WSJ Editorial: The Impeachment Delusion

[question everything]

(snip)

Sarah Palin joined the impeachment calls on Tuesday, which could mean that the former Alaska Governor has been feeling neglected. She is following the talk radio hosts and obscure authors who are trying to increase audience share or sell books by posing as Mr. Obama's loudest opponents.

(snip)

On Wednesday House Speaker John Boehner said "I disagree" with Mrs. Palin, though as usual without elaboration. What he might add is that the Constitution says a President can be impeached for "Treason, Bribery or other high Crimes and Misdemeanors." Bill Clinton lied under oath and Richard Nixon obstructed justice. While Mr. Obama's abuses of executive power are serious, they don't rise to that level.

Impeachment is also inherently a political process that at the current moment would backfire on Republicans. Mr. Obama is unpopular, but that is due mainly to the failure of his policies. Focusing on impeachment lets Democrats off the hook on those progressive failures and plays into their claim that GOP opposition to Mr. Obama is personal.

(snip)

http://online.wsj.com/articles/the-impeachment-delusion-1404947221

====

Mostly, they are afraid that this will mobilize more Democrats to vote.

Thus, should Obama follow the "sue me" with "impeach me?"

[Glorfindel]

1. It's the WSJ...not worth the paper it's printed on. A garbage, Murdoch rag.

[msongs]

2. obama's "progressive failures"? very funny nt

[denverbill]

3. Excuse me, but Bill Clinton was never convicted of lying under oath.

And given the circumstances, even if he had, I wouldn't have counted that as a 'high crime or misdemeanor'.

Ken Starr was appointed to look into Whitewater and instead ended up investigating Clinton's sexual dalliances. Clinton may have parsed his words and used his own strict definition of what constituted 'having sex', but #1) Congress had no business investigating that or trying him for that in the first place and #2) he was acquitted by Congress of perjury.

[question everything]

4. You know this and I know this

but the fact is that the House did impeach him, regardless of what we think of the merit.

The process of impeachment is that once the House goes through, it then moves to Senate to vote for removal from office and the Senate did not.

He was not acquitted by Congress; it was the Senate that voted not to remove him from office. I don't think it is equivalent for acquitting.

[BlueMTexpat]

5. If lying under oath about

having sex with a consenting adult is EVER construed to be a "high crime or misdemeanor," especially when the question is asked by a third party who is not a spouse or asking on behalf of a spouse (e.g., an attorney in a divorce or custody proceeding), we have really jumped the shark. And that is exactly what this situation was: questioning by totally unrelated third parties on behalf of yet another rather spurious third party.



And no, he was never convicted of that ... totally agree with you!

[BlueMTexpat]

6. Boy, do I love the WSJ's

false equivalencies even just in the posted excerpt! There's no sense in even reading the rest.

"Bill Clinton lied under oath ..." Lying about having consensual sex with another adult when neither that adult nor one's spouse is the complainant is hardly comparable to Nixon's obstruction of justice (at the very least) in the Watergate situation. Sheesh!

And the misleads, e.g.: "While Mr. Obama's abuses of executive power are serious ...." Just which ones are "abuses" ... and how ... when he is faced by a constant and consistent wall of opposition such as NEVER been seen in my 70-year lifetime? How are his actions any different from those of other Presidents who issued Executive Orders? Many more, in fact.

Finally, the WSJ's statement that impeachment would play "into their [i.e, Democrats'] claim that GOP opposition to Mr. Obama is personal" ... left me LOLing. GOP opposition to Prez O IS personal. That is a fact, not a claim.

But I do agree with the WSJ excerpt on one thing. At the current moment, it would backfire on Republicans. And badly. So I say: "Bring it on!"

Please!

[Cosmocat]

7. It is the usual prism that the media views GOP machinations

The POLITICS of it, not the legal or illegal, the right or the wrong.

It is bad POLITICS for them to do it, so they shouldn't .

Their completely self unaware way of exposing their rooting interest in the GOP.