Impeachment Insurance

[SuperHornet]

Yes, President Obama has done MORE than enough to be impeached. But he won't be, because he has "impeachment insurance." Who'd be crazy enough to bring in someone even dumber than Obama?

[bluehenbillk]

Is Jay Leno still even on the air? He hasn't been relevant since.....well...when was he?

[Bronco]

Is Jay Leno still even on the air? He hasn't been relevant since.....well...when was he?

During this year's May sweeps, "The Tonight Show With Jay Leno" posted a 39 percent lead over "Late Show With David Letterman" in the advertiser-cherished 18-49 demographic -- the widest May sweep margin over "Late Show" since 2004, and a 12 percent increase over last year's May sweep....

In total viewers, Leno also widened the lead over Letterman compared to last year, averaging 3.515 million versus 2.767 million for Letterman. That's a 27 percent advantage, up 16 percent from last May.

[kalm]

Yes, President Obama has done MORE than enough to be impeached. But he won't be, because he has "impeachment insurance." Who'd be crazy enough to bring in someone even dumber than Obama?

NSA spying program is reason alone for impeachment. Let me guess though...it's not very high on the conk list.

(Exempting CID here as he gets it)

[Ibanez]

Yes, President Obama has done MORE than enough to be impeached. But he won't be, because he has "impeachment insurance." Who'd be crazy enough to bring in someone even dumber than Obama?

NSA spying program is reason alone for impeachment. Let me guess though...it's not very high on the conk list.

(Exempting CID here as he gets it)

I'd say the NSA and IRS debacles are reason enough alone to impeach him.

[bluehenbillk]

Is Jay Leno still even on the air? He hasn't been relevant since.....well...when was he?

During this year's May sweeps, "The Tonight Show With Jay Leno" posted a 39 percent lead over "Late Show With David Letterman" in the advertiser-cherished 18-49 demographic -- the widest May sweep margin over "Late Show" since 2004, and a 12 percent increase over last year's May sweep....

In total viewers, Leno also widened the lead over Letterman compared to last year, averaging 3.515 million versus 2.767 million for Letterman. That's a 27 percent advantage, up 16 percent from last May.

Is that accurate? They already fired Jay once he's being "retired" in a few months for Jimmy Fallon. Doesn't add up to me.

[GannonFan]

NSA spying program is reason alone for impeachment. Let me guess though...it's not very high on the conk list.

(Exempting CID here as he gets it)

I'd say the NSA and IRS debacles are reason enough alone to impeach him.

I don't get the impeachment thing over the NSA spying program. Congress sure knew a lot of what was going on and has for some time, so it's not like Obama was going rogue or something here regarding that. And unless there's a smoking gun linking the White House directly to the IRS scandal, it's hard to impeach over that. Sure, there was a lot of cheerleading to go after conservative groups, but that's just politics, bad politics but politics nonetheless, as opposed to anything impeachable. We are far too quick with the impeach trigger these days.

[kalm]

I'd say the NSA and IRS debacles are reason enough alone to impeach him.

I don't get the impeachment thing over the NSA spying program. Congress sure knew a lot of what was going on and has for some time, so it's not like Obama was going rogue or something here regarding that. And unless there's a smoking gun linking the White House directly to the IRS scandal, it's hard to impeach over that. Sure, there was a lot of cheerleading to go after conservative groups, but that's just politics, bad politics but politics nonetheless, as opposed to anything impeachable. We are far too quick with the impeach trigger these days.

You're right about the quick trigger, but aside from oversight, is congress responsible for the actions of the NSA or is the executive? They are clearly violating the 4th amendment and congress is failing to uphold its duty as well IMHO.

[SeattleGriz]

Yes, President Obama has done MORE than enough to be impeached. But he won't be, because he has "impeachment insurance." Who'd be crazy enough to bring in someone even dumber than Obama?

Wait. Biden said he was second in line to be the President.

Sent from my Nexus 7 using Tapatalk 4 Beta

[GannonFan]

I don't get the impeachment thing over the NSA spying program. Congress sure knew a lot of what was going on and has for some time, so it's not like Obama was going rogue or something here regarding that. And unless there's a smoking gun linking the White House directly to the IRS scandal, it's hard to impeach over that. Sure, there was a lot of cheerleading to go after conservative groups, but that's just politics, bad politics but politics nonetheless, as opposed to anything impeachable. We are far too quick with the impeach trigger these days.

You're right about the quick trigger, but aside from oversight, is congress responsible for the actions of the NSA or is the executive? They are clearly violating the 4th amendment and congress is failing to uphold its duty as well IMHO.

Not to defend Obama here, but the system put in place by the legislature and including the judiciary doesn't seem to think the 4th ammendment is being violated. Sure, they could be wrong, but there's a reason they are called legal opinions and not legal facts - it is not clear cut. Oh, and we voted for this executive and the legislature, and they filled this judiciary, so it's our government and we picked it. If we really don't like it, elections are great places to express our opinions.

[kalm]

You're right about the quick trigger, but aside from oversight, is congress responsible for the actions of the NSA or is the executive? They are clearly violating the 4th amendment and congress is failing to uphold its duty as well IMHO.

Not to defend Obama here, but the system put in place by the legislature and including the judiciary doesn't seem to think the 4th ammendment is being violated. Sure, they could be wrong, but there's a reason they are called legal opinions and not legal facts - it is not clear cut. Oh, and we voted for this executive and the legislature, and they filled this judiciary, so it's our government and we picked it. If we really don't like it, elections are great places to express our opinions.

"The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized."

Oh...two presidents and congress endorse it so it must be OK. We validate the constitution through elections now?

Pretty clear cut to me.

[GannonFan]

Not to defend Obama here, but the system put in place by the legislature and including the judiciary doesn't seem to think the 4th ammendment is being violated. Sure, they could be wrong, but there's a reason they are called legal opinions and not legal facts - it is not clear cut. Oh, and we voted for this executive and the legislature, and they filled this judiciary, so it's our government and we picked it. If we really don't like it, elections are great places to express our opinions.

"The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized."

Oh...two presidents and congress endorse it so it must be OK. We validate the constitution through elections now?

Pretty clear cut to me.

Uh, yeah, we've been interpreting the Constitution as a result of political elections for again, about 224 years now. If only your knowledge of American history was as thorough as your self-belief of your knowledge of the Constitution. I never saw you as a Scalia-fan boy or a Clarence Thomas fan. Go figure.

[kalm]

"The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized."

Oh...two presidents and congress endorse it so it must be OK. We validate the constitution through elections now?

Pretty clear cut to me.

Uh, yeah, we've been interpreting the Constitution as a result of political elections for again, about 224 years now. If only your knowledge of American history was as thorough as your self-belief of your knowledge of the Constitution. I never saw you as a Scalia-fan boy or a Clarence Thomas fan. Go figure.

Massive over-simplification there but a good shot in about Scalia and Thomas.

Why don't you go ahead and provide the case for how the NSA program does not conflict with the 4th amendment. Then tell us what YOU really think on an issue.

[AZGrizFan]

Not to defend Obama here, but the system put in place by the legislature and including the judiciary doesn't seem to think the 4th ammendment is being violated. Sure, they could be wrong, but there's a reason they are called legal opinions and not legal facts - it is not clear cut. Oh, and we voted for this executive and the legislature, and they filled this judiciary, so it's our government and we picked it. If we really don't like it, elections are great places to express our opinions.

So we have to wait until a justice or two dies to get a different judiciary "review" of the current interpretation of the trampling of the 4th amendment?