Gen Petreaus is going to testify

**WickedTribe** · 11-14-12, 09:55 AM

Originally Posted by deathgodusmc

True but until everything is known we dont know if any laws were broken and by whom.

Fair enouth, based on the knowledge that I have now, there's no indication that Obama will be eligible for impeachment.

**deathgodusmc** · 11-14-12, 09:56 AM

Originally Posted by Fovezer

The Republicans were being childish little brats when it came to impeaching Clinton and wasted a ton of money. Over an affair that no one gave a shit about and had nothing to do with the country. And "lying under oath" isn't the only impeachable offense. Treason, bribery, and high crimes and misdemeanors is what the Constitution calls for. So we can use the same criteria people are using here for Bush. He lied to get us into war in Iraq. We went in on false pretenses. So if you are going to say Obama should be impeached for lying, you'd absolutely have to have supported the impeachment of Bush. (Which, for the record, I did not.)

No, I would not support it. Unless he lied under oath or committed treason by helping Ansar al-Sharia attack, you have no grounds for impeachment. We can't impeach every President who has ever told a lie.

Thats not true and is a matter of perspective. IMO he deserved way more punishment then he got. Fuck the perjury part. They needed to chop his little pecker off for making bad decisions. Your the pres and thats the best you can pull down? Hell no he made us all look bad with his choices.

**deathgodusmc** · 11-14-12, 09:57 AM

Originally Posted by WickedTribe

Fair enouth, based on the knowledge that I have now, there's no indication that Obama will be eligible for impeachment.

As of right now i have to agree with you.

**-Lazarus-** · 11-14-12, 10:00 AM

Originally Posted by Fovezer

Yeah, I'm not playing the "if" game. You do because it lets you blame Obama for stuff you have no idea about because you don't have any facts and don't have to worry about the truth. When you can show me where he broke the law, and even if he did lie and cover this up he didn't do it under oath so it's not perjury, then we'll talk. You have absolutely no evidence of anything though.

Well, IF any Obama administration official lies under oath that's all she wrote. Obstruction of justice. Exactly what Nixon had his first count of impeachment passed for.

**Fovezer** · 11-14-12, 10:03 AM

Originally Posted by deathgodusmc

Thats not true and is a matter of perspective. IMO he deserved way more punishment then he got. Fuck the perjury part. They needed to chop his little pecker off for making bad decisions. Your the pres and thats the best you can pull down? Hell no he made us all look bad with his choices.

ROFL, well, I guess we can agree on that part!

**deathgodusmc** · 11-14-12, 10:03 AM

Originally Posted by -Lazarus-

Well, IF any Obama administration official lies under oath that's all she wrote. Obstruction of justice. Exactly what Nixon had his first count of impeachment passed for.

Dont read this fov. You'll miss the if part and think it says something it really doesn't.

**Fovezer** · 11-14-12, 10:07 AM

Originally Posted by -Lazarus-

Well, IF any Obama administration official lies under oath that's all she wrote. Obstruction of justice. Exactly what Nixon had his first count of impeachment passed for.

Now it's if any Obama administration official lies, Obama himself should be impeached? Why am I not at all surprised to see you starting to hedge your bets so you can try and find any way you can to impeach Obama?

**-Lazarus-** · 11-14-12, 10:08 AM

Originally Posted by Fovezer

The Republicans were being childish little brats when it came to impeaching Clinton and wasted a ton of money. Over an affair that no one gave a shit about and had nothing to do with the country. And "lying under oath" isn't the only impeachable offense. Treason, bribery, and high crimes and misdemeanors is what the Constitution calls for. So we can use the same criteria people are using here for Bush. He lied to get us into war in Iraq. We went in on false pretenses. So if you are going to say Obama should be impeached for lying, you'd absolutely have to have supported the impeachment of Bush. (Which, for the record, I did not.)

No, I would not support it. Unless he lied under oath or committed treason by helping Ansar al-Sharia attack, you have no grounds for impeachment. We can't impeach every President who has ever told a lie.

Wow you just demonstrated your double standard right there in your own post.

First of all, you would have to prove that Bush lied. Which you could not, absolutely no way you could prove that because:
A. WMD's were indeed found in Iraq.
B. Documents were also found proving that WMD's were transported to Syria.
C. Bush had reports from 5 independent intelligence agencies that all said what Bush was telling the American people.

The reason there was no impeachment hearing for Bush was that:
A. Democrats knew for a fact that they could never Impeach Bush on the evidence.
B. These things were still classified at the time, and it stands to reason that the Democrats wanted to be able to beat that drum and tell the fable that "Bush lied!" in order to get an advantage in the subsequent congressional and then the next Presidential election. I'd say that the plan worked, seeing how duped you are.

I already told you that congress can impeach for whatever they consider an impeachable offense, and that the Supreme Court has no juris diction according to previous impeachment case law.

But please, do continue to maintain a double standard for Democrats vs. Republicans. It really only affects what people think of you.

**Fovezer** · 11-14-12, 10:19 AM

Originally Posted by -Lazarus-

Wow you just demonstrated your double standard right there in your own post.

First of all, you would have to prove that Bush lied. Which you could not, absolutely no way you could prove that because:
A. WMD's were indeed found in Iraq.

Not the weapons he lied about. He also lied about his ties to Islamic terrorists. Oh, and he conflated al Qaeda with Iraq.

Originally Posted by -Lazarus-

B. Documents were also found proving that WMD's were transported to Syria.

Figment of your imagination and last time you brought this up it was solidly refuted.

Originally Posted by -Lazarus-

C. Bush had reports from 5 independent intelligence agencies that all said what Bush was telling the American people.

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/06/05/wa...ntel.html?_r=0

Originally Posted by -Lazarus-

I already told you that congress can impeach for whatever they consider an impeachable offense, and that the Supreme Court has no juris diction according to previous impeachment case law.

But please, do continue to maintain a double standard for Democrats vs. Republicans. It really only affects what people think of you.

One, I said I didn't support impeachment of Bush and two, you've already shown that you have no desire for facts or truth so long as you can find any way you can to impeach Obama. And I really don't care what conspiracy theorists like you think about me.

**-Lazarus-** · 11-14-12, 10:34 AM

Originally Posted by Fovezer

Now it's if any Obama administration official lies, Obama himself should be impeached? Why am I not at all surprised to see you starting to hedge your bets so you can try and find any way you can to impeach Obama?

Yes Fov, it is. This is exactly what President Nixon was impeached on one count in the House of Representatives for. Of course he wasn't officially impeached since he resigned in disgrace. You don't think that Nixon lied under oath like Clinton did, do you? You really don't read the posts here do you? By the way, it's not me that will or won't impeach Obama. It's the United States House of Representatives.

See, if an Obama administration official is proven to have lied under oath about Benghazi, it's directly attributable to Obama for obstruction of justice based on previous case law. I don't know how I'd personally feel about that to be honest. I'm just talking about the facts based on prior cases and I haven't inserted my own opinion except where explicitly stated. Do you really want to know what I think, or are you more comfortable assuming?