If you have "no place to go," come here!

A note on impeachment kayfabe

I'm not good on the right wing fever swamp, so I'll just assume that if the wingers impeach Obama, it's going to be over a Chinese menu that includes Benghazi, ObamaCare, something to do with immigration, and maybe Bowe Bergdahl. Who knows? The key point is this:

The two "slam dunks" for impeaching Obama are (1) his program of warrantless surveillance as revealed by Snowden, and (2) whacking a U.S. citizen, Anwar al-Awlaki, without due process, on Fourth and Fifth Amendment grounds respectively. (Bush could and should have been impeached for his warrantless surveillance program, too, even though Pelosi deep-sixed the effort in 2006. Whacking US citizens without due process is, IIRC, Obama's innovation.)

But you can bet that if the wingers do impeach Obama, it's going to be for crazy pants stuff like Benghazi, and not for either of the two "slam dunks." So, if indeed Obama is impeached, will be the wrong reasons, except that both parties will gin up a lot lot of tribal outrage and raise a shit ton of money, and the country will keep sliding on rightward, as executive branch power increases and checks and balances (for example, impeachment) diminishes.

If the right wing impeachment effort were being made in good faith, you'd see some sort of "strange bedfellows" articles; like the slam dunks. But no, you're just seeing red meat for the right. Sad.

UPDATE I forgot the most important part: The play is like Rove's GENIUS play with the Killian memos: Plant fake evidence that supports a true story. Then, when the evidence is discredited, the true story is discredited.

Average: 5 (1 vote)


Submitted by weldon on

Signatories to the UN Convention Against Torture are obligated to investigate credible allegations of torture and, if evidence is found -- such as people going on the TeeVee and saying, yeah, I did it -- to either prosecute the offenders or turn them over to somebody who will. Also, signatories are obligated to support victims seeking redress through the courts. That seems worth enforcing.

pmj6's picture
Submitted by pmj6 on

If the Obama administration is "sitting" on intel implicating the Ukrainian military for shooting down MH17 (a definite possibility, given the absence of "hard" evidence on the Russians--not a single satellite photo of the Buk? Come on...), that would qualify as an impeachable offense as well.

par4's picture
Submitted by par4 on

The Ukie Nazis are taking their orders from the CIA. All coup installed governments are puppets of the power that installed them. Don't hold your breath waiting for the other NATO countries to start realizing that this nation has gone completely rogue. Most Americans will never admit how vile our government has become after decades of proof.

quixote's picture
Submitted by quixote on

You're 100% on target about what they will do with this, and also with what a real government would do with it.

It was a grand experiment they started in 1786 and it lasted almost 200 years. Well worth trying again.

Submitted by lambert on

... but see the update. Yes to 1776. We have tyranny all over again, exactly as Madison would have understood it.

shargash's picture
Submitted by shargash on

Hey, they got Capone for tax evasion. If they can get Obama for Benghazi, I won't complain too much. To be sure, it would be far better for the republic if Obama would be impeached for his real crimes. But that's never going to happen, so I'll settle for anything that stops that huckster from finishing out his term and using his presidency to become a squillionaire.

DCblogger's picture
Submitted by DCblogger on

It is not like getting Capone for tax evasion, which is a real crime if not as serious as the St Valintine's Day massacre. It is like getting Capone for being an anarchist, something that would not be a crime even if it were true. If they remove Obama from office on a trumped up charge it just trashes the impeachment process and makes it more difficult to use if the occasison were to arise. The Democrats could easily prevent this by winning the 2014 House eleciton. Even at this late date it would be possibe, but they would have to replace Steve Israel with someone who actually wants to win the election.

shargash's picture
Submitted by shargash on

While I was being snarky with the Capone reference, I'm not convinced that there was nothing impeachable about Benghazi, Democratic party talking points not withstanding. IMO, the Libyan affair as a whole was impeachable (not to mention a war crime), and I would like to know what we were doing in the country after Qaddafi's death. I suspect Benghaz was at the heart of that. Now don't get me wrong. I don't believe the Republicans will either investigate or impeach based on anything substantive.

As for the impeachment process, it is already trashed, and not because of what was done to Clinton. It is trashed because of what was not done to Nixon, Ford (for pardoning Nixon as a coverup), Reagan, Bush the Lesser, and Obama, at the least. No one is ever impeached for the reasons impeachment was put in the Constitution. I mean really. If they're not going to impeach Bush II, what "occasion" are they waiting for?