The Other McCain

"One should either write ruthlessly what one believes to be the truth, or else shut up." — Arthur Koestler

Those Wanting Obama Impeached Should Understand. . .

Posted on | October 18, 2012 | 17 Comments

by Smitty

I knew as I watched the debate that the Benghazi question was the climax. This ad compiles the details of the Presidential prevarication nicely:

What Romney did there was prosecute the Benghazi case for Stevens, Smith, Doherty and Woods. And he did it in the court of public opinion. And he was halted in his effort by a lousy sycophant of a moderator.

That’s all you’re going to get. There is no way under the sun, even if Dingy Harry were removed, that the precedent for turning the end of a Presidency into a legal probe is going to happen. You don’t want that precedent. Even for #OccupyResoluteDesk, who is hopefully the most atrocious piece of work this country ever suffers.

So, enjoy that ~20 seconds, and keep that in mind in just over a fortnight, when you get to cast your portion of the judgement on this sad little tool.

via Breitbart

Category: Barack Obama

Comments

17 Responses to “Those Wanting Obama Impeached Should Understand. . .”

  1. NeedMyCoffee
    October 18th, 2012 @ 7:53 pm

    Help me understand. When you say we ‘don’t want that precedent’ do you mean there is some unwritten rule that congress won’t initiate any legal proceedings against an incumbent president just because they are approaching the end of their term? Even in a case where criminal incompetence led to the murders of four Americans? And the entire administration then lied in a cover-up? And we are to just let this slide? Why? Are you saying that by breaking the unwritten rule we have opened the floodgates and going forward the opposing party would bring up every president on some kind of investigation as they approached the end of their term?

  2. K-Bob
    October 18th, 2012 @ 8:07 pm

    I agree with the point, Smitty, but I’ve been forced by the recent behavior of the Administration to re-think it somewhat. I’ve already stated that the end if this Administration threatens the long-standing tradition of peaceful transition in this nation.

    If it keeps up (we have three months to go), we are going to have little choice but to conduct trials after the transition. The threat level to citizens is at an all-time high, and people are in fear of losing their property and livelihoods over political speech (see, “that video,” creator in jail).

    Whatever the outcome of the next two years, it must feature some form of added restraints to see that this period of sanctioned, strong-arm statism is never repeated.

  3. Evi L. Bloggerlady
    October 18th, 2012 @ 8:45 pm

    I cannot believe Obama said this

    And some say it was taken out of context. No, it wasn’t. Stewart gave Obama a soft ball question and Mr. “Buck Stops With Hillary” Obama screwed it up in a manner that revealed just what a soulless creep he really is.

  4. Adobe_Walls
    October 18th, 2012 @ 9:05 pm

    While perhaps not criminal trials, but extensive and exhausted investigations need to be launched into every nook and cranny of the executive branch. The usual Republican habit of deciding to only look forward and ignore the perfidy of their predecessors simply will not fly this time. Failing to do that is how we wind up with people like Holder in even higher office than they held in their last criminal rampage. Shedding light on all of the excesses of the choom gang part duh is crucial to undoing the illegal actions that will become institutionalized if simply ignored as is usually done. Shedding light on the rodents who’ve been burrowing into the civil rights divisions of every department not just DoJ not to mention the ATF is only way to begin the process of making the case for their abolishment.

  5. SDN
    October 18th, 2012 @ 9:08 pm

    The precedent we are afraid of setting dates back to the Roman Republic: if an official is prosecuted after leaving office for policy actions while in office, they won’t voluntarily leave. Undo the policy, fine; pardon those who were harmed, also fine. It’s a slippery slope even for actual, personal crimes.

    That’s one of the reasons not even Obama would appease his rabid supporters by hauling Bush, Cheney, or any Cabinet members up on “war crimes”, since all the so-called crimes were crimes only because the other party was doing them.

  6. Aussie54
    October 18th, 2012 @ 9:55 pm

    Maybe, maybe not. How should I parse the words of Diane Feinstein?

  7. Shawny Lee
    October 18th, 2012 @ 10:30 pm

    Ummmm NOPE. Not impeached. How about turned over to the Navy SEALS and other military over which he has held undeserved authority for 4 long years as many of their ranks bled and died for his treachery, his traitorous policies, his arrogance and his lies.

  8. Roger
    October 18th, 2012 @ 11:05 pm

    Impeach the bastard!

  9. Adjoran
    October 19th, 2012 @ 12:16 am

    This. We need full investigations, but prosecutions are a misbegotten idea if we’re talking about the official acts of an elected official. Any criminal violations uncovered should be referred to the U.S. Attorney.

    And since part of the necessary fix for our fiscal woes involves a serious downsizing of the federal bureaucracy, there is a sound policy reason to dig into all these agencies’ functioning.

  10. K-Bob
    October 19th, 2012 @ 4:42 am

    Yes. OTOH, if they would simply lop some of the arms right off of this Cthulu-like monster (and not let them grow back), I could see letting the prosecutions slide.

  11. Bob Belvedere
    October 19th, 2012 @ 9:06 am

    Excellent explanation, SDN.

  12. Bob Belvedere
    October 19th, 2012 @ 9:08 am

    Probe a Leftist deep enough and you’ll find each and every one cares more about ideas – their Ideology – than Human Beings.

  13. Bob Belvedere
    October 19th, 2012 @ 9:08 am

    Probe a Leftist deep enough and you’ll find each and every one cares more about ideas – their Ideology – than Human Beings.

  14. Adobe_Walls
    October 19th, 2012 @ 9:37 am

    Getting convictions could be problematic for actions that aren’t specificly criminal by statute.
    The purpose of the investigations would be 1) to totaly destroy the reputation of people like Holder after they’ve served at lower levels in an administration. When Holder was first proposed for AG the overwhelming reaction from Senators and the public should have been hey isn’t he that guy who believes terrorists and bank fruadsters should get presidential pardons?
    The future Holders, Samantha Powers and Elana Kagans of a decade of so from now are in this administration today. They will leave government for the moment with the regime change and get a sinecure at some NGO or university. They must be invetigated and exposed after the proggies lose the White House. Their names must be made so toxic that no group or institution would employ them. Exposing the truth about them will force them underground or at least under a bridge. Idealy they’d die of starvation or exposure.
    The second and perhaps more important purpose of these investigations would be make the public aware of the damage that mid and lower level political and career appointees due. The over reach and abuse of power by department bureaucrats who are exceeding their authority daily is destroying this Republic. Making the public aware of the minor and major tyrannies perpertrated against them daily by the Bolshevik’s minions who are left behind after every Social Democrat misadministration are crucial to making the case for the massive dieoff of government required. If the greater public truly understood the chronic abuse of power that so much of government enables they could be more amenable to abolising many of the offending institutions.

  15. Regarding Impeachment… « The Camp Of The Saints
    October 19th, 2012 @ 2:30 pm

    […] of his Oath Of Office, but I agree with the comments by Smitty, SDN, Adobe Walls, and Adjoran in a posting over at The Other […]

  16. Bob Belvedere
    October 19th, 2012 @ 2:32 pm

    Regarding Impeachment, wherein I quote Smitty, Adobe, Adjoran, and SDN.

  17. Becca Lower
    October 19th, 2012 @ 2:44 pm

    Bingo! That reminded me of this, too, Bob, from three days ago in the Weekly Standard:

    Former Aide on Obama: ‘Stunning that He’s in Politics, Because He Really Doesn’t Like People’–http://www.weeklystandard.com/blogs/former-aide-obama-stunning-he-s-politics-because-he-really-doesn-t-people_654636.html