Kelly made her move during a discussion about a Supreme Court case over the constitutionality of some of President Obama’s recess appointments. Kelly repeatedly described the president’s actions with the “fair and balanced” term of “overreach.”
Kelly began to approach the subject of impeachment when she complained to McConnell that legal challenges to President Obama’s “overreach” take too long.
I want to ask you about this, though. Because this is one example of many that we’ve been talking about on the news lately about presidential overreach. And the question is whether beyond this case, what is perceived by some as presidential overreach, really can be resolved, in your view, by the courts.
McConnell did not take the bait. However, he did agree that “the courts are not a quick remedy.”
So Kelly tried again, this time more explicitly and in a pushier way:
We’ve had lawyers, constitutional lawyers come on this show and say, OK, so when that happens, when you have a president who, in your view or the view of some, is out of control in terms of overreach, you as the lawmaker really have two meaningful options. And the main one that has been used historically is: try to impeach him! I mean, is that ever considered – as opposed to running into the courts and trying to get them to do it?
The other one is to try to defund the president’s legislation which, of course, you guys have tried before.
McConnell actually laughed, though it seemed more like nervous laughter than derision. He said, “Defunding is a less dramatic response.” He also pointed out that the “challenge” is the U.S. Senate, which is controlled by Democrats.
Just before The Kelly File debuted, Kelly made a point of distinguishing herself from such opinion hosts as Bill O'Reilly and Sean Hannity. Unlike them, she told the Associated Press, “you’re not going to hear what I think.” But her efforts to put thoughts into the heads of her viewers and her guest could not have been louder or clearer. Whether they were her own thoughts or not doesn't make a difference.
In a nutshell, this POTUS is as crooked and incompetent as they come, continues to spew false proproganda for America’s stance in the world, diminished our military strength and pulled funding for R and D development, removed Christian prayer from our classrooms and military churches. What is the TRUTH you say? My guess, is that people now wished they’d voted for Romney.
Meg, Meg, Meg . . .
You’re prodding the wrong guy (hm — bet that’s not the first time you’ve heard that.)
You see, Mr. Turtle is a SENATOR — impeachment proceedings can only begin in the HOUSE.
Oh, why won’t rightwingnuts read the Constitution they so claim to love . . .
Why yes, Sandman — they do.
Here are some of the reasons they’ve proposed:
- the use of Air Force one
- making recess appointments
- signing the ACA into law
- offering Rep. Joe Sestak a White House job
- a campaign ad made by a SuperPAC
Mind you, the first is a privilege of office extended to every US President since FDR, the second and third are Constitutionally-authorized functions of the President, there’s nothing illegal about the fourth, his own campaign had nothing to do with the fifth, and the last has been explained — numerous times.
Strange how wingnuts like JFTP are ready to impeach over things like this . . . but, let a white republican president
- wiretap US citizens without warrants
- out a covert CIA agent for political retribution
- or fix intel to justify a preemptive war
all of which happen to be ILLEGAL, and not only is impeachment not warranted, talk of it is downright TREASONOUS . . .
Give that a second to sink in.
Now that I think about it, this writing style looks familiar…
If the right wants the truth, it’s that all of the Obama scandals the right tried to create never reached him. Fast & Furious? The investigation pointed to Grindler making a calls off script. Benghazi? That was on Clinton, and she was cleared. The ACA? Even Fox News reported on the health care contractors that played a proven role being fired- Though that didn’t stop them from continuing their witch hunt on Sebelius. Funny how they act like she’s still running the show, when the overseer is now Michelle Snyder.
To quote the meme: I don’t care if you don’t like Obama. But I do care if it’s all based on lies.
But don’t blow in here claiming that you’ve posted everything on the matter – without leaving out anything – when you clearly decided to leave out the specific part of the Judge’s remarks that reflect negatively on this Erica D. Taylor’s claims. That’s deceptive. And now you claim that what the Judge says doesn’t matter anyway? Bwaaah!
Again, all you did was change the subject and provided no detail as to WHAT the supposed impeachable offenses were and HOW they were supposedly violated.
Your entire diatribe is symptomatic of DSM-IV code 297.1 but I’m not a professional so call up Fox News and ask to speak to Dr. Ablow…he likes to diagnose people without examining them. You’re welcome in advance.
You’re joking, right? You didn’t leave anything out? Did you actually read what I posted, you know, the stuff you decided to leave out of your original post? LOL!
We found that out back when they were pushing the “surveillance state” back during the “Patriot Act” days.
Nothing new there.
The Owings Mills complainant worked for a private contractor hired by the Government. So I don’t believe her employer would be considered the “Government.”
I also think that any individual who tries suing the Government for $950 Million dollars and there only evidence is the paranoid ranting’s of the complainant; I think you’ll have trouble convincing anyone who isn’t also an ultra paranoid person who sees the boogeyman around every corner.
Still waiting for the impeachable offenses that weren’t also conducted by the previous Administration.
The Judge went on to say that, “Plaintiff’s claims plainly fall into this category of allegations. The Complaint is replete with fantastic assertions of electronic torture, stalking, harassment, and mind control following her in her state-to-state travels.”
JFTP, you sure did some interesting editing there – LOL!
In the paragraph starting with “Allegations in a pro se complaint are to be liberally construed,” as JFTP posted, the Judge continued on to say… "De’Lonta v. Angelone, 330 F.3d 630, 633 (4th Cir. 2003) (quoting
Veney v. Wyche, 293 F.3d 726, 730 (4th Cir. 2002)). Courts are instructed that pro se filings “however unskillfully pleaded, must be liberally construed.” Noble v. Barnett, 24 F.3d 582,587 n. 6 (4thCir. 1994) (citing Haines v. Kerner, 404 U.S. 519 (1972); Vinnedge v. Gibbs, 550 F.2d 926,928 (4thCir. 1977)). However, the complaint must contain sufficient facts “to raise a right to relief above the speculative level” and “state a claim to relief that is plausible on its face.” Bell Atl. Corp. v.
Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 555 (2007). A claim having no arguable basis in law or fact may be dismissed as frivolous. Neitzke v. Williams, 490 U.S. 319, 325 (1989); see also 28 U.S.C. 9 1915( e )(2)(B), (outlining screening process for indigent or prisoner complaints).
Examples of frivolous claims include those whose factual allegations are “so nutty,” “delusional,” or “wholly fanciful” as to be simply unbelievable. Gladney v. Pendelton Corr. Facility, 302 F.3d. 773, 774 (7thCir. 2002); Denton v. Hernandez, 504 U.S. 25, 29 (1992). Plaintiff’s claims plainly fall into this category of allegations. The Complaint is replete with fantastic assertions of electronic torture, stalking, harassment, and mind control following her in her state-to-state travels. Plaintiffs Motion to Proceed In Forma Pauperis shall be granted and her action shall be dismissed pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 91915(e). A separate Order follows.
August 16, 2010
We’ve hit the trifecta of trolls!
I would like to anyone from the right who is reading this to give us reasons they feel impeachment is needed. Can any of you seriously give legitimate examples?
I’m sure they would easily have the majority of votes needed in the house to move this to the Senate, but there it has no chance of getting the two-thirds needed. I can visualize John McCain voting against this. All this would accomplish would be a symbolic vote to energize the right wing base and increase profits with higher ratings for Fox and right wing talk radio.
Also, why do you not believe Obama is a “true American” and please define what that is specifically. What are the requirements to be a “true American”.
I look forward to your response. (crickets)
But you don’t have to believe me….ask ‘Charmaine’ Thomas (below). She seems to be quite the expert on the subject.
Or are Republicans in the House going to impeach him for continuing the same Bush policies they cheerleaded for the 8 years of that Administration?
Now that the cat is out of the bag about Nixon trainee Ailes, let’s see how many GOPers, including McConnel, will associate with him.
Turd-face McConnell himself — being perhaps the virulent Obama hater on Capitol Hill — would be thrilled to vote to convict Obama should the House impeach him, but will never happen because though impeachment could easily pass the House, they won’t waste time on it since they know the Senate, as long as Democrats control, would never convict.