and Pelosi to go away? Is that possible?

I think nirvana would spring from the explosion that results from the matter/antimatter collision I hope would occur from Pelosi and Bush actually making contact and taking each other out.

Ah the dirty "I" word.

The truth is that if we don't impeach, it sends the message to future Presidents that they can do whatever the hell they want without repercussion from anyone.

Dangerous Presidential precedent...

What would be a good idea that will never work (and it's too late for this) is if the Congress amends article II (& 34 States have to ratify it) so that a president can't pardon while under impeachment proceedings.

Wow. Nice to see that NRO isn't hogging up all the stupid.

Last week, Rep. Jerrold Nadler, D-New York, submitted a resolution demanding that Bush stop issuing "pre-emptive pardons of senior officials in his administration during the final 90 days of office."

Wow. It just never stops.

But for as much as I have said all along that Obama would bring no change, I am so ecstatic that we will have a President who shows some kind of regard for the existence of the Constitution.

whidbey: The truth is that if we don't impeach, it sends the message to future Presidents that they can do whatever the hell they want without repercussion from anyone.

That's why Clinton was impeached, but libs didn't want to go along.

whidbey: Ah the dirty "I" word.

The truth is that if we don't impeach, it sends the message to future Presidents that they can do whatever the hell they want without repercussion from anyone.

Dangerous Presidential precedent...

The new Congress takes over about 3 weeks before Obama is sworn in, leaving about 3 weeks for a new Congress to ram through an Impeachment (because the current Congress doesn't have the votes), spending countless hours focusing on a task that only the most rapid of partisans wants to take up in light of the economic catastrophe seen in the eyes of a super-majority of U.S. citizens.

Do congresscritters really want to tell their constituents, "Hey, sorry about your foreclosed home and unemployment, but we were, uh, busy spending time removing a man from office who leaves on his own in 3 weeks...kthxbye!"

what_now: "...submitted a resolution demanding that Bush stop issuing "pre-emptive pardons of senior officials in his administration during the final 90 days of office."

Jesus Christ. The Constitution would like a word with this idiot.

A preemptive pardon is the problem.

Who is this Rochelle Riley dumbass anyway?

For the life of me I can't understand this mentality of just let him leave, no charges, no impeachment so long as he's gone. Is this really the America we want? No accountability anywhere?

If congress can pass resolutions honoring the pacific sea turtle, and congratulate (insert some random sports team) for the love of god, can't they do some real work and actually CHECK AND BALANCE our gobernmnint?

sonnyjrob: For the life of me I can't understand this mentality of just let him leave, no charges, no impeachment so long as he's gone. Is this really the America we want? No accountability anywhere?

If congress can pass resolutions honoring the pacific sea turtle, and congratulate (insert some random sports team) for the love of god, can't they do some real work and actually CHECK AND BALANCE our gobernmnint?

America is divided. It's too late to impeach him now, it would have looked bad 2 years ago.

Democrats can do more good by moving forward than by fretting about the past.

Asteroth: what_now: "...submitted a resolution demanding that Bush stop issuing "pre-emptive pardons of senior officials in his administration during the final 90 days of office."

Jesus Christ. The Constitution would like a word with this idiot.

A preemptive pardon is the problem.

Ok, so The US Constitution AND Gerald Ford would like a word with this guy.

- it would be hard for the justice dept to say that preemptive pardons are illegal. It's murky at best. Ask that idiot congressman from Michigan..Conyers, I think, who wanted to impeach Ford.

It seems like a perfect time to do it.

wonder why they haven't yet.

sonnyjrob: If congress can pass resolutions honoring the pacific sea turtle, and congratulate (insert some random sports team) for the love of god, can't they do some real work and actually CHECK AND BALANCE our gobernmnint?

Because too many of them sat silently for two long. If you called for impeachment now, you'd get everyone who had been in Congress since, 06, Kuchinch, Fiengold, and RON PAUL!!1 while everyone else cleared their throat awkwardly.

FTFA: Nadler is storming the beach; others should join him.

Don't mention Nadler and the beach at the same time.

/shudders

sloppy shoes: sonnyjrob: For the life of me I can't understand this mentality of just let him leave, no charges, no impeachment so long as he's gone. Is this really the America we want? No accountability anywhere?

If congress can pass resolutions honoring the pacific sea turtle, and congratulate (insert some random sports team) for the love of god, can't they do some real work and actually CHECK AND BALANCE our gobernmnint?

America is divided. It's too late to impeach him now, it would have looked bad 2 years ago.

Democrats can do more good by moving forward than by fretting about the past.

So, are you abdicating that we allow NO accountability? That any crimes committed should be forgotten? That some people are TRULY ABOVE THE LAW?

whidbey: The truth is that if we don't impeach, it sends the message to future Presidents that they can do whatever the hell they want without repercussion from anyone.

i would gladly settle for prosecution instead. i think we should put the effort behind pushing for that.

what_now: sonnyjrob: If congress can pass resolutions honoring the pacific sea turtle, and congratulate (insert some random sports team) for the love of god, can't they do some real work and actually CHECK AND BALANCE our gobernmnint?

Because too many of them sat silently for two long. If you called for impeachment now, you'd get everyone who had been in Congress since, 06, Kuchinch, Fiengold, and RON PAUL!!1 while everyone else cleared their throat awkwardly.

Sorry, in a country built on laws, and equality this doesn't fly. Guess we get what we paid for, the lesser of two evils is still evil.

Never amazed at the disgrace this country brings on itself.

sonnyjrob: So, are you abdicating that we allow NO accountability? That any crimes committed should be forgotten? That some people are TRULY ABOVE THE LAW?

I think if they have something he has done that is against the law, they will impeach.

I think they should impeach. so that the American people can know without a doubt whether their President has done something illegal.

but they have found that simple accusations work better, so they will probably just keep doing that.

libtards: for the constitution, before they were against it.

Nabb1: That opinion piece was insipid. How quickly does this mental midget think the impeachment process could happen? Does she really think they will call a special session during the holidays to get that done with him leaving in less than two months? And on the grounds of the bad economy? Good lord, do they let any brainless simp with a keyboard write editorials there?

In the age of information, we can access worlds of information (and pornography) with the click of a button. Apparently, everything else should work just as quickly.

Everyone wants everything done yesterday these days.

Shostie: Everyone wants everything done yesterday these days.

unless she's under 18.

what_now: "...submitted a resolution demanding that Bush stop issuing "pre-emptive pardons of senior officials in his administration during the final 90 days of office."

Jesus Christ. The Constitution would like a word with this idiot.

What's unconstitutional about a congressional resolution? They can resolve any damn thing they like.

For that matter, Art. 2, Sect. 2, says "The President ... shall have Power to Grant Reprieves and Pardons for Offenses against the United States, except in Cases of Impeachment."

Do you want to argue that Ford's pardon of Nixon was unconstitutional, since Nixon resigned in the midst of impeachment proceedings?

Asteroth: what_now: "...submitted a resolution demanding that Bush stop issuing "pre-emptive pardons of senior officials in his administration during the final 90 days of office."

Jesus Christ. The Constitution would like a word with this idiot.

A preemptive pardon is the problem.

Who from his Administration did he pardon yet? It can't really become an issue unless he actually does. I wouldn't be suprised if he does, but that doesn't mean you can attack before he does it.

As justified as it may be, impeachment:

1. Is now years too late.
2. Was never a viable option, with a servile Republican majority in both houses until less than two years ago, and since then a tiny Democratic majority in the House, and a tie in the Senate (where tie votes are broken by none other than V.P. Dick Cheney.)

Isn't impeachment used to remove someone from office? If so, when Nixon resigned, the impeachment was moot, wasn't it? I'm not sure.

Cat Food Sandwiches: Isn't impeachment used to remove someone from office? If so, when Nixon resigned, the impeachment was moot, wasn't it? I'm not sure.

Impeachment is act of the House bringing charges against the President to the Senate. Only the Senate, by a 2/3 vote, can remove an impeached President.

MrGMan: Cat Food Sandwiches: Isn't impeachment used to remove someone from office? If so, when Nixon resigned, the impeachment was moot, wasn't it? I'm not sure.

Impeachment is act of the House bringing charges against the President to the Senate. Only the Senate, by a 2/3 vote, can remove an impeached President.

Thanks, I thought it was something like that. So, when Ford pardoned Nixon it had nothing to do with impeachment, since he had already resigned.

Cat Food Sandwiches: Isn't impeachment used to remove someone from office? If so, when Nixon resigned, the impeachment was moot, wasn't it? I'm not sure.

Yes.

Impeachment does not just refer to the president being impeached, any public official can be impeached. That provision is there to prevent the president from pardoning an underling once impeachment has been started.

BuckTurgidson: As justified as it may be, impeachment:

1. Is now years too late.

Is this a statute of limitation issue?

2. Was never a viable option, with a servile Republican majority in both houses until less than two years ago, and since then a tiny Democratic majority in the House, and a tie in the Senate (where tie votes are broken by none other than V.P. Dick Cheney.)

So, if I understand you correctly, even if laws were broken, it matters not since it would be his peers in DC that would need to convict? Are you implying that Republicans would not uphold law, they would put party over country?

sonnyjrob: Are you implying that Republicans would not uphold law, they would put party over country?

They DID. They had no excuse for their vote to send this country into an illegal war (and an illegal attack on Afghanistan), and then decided to further ignore the Constitution with the wiretapping flap and the PATRIOT act.

BOTH parties. We won't see an impeachment because Congress would have to impeach itself....

sonnyjrob: Sorry, in a country built on laws, and equality this doesn't fly. Guess we get what we paid for, the lesser of two evils is still evil.

Never amazed at the disgrace this country brings on itself.

oh, I'm not saying it's OK, I'm just saying that's WHY they can't impeach him. No one REALLY wants citizens to take an good hard look at government.