do we keep him or not?

[RoadToad]

The republicans have been gathering evidence on Obama for awhile. There are two instances of bribing candidates not to run in an election by offering a higher paid position in the administration. One in Pennsylvania and one in Colorado that they have been holding in there hip pocket.

I hadn't heard of those, and I can't find anything with some quick google searches (not that that proves anything). Can you provide some links or something to back that up?

Interference with a congressional investigation would be considered a high crime or misdemeanor.

Yes it would. But there is ZERO evidence of that happening, and ZERO chance of Obama being impeached over Fast & Furious, just like there was no chance of George W. Bush being impeached any of the SIX TIMES he invoked executive privilege:

I. President George W. Bush first asserted executive privilege in December 2001 to deny disclosure of sought details regarding FBI misuse of organized-crime informants James J. Bulger and Stephen Flemmi in Boston, former Attorney General Janet Reno, and Justice Department deliberations about President Bill Clinton’s fundraising tactics.


II. In 2004Bush invoked executive privilege “in substance” in refusing to disclose the details of Vice President **** Cheney’s meetings with energy executives.


III. Further, on June 28, 2007, Bush invoked executive privilege in response to congressional subpoenas requesting documents from former presidential counsel Harriet Miers and former political director Sara Taylor.


IV. On July 9, 2007, Bush again invoked executive privilege to block a congressional subpoena requiring the testimonies of Taylor and Miers. Furthermore, White House Counsel Fred F. Fielding refused to comply with a deadline set by the chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee to explain its privilege claim, prove that the president personally invoked it, and provide logs of which documents were being withheld.


V. On July 13, less than a week after claiming executive privilege for Miers and Taylor, Counsel Fielding effectively claimed the privilege once again, this time in relation to documents related to the 2004 death of Army Ranger Pat Tillman. In a letter to the House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform, Fielding claimed certain papers relating to discussion of the friendly-fire shooting “implicate Executive Branch confidentiality interests” and would therefore not be turned over to the committee.


VI. On August 1, 2007, Bush invoked the privilege for the fourth time in little over a month, this time rejecting a subpoena for Karl Rove. The subpoena would have required the President’s Senior Advisor to testify before the Senate Judiciary Committee in a probe over fired federal prosecutors. In a letter to Senate Judiciary Chairman Patrick Leahy, Fielding claimed that “Mr. Rove, as an immediate presidential advisor, is immune from compelled congressional testimony about matters that arose during his tenure and that relate to his official duties in that capacity”.


http://samuel-warde.com/2012/06/exec...-obama-6-to-1/

[Tom523]

I hadn't heard of those, and I can't find anything with some quick google searches (not that that proves anything). Can you provide some links or something to back that up?


Yes it would. But there is ZERO evidence of that happening, and ZERO chance of Obama being impeached over Fast & Furious, just like there was no chance of George W. Bush being impeached any of the SIX TIMES he invoked executive privilege:

I. President George W. Bush first asserted executive privilege in December 2001 to deny disclosure of sought details regarding FBI misuse of organized-crime informants James J. Bulger and Stephen Flemmi in Boston, former Attorney General Janet Reno, and Justice Department deliberations about President Bill Clinton’s fundraising tactics.


II. In 2004Bush invoked executive privilege “in substance” in refusing to disclose the details of Vice President **** Cheney’s meetings with energy executives.




III. Further, on June 28, 2007, Bush invoked executive privilege in response to congressional subpoenas requesting documents from former presidential counsel Harriet Miers and former political director Sara Taylor.


IV. On July 9, 2007, Bush again invoked executive privilege to block a congressional subpoena requiring the testimonies of Taylor and Miers. Furthermore, White House Counsel Fred F. Fielding refused to comply with a deadline set by the chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee to explain its privilege claim, prove that the president personally invoked it, and provide logs of which documents were being withheld.


V. On July 13, less than a week after claiming executive privilege for Miers and Taylor, Counsel Fielding effectively claimed the privilege once again, this time in relation to documents related to the 2004 death of Army Ranger Pat Tillman. In a letter to the House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform, Fielding claimed certain papers relating to discussion of the friendly-fire shooting “implicate Executive Branch confidentiality interests” and would therefore not be turned over to the committee.


VI. On August 1, 2007, Bush invoked the privilege for the fourth time in little over a month, this time rejecting a subpoena for Karl Rove. The subpoena would have required the President’s Senior Advisor to testify before the Senate Judiciary Committee in a probe over fired federal prosecutors. In a letter to Senate Judiciary Chairman Patrick Leahy, Fielding claimed that “Mr. Rove, as an immediate presidential advisor, is immune from compelled congressional testimony about matters that arose during his tenure and that relate to his official duties in that capacity”.


http://samuel-warde.com/2012/06/exec...-obama-6-to-1/

You can't be impeached for invoking executive privilege but you can be for obstructing justice. Do you know what is in the documents that Issa wants and Obama invoked executive privilige on? No you don't and neither do I. If there is evidence that there was a cover up in an attempt to circumvent the congressional investigation he can be impeached. The interference of the election occurred when Bill Clinton representing the Obama administration offered a position in the administration to Arlen Specter's opponent if he would drop out of the race. I don't remember the names of the politician in Colorado. Presidents don't get impeached for invoking executive privilege. They get impeached for breaking the law.

[RoadToad]

You can't be impeached for invoking executive privilege but you can be for obstructing justice. Do you know what is in the documents that Issa wants and Obama invoked executive privilige on? No you don't and neither do I. If there is evidence that there was a cover up in an attempt to circumvent the congressional investigation he can be impeached. The interference of the election occurred when Bill Clinton representing the Obama administration offered a position in the administration to Arlen Specter's opponent if he would drop out of the race. I don't remember the names of the politician in Colorado. Presidents don't get impeached for invoking executive privilege. They get impeached for breaking the law.

And what evidence is there that Obama broke the law? NONE. The subpoena of those documents is nothing more than a politically-based fishing expedition.

Issa claims that Obama's invocation of executive privilege shows he must have been involved, and has something to cover up. Yet, he didn't say a word when President Bush did the exact same thing in response to congressional subpoenas. Why do you suppose that is? Yes, it's a rhetorical question.

[Tom523]

And what evidence is there that Obama broke the law? NONE. The subpoena of those documents is nothing more than a politically-based fishing expedition.

Issa claims that Obama's invocation of executive privilege shows he must have been involved, and has something to cover up. Yet, he didn't say a word when President Bush did the exact same thing in response to congressional subpoenas. Why do you suppose that is? Yes, it's a rhetorical question.

Like I said if the evidence in those documents proves that he is guilty of a crime, he will be impeached. When Issa gets the documents, and he will through the courts, he will determine if there is evidence enough to impeach Obama. You keep asking "What evidence?" Let's wait and see if there is any. The president invoking executive privilege does mean he is involved. Taking advantage of your fifth amendment rights is a sure sign of guilt but you are not incriminating yourself. It just means that investigators know your guilty and have to find other evidence to prove it. The president cannot invoke executive privilege on something his office is not involved in. If that was the case he could have gotten his friend Blagovich off by claiming executive privilege on the evidence against him.

[RoadToad]

Like I said if the evidence in those documents proves that he is guilty of a crime, he will be impeached. When Issa gets the documents, and he will through the courts, he will determine if there is evidence enough to impeach Obama. You keep asking "What evidence?" Let's wait and see if there is any. The president invoking executive privilege does mean he is involved. Taking advantage of your fifth amendment rights is a sure sign of guilt but you are not incriminating yourself. It just means that investigators know your guilty and have to find other evidence to prove it. The president cannot invoke executive privilege on something his office is not involved in. If that was the case he could have gotten his friend Blagovich off by claiming executive privilege on the evidence against him.

It remains to be seen whether or not they will get the documents through the courts. But your statements that "The president invoking executive privilege does mean he is involved" and "The president cannot invoke executive privilege on something his office is not involved in" show that you don't know the facts about executive privilege. By your logic, President George W. Bush was involved in the death of Pat Tillman. And speaking of Dubya, he himself invoked executive privilege in a situation very similar to the one with Holder. So are you telling me HE had something to cover up, and might have been impeached had it come out?

http://articles.latimes.com/2008/jun/21/nation/na-epa21

[Tom523]

It remains to be seen whether or not they will get the documents through the courts. But your statements that "The president invoking executive privilege does mean he is involved" and "The president cannot invoke executive privilege on something his office is not involved in" show that you don't know the facts about executive privilege. By your logic, President George W. Bush was involved in the death of Pat Tillman. And speaking of Dubya, he himself invoked executive privilege in a situation very similar to the one with Holder. So are you telling me HE had something to cover up, and might have been impeached had it come out?

http://articles.latimes.com/2008/jun/21/nation/na-epa21

That's exactly what I'm telling you. When Issa gets the documents and goes through them and finds evidence that Fast and Furious was just a big front to garner support for stricter gun laws supported by Obama, he can present the evidence to a grand jury and Obama will be indicted (impeached). Impeachment is just charging the president with a high crime or misdemeanor.