Why is the House not investigating Obama for impeachment?

1. 87

   Ms Deeposted 7 years ago

   There is much evidence that says Obama has committed "high crimes and misdemeanors" that warrant impeachment and removal. Former congressman Tom Tancredo says there are 12 reasons to investigate impeachment.
   
   1) Does Obama have personal knowledge of the illegal "Fast and Furious" project run by ATF to sell over 2,000 guns to Mexican drug cartels?
   2) Does he have knowledge of the ongoing effort by Eric Holder and other officials to cover it up?
   3) Did he direct his appointees on the NLR Board to bring a lawsuit against Boeing as a political payoff to organized labor?
   4) Does he have knowledge of the DHS plan to falsify the Border Patrol's SW  border illegal-alien apprehension numbers in order to mislead us?
   5) Has he willfully disregarded his clear duty under Article IV, Section 4, of the Constitution to protect the states from foreign invasion?
   6) Is he showing contempt for the Constitution by ordering an "administrative amnesty" for millions of illegal aliens?
   7) Is he showing such contempt by also issuing numerous executive orders and agency rules that have no legal basis and often contradict congressional votes against such actions?
   8) Did he authorize the signing of agreements with foreign countries that violate Article II, Section 2, of the Constitution on "aiding and abetting illegal aliens"?
   9) Did he violate his oath of office 10) and the Constitution (Article II, Section 1) when he instructed the DOJ unilaterally to not defend the Defense of Marriage Act in federal courts?
   11) Did he authorize the offer of a federal job to Rep. Joe Sestek if he would withdraw from the 2010 Democratic primary senatorial race in PA?
   12) Has he violated the War Powers Act by conducting military operations in Libya beyond the 60-day limitation?
   
   
   So, why isn't the House investigating Obama for impeachment? Are they afraid of something? What do you think they are afraid of?

   replyreport
   1. 0

      Nick Lucasposted 7 years agoin reply to this

      they need to as the evidence I have written about and found is clear....he has also appointed Eric Holder despite clear connections with terrorist groups
      http://michellemalkin.com/2009/11/18/cu … n-burling/
      
      The reason they have not is because they do not know if there is enough support or people in the country who will stand behind such action....which is why some have started a petition demanding it and I will have another soon.......stay tuned if you are interested in signing one

      replyreport
      1. 70

         lovemychrisposted 7 years agoin reply to this

         The reason is because THEY NEVER IMPEACHED BUSH.
         
         Nothing any president EVER does will be impeachable, because they let Bush get away.
         
         What do you think, It applies to one and not the other? Give me a break.

         replyreport
      2. 87

         Ms Deeposted 7 years agoin reply to this

         Good to have your thoughts, Nick, and to know you have another soon. I'll stay tuned.

         replyreport
   2. 75

      GNelsonposted 7 years agoin reply to this

      They would have to cut their own "paid for by federal tax dollars" medical insurance to afford it.  They won't do that!  They will cut yours if they can.

      replyreport
      1. 87

         Ms Deeposted 7 years agoin reply to this

         Hmm, having to cut their own med insurance, to do it. Interesting thought.

         replyreport
         1. 75

            GNelsonposted 7 years agoin reply to this

            Yes, it would be nice if they lived in the same world we do.

            replyreport
2. 70

   lovemychrisposted 7 years ago

   That's a good question....Issa came in with guns blasting....I was sure he would have by now.
   Something has made him change his mind.
   
   Of course, you could always go back and ask the last Repub House why they never impeached Bush either....
   
   Kucinich tried...he was called a tin-foiler. Ahhhh, the same fate awaits Tancredo.
   He will forever be labeled a fruit-cake.

   replyreport
3. 0

   Emile Rposted 7 years ago

   I'd have to agree with lovemychris. I could go through a litany of reasons I would have thought Bush should have been impeached. And Clinton (although the incident that spawned the question of what the word is means wouldn't be among them. That was simply seedy).
   
   Anyone who becomes president in this day and age has already committed high crimes and misdemeanors prior to taking office and continues on while there.
   
   If we held our elected officials to the highest letter of the law, the halls of congress and the oval office would remain empty.

   replyreport
   1. 87

      Ms Deeposted 7 years agoin reply to this

      Could be the case, Emile.

      replyreport
4. 68

   recommend1posted 7 years ago

   They are not impeaching Obama because they are not as stupid as the suggestion in this thread.

   replyreport
   1. 87

      Ms Deeposted 7 years agoin reply to this

      Maybe you are saying it is because they are *all* corrupt cronies and they would never impeach their fellow cronies?

      replyreport
5. 71

   Paul Wingertposted 7 years ago

   Obama is not going to be impeached for the previos reasons, so forget the idea.

   replyreport