SUBSCRIBE NOW WELCOME BACK. Do you want to continue reading where you left off? New Republic subscribers can pick up where they left off no matter which device they were previously using. SUBSCRIBE NOW

Go Home Impeachment Watch

JONATHAN CHAIT AUGUST 9, 2011

Impeachment Watch

BY JONATHAN CHAIT

Via TPM, Rep. Michael Burgess endorses impeaching President Obama on unspecified grounds:

When one attendee suggested that the House push for impeachment proceedings against President Barack Obama to obstruct the president from pushing his agenda, Burgess was receptive.

"It needs to happen, and I agree with you it would tie things up," Burgess said. "No question about that."

When asked about the comment later, Burgess said he wasn't sure whether the proper charges to bring up articles of impeachment against Obama were there, but he didn't rule out pursuing such a course.

"We need to tie things up," Burgess said. "The longer we allow the damage to continue unchecked, the worse things are going to be for us."

And so the list of impeachment-friendly Republicans is growing, Scott Keyes points out:

Rep. Pete Olson (R-TX) confirmed to ThinkProgress this month that Rep. Tim Scott(R-SC) and other House GOPers were exploring impeachment over the debt ceiling. In the spring, Rep. Trent Franks (R-AZ) called for impeachment if the president refused to support the Defense of Marriage Act. Last year, Rep. Lamar Smith (R-TX) hinted at impeaching President Obama if he didn’t do more to stop illegal immigration. Even the birthers have gotten in on the action, with Rep. Tim Walberg (R-MI) last year saying he may force President Obama to release his birth certificate under the threat of impeachment.

Obviously nothing will happen between now and November 2012. But if Obama wins and Republicans keep the House, look out second term.

SHARE YOUR THOUGHTS

Show all 20 comments

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

20 comments

Wow. This House is so crazy, they'll impeach Obama even though he didn't invoke the 14th ammendment. I've said it before and I'll say it again -- trying to "compromise" with these nutters won't satisfy them. You might as well ignore them and do the right thing.

- AllanL5

August 9, 2011 at 2:22pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

I'm no lawyer, but wouldn't they need something in the way of a high crime or misdemeanor? Simply disagreeing with the Tea Party isn't due to be a felony until President Bachmann's Special Executive Order 1. Which I predict will be issued immediately following the reichstag fire. I MEAN CAPITAL BUILDING. The US Capital Building fire. Whew. Sorry about that.

- Tristan

August 9, 2011 at 2:30pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Tristan has a point. Also, we will all have to convert.

- Sophia

August 9, 2011 at 2:37pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Tristan. I think you have it wrong on disagreeing with the Tea Party. He agreed with the Tea Party on cutting with no revenues to help the deficit. That's the problem. There's a story of a woman beneficiary of a trust with a bank trustee. She nagged and bothered the bank to give her money relentlessly and, after constant aggravation, the bank capitulated and gave her money annually, which she spent quickly. After 15 years, the trust ran out of money. She sued the bank claiming they should not have given her the money. That's the Tea Party.

- Nusholtz

August 9, 2011 at 3:01pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Obama is an America-hating muslim socialist whose main offense is not acting like an America-hating muslim socialist.

- ironyroad

August 9, 2011 at 3:08pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Never mind the 14th amendment; he should have simply said "The fact that Congress has appropriated money in excess of revenue represents authority to borrow the difference. In fact I have to spend every cent you authorized. I am not negotiating for the right to spend money I am required to spend. Clearly I can't raise taxes on my own." If you disagree with this opinion, then impeach me.

- stanmvp48

August 9, 2011 at 3:31pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

The Reichstag fire was set by the leftist, Marinus Van Der Lubbe, which the Nazis then capitalized on. Did you not know this, Tris?

- liberalref

August 9, 2011 at 3:38pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

"The Reichstag fire was set by the leftist, Marinus Van Der Lubbe, which the Nazis then capitalized on. Did you not know this, Tris?" And if we saw a Bachmann ascendency, and both houses of Congress controlled by the gop, and a radical leftist group torched the place in protest, then my joke about a crazy neocon white house using a target of opportunity to lay blame and create new and exciting domestic pogroms isn't really that far off, now is it?

- Tristan

August 9, 2011 at 3:54pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Tristan, good post and good response to liberalref's unceasing quest to play "gotcha" by picking fly shit out of the rhetorical pepper.

- appleton

August 9, 2011 at 4:01pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

- Where should I place this on my Anxiety List? I'd like to keep lose the election, global pandemic and poorly prepared sashimi fugu near the top of my worries. For now I'd like to keep impeachment at #4. OK, not OK?

- michaelg

August 9, 2011 at 4:52pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

We have to impeach the president. Why? He's threatening our democratic liberty. How do you know? Because he's a Democrat and all Democrats threaten our democratic liberty. So would you impeach ANY Democrat? Of course. But doesn't it threaten our democratic liberty just as much if people from only one party are allowed to be president? No. How not? The Democrats are free to elect someone who DOESN'T threaten our democratic liberties. But you said ALL Democrats threaten our democratic liberties. Yes. Then no Democrat can be allowed to be president. You're not listening. A Democrat can be president; he just can't be president and threaten our democratic liberties. As all Democrats do. Yes, that's the catch. Catch? Catch 22.

- AaronW

August 9, 2011 at 5:21pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

As I've said before, it's an essential certainty that if Obama wins a second term and the House stays Republican, Obama will be impeached during that second term. I don't know why it is so that "obviously nothing will happen between now and November 2012," however. A year ago, it was obvious that threats to collapse the world economy constituted treason; why should we assume that the Republicans won't muster the crazy to impeach Obama next week? Separately, libref: even after a long history of such comments, that was a particularly pathetic attempt to praise your own genius while disparaging others. "I can't believe you don't know this obscure (and disputed) claim is common knowledge." Sigh.

- janus

August 9, 2011 at 5:27pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

With today's Republicans, I don't think you can rule out anything short of violent overthrow of the government. And they had candidates who did hint at that running for Senate in 2010.

- JEFF FREY

August 9, 2011 at 5:42pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Aaron, that was classic.

- Tristan

August 9, 2011 at 6:09pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

That actually fits on a bumper sticker Irony:)

- IggyPop

August 9, 2011 at 6:16pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

You have to admit it's tempting. Obama has really screwed up everything, and the deficit/ debt go-round showed just how ineffective and hapless he is. With the idiots from Chicago mostly gone, he has just a few incompetent cronies and a lot of empty offices to help him figure his way out of all the messes we are in. The time to do it is now, because almost any Democrat but Obama could beat the current moronic lineup of Republican candidates. Think about it.

- mlottman

August 9, 2011 at 9:00pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

I'm confused, mlottman, are you talking about a primary challenge or impeachment?

- AaronW

August 9, 2011 at 9:26pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Obviously it's not impossible for something to happen between now and Nov. 2012. Any sign that the GOP might lose the House or see its majority lessened might be the trigger for a kamikaze-style impeachment. I'm not saying it would be the smart thing to do, mind you. And this batch of mindless kneejerks will happily portray anything--the Affordable Care Act, the birth certificate, the debt-ceiling idiocy, Obama turning fifty--as a "high crime" or "misdemeanor" to suit its purposes. And a primary challenge, assuming that's the non sequitir 9:00 post's intent, would be the stupidest possible move any Democrat could make.

- cspencef

August 9, 2011 at 10:50pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

"And a primary challenge, assuming that's the non sequitir 9:00 post's intent, would be the stupidest possible move any Democrat could make." I strongly disagree. While it is the case that in all five post-WWII instances where an incumbent president faced a primary challenge the opposing party took the White House, it is arguable that this is an association without causation, i.e. that the conditions that favored a primary challenge also favored the incumbent's loss/resignation. More important, though, is what the rationale might be for "any Democrat" to support a primary challenge. Would it be wrest the presidency from Obama? Not really. That WOULD be such a longshot as to render any challenge solely on that basis stupid. But a primary challenge might be justified for other reasons, shaping the future of the Democratic Party, for instance. We have a Democratic president who to an unprecedented degree has abandoned aims for which the party has stood for more than seventy years. In fact, this Democratic president seems to find the very idea of political parties distasteful and has done much to neutralize the power that his own party has fought for and won. Is it a good idea for those of us who still do support the notion of the Democratic Party as a seperate party working towards particular definable goals to sit on our hands while our foremost representative pisses all over us and those goals? I tend to think not.

- AaronW

August 10, 2011 at 1:03am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

- Aaron notes that "it is the case that in all five post-WWII instances where an incumbent president faced a primary challenge the opposing party took the White House,". He also admits a challenge to Obama would be a longshot, as if any person who wanted the job didn't know that. And with those selling points in hand he hopes to find a recruit for "shaping the future of the Democratic Party". Good luck with your theory. Oh, one question: What might happen if you're wrong?

- michaelg

August 10, 2011 at 9:40am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

SHARE HIGHLIGHT

0 CHARACTERS SELECTED

TWEET THIS

POST TO TUMBLR

SHARE ON FACEBOOK

Close