Skip to comments.
GOP Sen. Inhofe: Obama Could Be Impeached Over Benghazi 'Cover-Up'The Hill ^ | 05/10/13 11:22 AM ET | Jeremy Herb
Posted on 05/10/2013 1:44:35 PM PDT by drewh
Sen. James Inhofe (R-Okla.) suggested that President Obama could be impeached over what he alleged was a White House cover-up after last year?s attack in Benghazi, Libya.
Inhofe, the top Republican on the Senate Armed Services Committee, said in an interview Thursday with ?The Rusty Humphries Show? that impeachment would become an issue soon over the ?greatest cover-up in American history.?
?People may be starting to use the I-word before too long,? Inhofe said.
?The I-word meaning impeachment?? Humphries asked.
?Yeah,? Inhofe responded.
?Of all the great cover-ups in history ? the Pentagon papers, Iran-Contra, Watergate, all the rest of them ? this ... is going to go down as most egregious cover-up in American history,? Inhofe said.
When Humphries suggested that the Democratic-controlled Senate would not impeach the president, Inhofe said that was true. He said that Benghazi would "endure" and impeachment could come after the 2014 midterm elections, when Republicans hope to retake control of the upper chamber.
Republicans have accused the Obama administration of changing the ?talking points? about last year?s attack in Benghazi for political gain in the heat of the 2012 presidential election.
Four Americans, including U.S. Ambassador Chris Stevens, were killed in the attack on the U.S. Consulate there.
.
(Excerpt) Read more at thehill.com ...
TOPICS: Extended News; Government; News/Current Events; US: District of Columbia
KEYWORDS: benghazi; navyseals; threatmatrix
To: FReepers; Patriots; FRiends;
Support FR
To: drewh
The Ambassador wasn't just killed....it was a ?hit?
To: drewh
?Not saying impeachment would ever happen, but we need to go for the throat on this one. Expose the regime?s corruption.
3 posted on 05/10/2013 1:47:53 PM PDT by Viennacon
To: drewh
It is getting harder and harder for the MSM to ignore comments like this!
To: drewh
sorry ,you need the House ,the Senate and Cahones
5 posted on 05/10/2013 1:49:12 PM PDT by molson209
To: drewh
Jay Carney is starting to remind me of Bagdad Bob.
?There are no American Forces at the airport. They?ve all been killed. Thousands of Americans have been slaughtered. Americans have not entered Bagdad. Our forces have been triumphant.......I gotta Go!?
6 posted on 05/10/2013 1:50:03 PM PDT by Tenacious 1 ("The British are Coming (to confiscate weapons)" - Paul Revere (We know how that ended))
To: ExTexasRedhead
7 posted on 05/10/2013 1:50:13 PM PDT by Doogle (USAF.68-73..8th TFW Ubon Thailand..never store a threat you should have eliminated))To: drewh
The I-word seems to be being whispered:MSNBC: Benghazi Scandal Makes White House 'Look Terrible,' Possibly 'Impeachment Issue'
5/10/13 - After examining all the details that emerged on Friday relating to the efforts by members of President Barack Obama's administration to remove references to Islamic terrorism when explaining the reasons behind the 2012 attack on an American consulate in Benghazi, the panel guests on MSNBC's Now agreed that the appearance of a scandal makes the White House "look terrible." One guest even suggested that the controversy could lead to impeachment proceedings against the president.
8 posted on 05/10/2013 1:51:27 PM PDT by TomGuy
To: drewh
9 posted on 05/10/2013 1:52:41 PM PDT by slumber1 (Don't taze me bro!)To: molson209
Here is what I don?t understand about the White House caluculus regarding the attacks. Yes. Zero had stated that Al Qaeda was on the run. He was gloating about Osama. But, for two months prior to his re-election, he could have spun the attacks to his favor. He could be seen as the CIC. He could have actually acted like he was in charge. Instead, he covers up for a silly set of statements that no one really paid any attention to? There is something else much more sinister here.
10 posted on 05/10/2013 1:52:50 PM PDT by Galtoid ( .)
To: molson209
Wrong, impeachment happens in the House, the case is then tried in the Senate.
11 posted on 05/10/2013 1:53:39 PM PDT by kempster
To: drewh
When Humphries suggested that the Democratic-controlled Senate would not impeach the president I was under the impression that the House impeaches and the Senate tries.
To: drewh
Let the House GOP impeach. Any Senator not voting to convict is political toast
The GOP better not wuss out on this like they did on Eligibility
13 posted on 05/10/2013 1:56:30 PM PDT by SeminoleCounty (GOP - Greenlighting Obama's Programs)
To: drewh
Not bloody likely.
Even if the ?Pubbies hold the House, there are not enough votes for Impeachment to get a ?simple majority.?
And the Senate ?Pubbies would mostly vote with their buddies, the Democrats.
14 posted on 05/10/2013 1:58:01 PM PDT by Little Ray (How did I end up in this hand-basket, and why is it getting so hot?)
To: TomGuy
When MSNBC mentions it, the bell is tolling...
15 posted on 05/10/2013 1:59:19 PM PDT by BigEdLB (Now there ARE 1,000,000 regrets - but it ore leave, and visiting Niagra Fallsmay be too late.)
To: drewh
Go for it....This was a deadly heart attack compared to the hang nail known as Watergate.
To: drewh
Obama shouldn't be impeached for covering up Benghazi. He should be impeached for funneling arms from Benghazi to the Al Qaeda foreign mercenaries attacking Syria and slaughtering Christians. These are war crimes.I doubt the Republicans will go after him for that. If anything the Republicans are mad at Obama for bungling the job and letting the cat out of the bag.
To: M-cubed
Of course it was a hit..and the scary part is not that Obama did it, I always knew he was capable of murder..it is what he is..what is truly scary is the media covering for him..THAT is the truly scary part..your taking a narcissistic President and making him invincible because he knows he can do ANYTHING and get away with it because he has the media in his back pocket
To: Viennacon
We all know the son-of-a-bitch will NEVER be convicted of anything with the current senate.
But we can sure put his sorry ass in a sling for the next 4 years. Keep em bogged down with hearings until eternity.
19 posted on 05/10/2013 2:01:16 PM PDT by unixfox (Abolish Slavery, Repeal The 16th Amendment!)
To: Galtoid
There is something else much more sinister here.
I think they are in the pocket of the Saudis. When you are basically doing someone else?s bidding you cannot act or look decisive - it?s like one year a friend of me said that his favorite basketball team?s point guard was always bringing the ball up the floor while constantly looking at the coach in effect saying ?What now coach? What do I do now coach??. I think we have a Saudi puppet government which inherently is going to look foolish.
To: Sacajaweau
Sure the Senate will go along with this. Obama could be be a gay, foreign born President and not be impeached.
Wait a minute!
To: M-cubed
What have you got to support that? That?s not a taunt, just a question becuz I am trying to figure this out too.
The way I have been looking at this is that the last thing the ?administration? would want to do would be to draw attention to this secret ?diplomatic post? which evidence suggests was a point in a secret CIA gun running operation.
To: whitedog57
And Speaker Boehner can't even appoint a special committee in the house. No wonder we lose national elections!
To: drewh
Shut up Imhofe. The nightmare of BJ Clinton is fresh in many of our memories, the futility of it all. No impeachment, just total destruction and impotence. Enough MSM involvement to make repeal of Obamacare possible. No impeachment.
24 posted on 05/10/2013 2:11:22 PM PDT by Chaguito
To: drewh
25 posted on 05/10/2013 2:15:12 PM PDT by taildragger (( Tighten the 5 point harness and brace for Impact Freepers, ya know it's coming..... ))To: Tenacious 1
Jay Carney is starting to remind me of Bagdad Bob.I would believe Bob before I would believe Jay Carney.
To: FReepers; Patriots; FRiends
27 posted on 05/10/2013 2:16:40 PM PDT by onyx (Please Support Free Republic - Donate Monthly! If you want on Sarah Palin's Ping List, Let Me know!)To: M-cubed
Either a hit or some plot gone awry. It is just too precious that the ?video? instantaneously provoked rioting all over the middle east just ahead of what occurred in Benghazi. It was just too coordinated. Something was being set up, and it went bad. Or someone, like the CIA, hadn?t gotten the message about the video and mucked up the plan. Something is dreadfully amiss, and it really does smell like murderous treason.
Ditto the helicopter.
The IRS ?apology? by someone with a conscience may have more effect on Obie in the long run, because it?s a confessed and proveable crime.
But, please, no impeachment. This is no time for a few congressmen to be pleasuring themselves.
28 posted on 05/10/2013 2:16:53 PM PDT by Chaguito
To: annieokie; penelopesire; maggief; Protect the Bill of Rights; thouworm; SE Mom; Nachum; onyx; ...
Coulda, woulda, shoulda.Anyone wanting on or off this ping list, please advise.
Benghazi Index
To: drewh
If this story continues to snowball expect a wag the dog maneuver soon. These people will stop at nothing to remain in power.
To: drewh
Impeach President Jarrett.
31 posted on 05/10/2013 2:25:02 PM PDT by rfp1234 (Arguing with a marxist is like playing Chess with a Pigeon.)
To: SeminoleCounty
Benghazi was Mercy Park all over again. It was a Ron Brown moment and Stevens was either to be kidnapped or killed. Either way the two ex Navy Seals that were told not to go from the CIA annex to the aid of Stevens were unforeseen to the conspirators and muddied up the whole staged event. Was this about gun running from Libya to Syria? Why didn't the US call for Egypt or Israel for help? The F-16's from Italy could have been refueled from any number of NATO or other tankers in the theater besides U. S. assets. Why call off the Tripoli special forces team? Why not call in the terror task force and put them in motion?Let's see Hillary was responsible for the lack of security at the Benghazi consulate and was the only one authorized to approve the deviations to keep it open, she is the one that wanted Stevens in Benghazi at that time, why were there so many other CIA people at the annex, why and who was the person from Turkey that Stevens met and why did he get away and why has he not been interviewed, who gave all the stand down orders, why was AFRICOM CO General Ham retired the next day or relieved of command as has been reported and why has he not been interviewed by Congress, why were no other assets put into motion unless you already knew what was going on and wanted to control the outcome and limit the people involved, why did the two navy seals laser a target, why has no body from the assault been found, captured, questioned, why is the you-tube video guy arrested and still in jail, why did Hillary's chief of staff have to prevent Hicks from being interviewed by a member of Congress in Benghazi, who gave all those @#$*?FG>#%'ing stand down orders????????????????
Lying treasonous traitors thieves murderers SOB's need to answer all these and more and than go down hard!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
To: whitedog57
My guess is this is another golfing weekend...perhaps he needs another lesson from Tigger.Perhaps a basketball lesson from that "special" dude...he isn't working.
To: Viennacon
?we need to go for the throat on this one. Expose the regime?s corruption.?
I?m on board. Even if the corrupt senate won?t convict, obuma?s treason, murder and lies would be exposed for Americans to judge.
34 posted on 05/10/2013 2:29:52 PM PDT by sergeantdave (No, I don't have links for everything I post)
To: drewh
It is going to be hard if not impossible to dump this communists King. King Obama has lined his Administration and the MSM with accomplices.
To: drewh
It would be good to quickly review the impeachment parts of the Constitution. Article 1, Section 2.3 gives the House of Representative the sole power of impeachment. A simple majority vote of the House is enough to impeach. Article 1, Section 3.6 gives the Senate the sole power to try all impeachments. When it is the President who is under trial the proceedings are presided by the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court.
Where many people get confused, impeachment is not a legal proceeding. It is a political proceeding which legal rules. Both houses of the legislature are very political and will only vote for how it benefits them politically. So you can see that impeachment (the House?s part) can happen when the opposing party controls the House if the majority of people who put them in office want it to happen.
The Senate on the other hand is much tougher. That is because 2/3 of the members present must agree with the verdict to remove the President from Office. With the current Senate that is very unlikely and still unlikely even with a GOP majority after 2014. The only way it could happen is if the people of the country consider the sitting POTUS so vile and such a criminal that they would vote out any Senator not voting to remove from office.
Therefore, it is quite logical that Nixon would most likely have been convicted in the Senate if he had not resigned. Clinton, on the other hand, had convinced America that what he had done was not that bad.
So it is way too early to tell what will happen to 0bama. It depends on what comes out and how the American voters perceive what comes out. Nixon was told by the Republicans in the Senate that they would not stand in the way of impeachment. So to avoid that he resigned. If 0bama leaves office before the end of his term, it most likely will be the Democrat party who forces him out because he is worse than useless to them. It will be because they think he will cost them many offices.
I don?t know what is going to happen. But every little trickle of new damning evidence that comes out weakens 0bama and makes him more of a lame duck. I?ll just watch the show and take what we can get.
To: 2 Kool 2 Be 4-Gotten
2 Kool,
Re: your reply to galtoid?s remark about something sinister going on:
That bow 0 made to the Saudi king speaks volumes, and bears out what you said about 0 being a Saudi puppet.
2 Kool 2 Be 4-Gotten wrote:
?-???????????????????????????
There is something else much more sinister here.
??????????????????????????????
I think they are in the pocket of the Saudis. When you are basically doing someone else?s bidding you cannot act or look decisive - it?s like one year a friend of me said that his favorite basketball team?s point guard was always bringing the ball up the floor while constantly looking at the coach in effect saying ?What now coach? What do I do now coach??. I think we have a Saudi puppet government which inherently is going to look foolish.
37 posted on 05/10/2013 2:41:45 PM PDT by WildHighlander57 ((WildHighlander57 returning after lurking since 2000))
To: drewh
He could be on countless things, but he won?t be.
38 posted on 05/10/2013 2:41:55 PM PDT by bgill (The problem is...no one is watching the Watch List!)
To: WildHighlander57
Right. I like to relate things to daily life. Like the basketball example. Or say you take something back to the store that doesn?t work and you figure out right away that whoever you are talking to doesn?t have the power to make it right. They?ll hem and haw and point to youtube videos (OK I made that last part up) and in general just say a bunch of stuff that doesn?t even make sense instead of taking simple, decisive steps to fix the problem because they are NOT EMPOWERED to do that and it may be against the wishes of their boss. Doesn?t this feel a little like that?
To: Galtoid
I have several guesses.
1. Benghazi was entirely unanticipated by Zippy?s handlers. It was not part of their plan, so they did not have a canned response. They were caught off-guard and their figurehead, Zippy, was like a deer in the headlights.
2. Left on his own without a script and a teleprompter, Zippy was clueless about what to do or say. He was hanging out to dry waiting for instructions from the puppetmasters.
3. This was a huge dilemma. He didn?t want to risk offending his Muslim brothers.
4. Benghazi was a criminal enterprise from the get-go. He was trying to avoid calling any attention to it, so the natural instinct was to try to sweep it under the rug and hope it would go away.
5. He knew he just had to hold on until the election. So if he could minimize it until then, he was home free. No sense risking action that could go wrong when stalling was more likely to preserve the status quo.
6. Zippy in charge and making decisions? Are you crazy? Name even ONE time in the last 5 years where he has been in charge of ANYTHING!!!! Osama: He was called in off the golf course in order to pretend that he had something to do with the operation. Just in time to make a speech and take credit. Making a decision is toxic to Zippy. The thought is horrifying to him. If he ever made a decision he would risk getting blamed if it went wrong. His entire career is based on decision- and responsibility-avoidance coupled with taking credit for the accomplishments of others and pointing fingers and blaming his enemies. Not only is Zippy not capable of being in charge, he is not even capable of ACTING like he?s in charge. (Yes, he sometimes attempts to act in charge the same way a little boy shuffles around in Daddy?s big shoes, but it doesn?t fool anyone. Even the little boy knows he?s faking.)
40 posted on 05/10/2013 2:57:18 PM PDT by generally (Don't be stupid. We have politicians for that.)
To: molson209
The Senate might not have a choice but to impeach, they ARE NOT going to go down with a sinking ship. I think we have only seen and heard a small portion of what is known about Benghazi. I know many think the Republicans in DC are idiots, but there are some very brilliant legal minds leading this charge. I think they have something that they are holding back, giving the Obama liars rope, making them commit to their lies.
41 posted on 05/10/2013 2:59:06 PM PDT by Toespi
To: kempster
Wrong, impeachment happens in the House, the case is then tried in the Senate.Technically, but realistically it starts with Walter Cronkite and since he's a dead democrat, it ain't going to happen (although I'm sure he's still voting in each election).
To: Chaguito
If the President has committed impeachable offenses (and it looks like he has) then he should be impeached, regardless of who controls the majority in the Senate.When impeachable crimes are committed, the true statesman should step up, and every member of the legislature should formally be put on record as to where he or she stands.
Impeachment is by its nature a political process, not a legal one. It must proceed on principle if the political will exists, and the President will not resign for the good of the country.
To: molson209
NEVER, EVER GOING TO HAPPEN . . .
The media has already circled the wagons and they are dedicated to protecting Obama?s ass and Hillary?s ass at all costs. They will be relentless in their continued failure to devote time, attention, and dedication to a story that so needs to be told.
The media is lower than pond scum. As I have often said in previous posts, Unless or until the lame-stream media gives the story legs, it, and impeachment attempts will go nowhere.
To: Toespi
Obama ain?t goin nowhere but the next Golf course or the new Reggie Love hideaway!
45 posted on 05/10/2013 3:00:41 PM PDT by Conserev1 ("Still Clinging to my Bible and my Weapon")
To: drewh
Don?t impeach the sleazebag, use it to belittle and cripple Obama as the cult leader of Democrats. Use it to make fun of Democrats, and their penchant for turning their leaders into untouchable demigods. Use the Benghazi tragedy to smear the cult media whenever they try to cover up leftist treachery.
46 posted on 05/10/2013 3:04:59 PM PDT by pallis
To: drewh
Glad to see impeachment being talked about as an option. We do have laws to remove bad leaders, but it doesn?t seem like we have the courage to use them anymore. I also think a couple well chosen recall campaigns at the national level would go a long ways toward straightening out a lot of these arrogant congressmen and senators. Right now they only give a crap if their election is coming up soon. It wasn?t all that long ago that California recalled a really bad Democrat governor. I applaud Colorado for trying to recall 4 of their state legislators over bad gun control votes, and I hope they are successful. I would support a lot more recalls of politicians, and impeachment of more judges too. Too many of our leaders have lost their fear of the public they are supposed to serve. We have ways to fire these bad leaders if we had the will to do it.
47 posted on 05/10/2013 3:11:15 PM PDT by Reddon
To: sergeantdave
Strike while the iron is hot. In the words of Hendix ?fire all of your guns at once...?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson
Skip to comments.
GOP Sen. Inhofe: Obama Could Be Impeached Over Benghazi 'Cover-Up'The Hill ^ | 05/10/13 11:22 AM ET | Jeremy Herb
Posted on 05/10/2013 1:44:35 PM PDT by drewh
Sen. James Inhofe (R-Okla.) suggested that President Obama could be impeached over what he alleged was a White House cover-up after last year?s attack in Benghazi, Libya.
Inhofe, the top Republican on the Senate Armed Services Committee, said in an interview Thursday with ?The Rusty Humphries Show? that impeachment would become an issue soon over the ?greatest cover-up in American history.?
?People may be starting to use the I-word before too long,? Inhofe said.
?The I-word meaning impeachment?? Humphries asked.
?Yeah,? Inhofe responded.
?Of all the great cover-ups in history ? the Pentagon papers, Iran-Contra, Watergate, all the rest of them ? this ... is going to go down as most egregious cover-up in American history,? Inhofe said.
When Humphries suggested that the Democratic-controlled Senate would not impeach the president, Inhofe said that was true. He said that Benghazi would "endure" and impeachment could come after the 2014 midterm elections, when Republicans hope to retake control of the upper chamber.
Republicans have accused the Obama administration of changing the ?talking points? about last year?s attack in Benghazi for political gain in the heat of the 2012 presidential election.
Four Americans, including U.S. Ambassador Chris Stevens, were killed in the attack on the U.S. Consulate there.
.
(Excerpt) Read more at thehill.com ...
TOPICS: Extended News; Government; News/Current Events; US: District of Columbia
KEYWORDS: benghazi; navyseals; threatmatrix
To: FReepers; Patriots; FRiends;
Support FR
To: drewh
The Ambassador wasn't just killed....it was a ?hit?
To: drewh
?Not saying impeachment would ever happen, but we need to go for the throat on this one. Expose the regime?s corruption.
3 posted on 05/10/2013 1:47:53 PM PDT by Viennacon
To: drewh
It is getting harder and harder for the MSM to ignore comments like this!
To: drewh
sorry ,you need the House ,the Senate and Cahones
5 posted on 05/10/2013 1:49:12 PM PDT by molson209
To: drewh
Jay Carney is starting to remind me of Bagdad Bob.
?There are no American Forces at the airport. They?ve all been killed. Thousands of Americans have been slaughtered. Americans have not entered Bagdad. Our forces have been triumphant.......I gotta Go!?
6 posted on 05/10/2013 1:50:03 PM PDT by Tenacious 1 ("The British are Coming (to confiscate weapons)" - Paul Revere (We know how that ended))
To: ExTexasRedhead
7 posted on 05/10/2013 1:50:13 PM PDT by Doogle (USAF.68-73..8th TFW Ubon Thailand..never store a threat you should have eliminated))To: drewh
The I-word seems to be being whispered:MSNBC: Benghazi Scandal Makes White House 'Look Terrible,' Possibly 'Impeachment Issue'
5/10/13 - After examining all the details that emerged on Friday relating to the efforts by members of President Barack Obama's administration to remove references to Islamic terrorism when explaining the reasons behind the 2012 attack on an American consulate in Benghazi, the panel guests on MSNBC's Now agreed that the appearance of a scandal makes the White House "look terrible." One guest even suggested that the controversy could lead to impeachment proceedings against the president.
8 posted on 05/10/2013 1:51:27 PM PDT by TomGuy
To: drewh
9 posted on 05/10/2013 1:52:41 PM PDT by slumber1 (Don't taze me bro!)To: molson209
Here is what I don?t understand about the White House caluculus regarding the attacks. Yes. Zero had stated that Al Qaeda was on the run. He was gloating about Osama. But, for two months prior to his re-election, he could have spun the attacks to his favor. He could be seen as the CIC. He could have actually acted like he was in charge. Instead, he covers up for a silly set of statements that no one really paid any attention to? There is something else much more sinister here.
10 posted on 05/10/2013 1:52:50 PM PDT by Galtoid ( .)
To: molson209
Wrong, impeachment happens in the House, the case is then tried in the Senate.
11 posted on 05/10/2013 1:53:39 PM PDT by kempster
To: drewh
When Humphries suggested that the Democratic-controlled Senate would not impeach the president I was under the impression that the House impeaches and the Senate tries.
To: drewh
Let the House GOP impeach. Any Senator not voting to convict is political toast
The GOP better not wuss out on this like they did on Eligibility
13 posted on 05/10/2013 1:56:30 PM PDT by SeminoleCounty (GOP - Greenlighting Obama's Programs)
To: drewh
Not bloody likely.
Even if the ?Pubbies hold the House, there are not enough votes for Impeachment to get a ?simple majority.?
And the Senate ?Pubbies would mostly vote with their buddies, the Democrats.
14 posted on 05/10/2013 1:58:01 PM PDT by Little Ray (How did I end up in this hand-basket, and why is it getting so hot?)
To: TomGuy
When MSNBC mentions it, the bell is tolling...
15 posted on 05/10/2013 1:59:19 PM PDT by BigEdLB (Now there ARE 1,000,000 regrets - but it ore leave, and visiting Niagra Fallsmay be too late.)
To: drewh
Go for it....This was a deadly heart attack compared to the hang nail known as Watergate.
To: drewh
Obama shouldn't be impeached for covering up Benghazi. He should be impeached for funneling arms from Benghazi to the Al Qaeda foreign mercenaries attacking Syria and slaughtering Christians. These are war crimes.I doubt the Republicans will go after him for that. If anything the Republicans are mad at Obama for bungling the job and letting the cat out of the bag.
To: M-cubed
Of course it was a hit..and the scary part is not that Obama did it, I always knew he was capable of murder..it is what he is..what is truly scary is the media covering for him..THAT is the truly scary part..your taking a narcissistic President and making him invincible because he knows he can do ANYTHING and get away with it because he has the media in his back pocket
To: Viennacon
We all know the son-of-a-bitch will NEVER be convicted of anything with the current senate.
But we can sure put his sorry ass in a sling for the next 4 years. Keep em bogged down with hearings until eternity.
19 posted on 05/10/2013 2:01:16 PM PDT by unixfox (Abolish Slavery, Repeal The 16th Amendment!)
To: Galtoid
There is something else much more sinister here.
I think they are in the pocket of the Saudis. When you are basically doing someone else?s bidding you cannot act or look decisive - it?s like one year a friend of me said that his favorite basketball team?s point guard was always bringing the ball up the floor while constantly looking at the coach in effect saying ?What now coach? What do I do now coach??. I think we have a Saudi puppet government which inherently is going to look foolish.
To: Sacajaweau
Sure the Senate will go along with this. Obama could be be a gay, foreign born President and not be impeached.
Wait a minute!
To: M-cubed
What have you got to support that? That?s not a taunt, just a question becuz I am trying to figure this out too.
The way I have been looking at this is that the last thing the ?administration? would want to do would be to draw attention to this secret ?diplomatic post? which evidence suggests was a point in a secret CIA gun running operation.
To: whitedog57
And Speaker Boehner can't even appoint a special committee in the house. No wonder we lose national elections!
To: drewh
Shut up Imhofe. The nightmare of BJ Clinton is fresh in many of our memories, the futility of it all. No impeachment, just total destruction and impotence. Enough MSM involvement to make repeal of Obamacare possible. No impeachment.
24 posted on 05/10/2013 2:11:22 PM PDT by Chaguito
To: drewh
25 posted on 05/10/2013 2:15:12 PM PDT by taildragger (( Tighten the 5 point harness and brace for Impact Freepers, ya know it's coming..... ))To: Tenacious 1
Jay Carney is starting to remind me of Bagdad Bob.I would believe Bob before I would believe Jay Carney.
To: FReepers; Patriots; FRiends
27 posted on 05/10/2013 2:16:40 PM PDT by onyx (Please Support Free Republic - Donate Monthly! If you want on Sarah Palin's Ping List, Let Me know!)To: M-cubed
Either a hit or some plot gone awry. It is just too precious that the ?video? instantaneously provoked rioting all over the middle east just ahead of what occurred in Benghazi. It was just too coordinated. Something was being set up, and it went bad. Or someone, like the CIA, hadn?t gotten the message about the video and mucked up the plan. Something is dreadfully amiss, and it really does smell like murderous treason.
Ditto the helicopter.
The IRS ?apology? by someone with a conscience may have more effect on Obie in the long run, because it?s a confessed and proveable crime.
But, please, no impeachment. This is no time for a few congressmen to be pleasuring themselves.
28 posted on 05/10/2013 2:16:53 PM PDT by Chaguito
To: annieokie; penelopesire; maggief; Protect the Bill of Rights; thouworm; SE Mom; Nachum; onyx; ...
Coulda, woulda, shoulda.Anyone wanting on or off this ping list, please advise.
Benghazi Index
To: drewh
If this story continues to snowball expect a wag the dog maneuver soon. These people will stop at nothing to remain in power.
To: drewh
Impeach President Jarrett.
31 posted on 05/10/2013 2:25:02 PM PDT by rfp1234 (Arguing with a marxist is like playing Chess with a Pigeon.)
To: SeminoleCounty
Benghazi was Mercy Park all over again. It was a Ron Brown moment and Stevens was either to be kidnapped or killed. Either way the two ex Navy Seals that were told not to go from the CIA annex to the aid of Stevens were unforeseen to the conspirators and muddied up the whole staged event. Was this about gun running from Libya to Syria? Why didn't the US call for Egypt or Israel for help? The F-16's from Italy could have been refueled from any number of NATO or other tankers in the theater besides U. S. assets. Why call off the Tripoli special forces team? Why not call in the terror task force and put them in motion?Let's see Hillary was responsible for the lack of security at the Benghazi consulate and was the only one authorized to approve the deviations to keep it open, she is the one that wanted Stevens in Benghazi at that time, why were there so many other CIA people at the annex, why and who was the person from Turkey that Stevens met and why did he get away and why has he not been interviewed, who gave all the stand down orders, why was AFRICOM CO General Ham retired the next day or relieved of command as has been reported and why has he not been interviewed by Congress, why were no other assets put into motion unless you already knew what was going on and wanted to control the outcome and limit the people involved, why did the two navy seals laser a target, why has no body from the assault been found, captured, questioned, why is the you-tube video guy arrested and still in jail, why did Hillary's chief of staff have to prevent Hicks from being interviewed by a member of Congress in Benghazi, who gave all those @#$*?FG>#%'ing stand down orders????????????????
Lying treasonous traitors thieves murderers SOB's need to answer all these and more and than go down hard!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
To: whitedog57
My guess is this is another golfing weekend...perhaps he needs another lesson from Tigger.Perhaps a basketball lesson from that "special" dude...he isn't working.
To: Viennacon
?we need to go for the throat on this one. Expose the regime?s corruption.?
I?m on board. Even if the corrupt senate won?t convict, obuma?s treason, murder and lies would be exposed for Americans to judge.
34 posted on 05/10/2013 2:29:52 PM PDT by sergeantdave (No, I don't have links for everything I post)
To: drewh
It is going to be hard if not impossible to dump this communists King. King Obama has lined his Administration and the MSM with accomplices.
To: drewh
It would be good to quickly review the impeachment parts of the Constitution. Article 1, Section 2.3 gives the House of Representative the sole power of impeachment. A simple majority vote of the House is enough to impeach. Article 1, Section 3.6 gives the Senate the sole power to try all impeachments. When it is the President who is under trial the proceedings are presided by the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court.
Where many people get confused, impeachment is not a legal proceeding. It is a political proceeding which legal rules. Both houses of the legislature are very political and will only vote for how it benefits them politically. So you can see that impeachment (the House?s part) can happen when the opposing party controls the House if the majority of people who put them in office want it to happen.
The Senate on the other hand is much tougher. That is because 2/3 of the members present must agree with the verdict to remove the President from Office. With the current Senate that is very unlikely and still unlikely even with a GOP majority after 2014. The only way it could happen is if the people of the country consider the sitting POTUS so vile and such a criminal that they would vote out any Senator not voting to remove from office.
Therefore, it is quite logical that Nixon would most likely have been convicted in the Senate if he had not resigned. Clinton, on the other hand, had convinced America that what he had done was not that bad.
So it is way too early to tell what will happen to 0bama. It depends on what comes out and how the American voters perceive what comes out. Nixon was told by the Republicans in the Senate that they would not stand in the way of impeachment. So to avoid that he resigned. If 0bama leaves office before the end of his term, it most likely will be the Democrat party who forces him out because he is worse than useless to them. It will be because they think he will cost them many offices.
I don?t know what is going to happen. But every little trickle of new damning evidence that comes out weakens 0bama and makes him more of a lame duck. I?ll just watch the show and take what we can get.
To: 2 Kool 2 Be 4-Gotten
2 Kool,
Re: your reply to galtoid?s remark about something sinister going on:
That bow 0 made to the Saudi king speaks volumes, and bears out what you said about 0 being a Saudi puppet.
2 Kool 2 Be 4-Gotten wrote:
?-???????????????????????????
There is something else much more sinister here.
??????????????????????????????
I think they are in the pocket of the Saudis. When you are basically doing someone else?s bidding you cannot act or look decisive - it?s like one year a friend of me said that his favorite basketball team?s point guard was always bringing the ball up the floor while constantly looking at the coach in effect saying ?What now coach? What do I do now coach??. I think we have a Saudi puppet government which inherently is going to look foolish.
37 posted on 05/10/2013 2:41:45 PM PDT by WildHighlander57 ((WildHighlander57 returning after lurking since 2000))
To: drewh
He could be on countless things, but he won?t be.
38 posted on 05/10/2013 2:41:55 PM PDT by bgill (The problem is...no one is watching the Watch List!)
To: WildHighlander57
Right. I like to relate things to daily life. Like the basketball example. Or say you take something back to the store that doesn?t work and you figure out right away that whoever you are talking to doesn?t have the power to make it right. They?ll hem and haw and point to youtube videos (OK I made that last part up) and in general just say a bunch of stuff that doesn?t even make sense instead of taking simple, decisive steps to fix the problem because they are NOT EMPOWERED to do that and it may be against the wishes of their boss. Doesn?t this feel a little like that?
To: Galtoid
I have several guesses.
1. Benghazi was entirely unanticipated by Zippy?s handlers. It was not part of their plan, so they did not have a canned response. They were caught off-guard and their figurehead, Zippy, was like a deer in the headlights.
2. Left on his own without a script and a teleprompter, Zippy was clueless about what to do or say. He was hanging out to dry waiting for instructions from the puppetmasters.
3. This was a huge dilemma. He didn?t want to risk offending his Muslim brothers.
4. Benghazi was a criminal enterprise from the get-go. He was trying to avoid calling any attention to it, so the natural instinct was to try to sweep it under the rug and hope it would go away.
5. He knew he just had to hold on until the election. So if he could minimize it until then, he was home free. No sense risking action that could go wrong when stalling was more likely to preserve the status quo.
6. Zippy in charge and making decisions? Are you crazy? Name even ONE time in the last 5 years where he has been in charge of ANYTHING!!!! Osama: He was called in off the golf course in order to pretend that he had something to do with the operation. Just in time to make a speech and take credit. Making a decision is toxic to Zippy. The thought is horrifying to him. If he ever made a decision he would risk getting blamed if it went wrong. His entire career is based on decision- and responsibility-avoidance coupled with taking credit for the accomplishments of others and pointing fingers and blaming his enemies. Not only is Zippy not capable of being in charge, he is not even capable of ACTING like he?s in charge. (Yes, he sometimes attempts to act in charge the same way a little boy shuffles around in Daddy?s big shoes, but it doesn?t fool anyone. Even the little boy knows he?s faking.)
40 posted on 05/10/2013 2:57:18 PM PDT by generally (Don't be stupid. We have politicians for that.)
To: molson209
The Senate might not have a choice but to impeach, they ARE NOT going to go down with a sinking ship. I think we have only seen and heard a small portion of what is known about Benghazi. I know many think the Republicans in DC are idiots, but there are some very brilliant legal minds leading this charge. I think they have something that they are holding back, giving the Obama liars rope, making them commit to their lies.
41 posted on 05/10/2013 2:59:06 PM PDT by Toespi
To: kempster
Wrong, impeachment happens in the House, the case is then tried in the Senate.Technically, but realistically it starts with Walter Cronkite and since he's a dead democrat, it ain't going to happen (although I'm sure he's still voting in each election).
To: Chaguito
If the President has committed impeachable offenses (and it looks like he has) then he should be impeached, regardless of who controls the majority in the Senate.When impeachable crimes are committed, the true statesman should step up, and every member of the legislature should formally be put on record as to where he or she stands.
Impeachment is by its nature a political process, not a legal one. It must proceed on principle if the political will exists, and the President will not resign for the good of the country.
To: molson209
NEVER, EVER GOING TO HAPPEN . . .
The media has already circled the wagons and they are dedicated to protecting Obama?s ass and Hillary?s ass at all costs. They will be relentless in their continued failure to devote time, attention, and dedication to a story that so needs to be told.
The media is lower than pond scum. As I have often said in previous posts, Unless or until the lame-stream media gives the story legs, it, and impeachment attempts will go nowhere.
To: Toespi
Obama ain?t goin nowhere but the next Golf course or the new Reggie Love hideaway!
45 posted on 05/10/2013 3:00:41 PM PDT by Conserev1 ("Still Clinging to my Bible and my Weapon")
To: drewh
Don?t impeach the sleazebag, use it to belittle and cripple Obama as the cult leader of Democrats. Use it to make fun of Democrats, and their penchant for turning their leaders into untouchable demigods. Use the Benghazi tragedy to smear the cult media whenever they try to cover up leftist treachery.
46 posted on 05/10/2013 3:04:59 PM PDT by pallis
To: drewh
Glad to see impeachment being talked about as an option. We do have laws to remove bad leaders, but it doesn?t seem like we have the courage to use them anymore. I also think a couple well chosen recall campaigns at the national level would go a long ways toward straightening out a lot of these arrogant congressmen and senators. Right now they only give a crap if their election is coming up soon. It wasn?t all that long ago that California recalled a really bad Democrat governor. I applaud Colorado for trying to recall 4 of their state legislators over bad gun control votes, and I hope they are successful. I would support a lot more recalls of politicians, and impeachment of more judges too. Too many of our leaders have lost their fear of the public they are supposed to serve. We have ways to fire these bad leaders if we had the will to do it.
47 posted on 05/10/2013 3:11:15 PM PDT by Reddon
To: sergeantdave
Strike while the iron is hot. In the words of Hendix ?fire all of your guns at once...?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson
Source: http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/3017977/posts
nigel barker secret service fenway park philadelphia flyers student loan forgiveness ufc 145 weigh ins record store day 2012
No comments:
Post a Comment
Note: Only a member of this blog may post a comment.