Rep. Chaffetz: Impeachment Is On The Table

When President Bush and VP Cheney publicly confessed to criminal acts, the Democrats let it pass. Probably they thought nobody would take impeachment seriously anymore after Republicans made a mockery of it during the Clinton administration. Then Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi famously said impeachment was “off the table.”

Ah, but Republicans view impeachment differently. President Obama wasn’t even inaugurated before Republican politicians were calling for his impeachment. The right spawned a cottage industry of inventing Obama conspiracy theories. Some right-wingers are pretty sure Obama is the Anti-Christ described in the Book of Revelation.

So let’s not be surprised when Utah’s very own Rep. Jason Chaffetz joins in (emphasis added):

Rep. Jason Chaffetz says President Barack Obama’s handling of the government’s response to the Benghazi terrorist attack could be an impeachable offense and vows to continue digging at the “lies of highest magnitude” from the White House.

“It’s certainly a possibility,” the Utah Republican said Monday when asked about impeachment. “That’s not the goal but given the continued lies perpetrated by this administration, I don’t know where it’s going to go. … I’m not taking it off the table.

Never mind that terrorist attacks on U.S. diplomats happened 13 times during the Bush administration, and killed 98 people. Congressman Chaffetz is on a mission to destroy the Obama administration, and Hillary Clinton too, if he can. He recently participated in the NINTH congressional hearing on the Benghazi assault, which has also been investigated by the FBI and a State Department Accountability Review Board chaired by Ambassador Thomas Pickering and Admiral Mike Mullen.

The irony here is that President Obama is actually guilty of impeachable offenses, which the Republicans can’t talk about because it all comes back to Bush and Cheney.

UPDATE: Jason Chaffetz Doubles Down On Possible Obama Impeachment: ‘I’m Not A Patient Person’

  1. #1 by obama's jack booted truncheon wielding goons on May 14, 2013 - 10:50 pm

    You bet it is!!

    Article 2 Section 4. Article 2 Section 4.Article 2 Section 4.Article 2 Section 4.Article 2 Section 4.Article 2 Section 4.Article 2 Section 4.Article 2 Section 4.Article 2 Section 4.Article 2 Section 4.Article 2 Section 4.Article 2 Section 4.Article 2 Section 4.Article 2 Section 4.Article 2 Section 4.Article 2 Section 4.Article 2 Section 4.Article 2 Section 4.Article 2 Section 4.Article 2 Section 4.Article 2 Section 4.Article 2 Section 4.Article 2 Section 4.Article 2 Section 4.Article 2 Section 4.Article 2 Section 4. SING IT!!

  2. #2 by Larry Bergan on May 15, 2013 - 12:39 am

    What is Article 2 Section 4?

    Refresh me, without being esoteric.

  3. #3 by obama's jack booted truncheon wielding goons on May 15, 2013 - 12:50 am

    Impeachment of the president… proceedings for removal from office for high crimes and misdemeanors..benghazi is good enough, but the Tea Party IRS targeting will hit the munitions magazine..

    We’re dun with bama, stick a fork in his ass, he’s DONE!

    Pick up a copy of the Constitution someday, by the looks of it, most of your posters are in dire need of it..it’s only about 35 little pages..

    • #4 by Larry Bergan on May 15, 2013 - 6:49 pm

      I thought I told you not to be esoteric.

  4. #5 by obama's jack booted truncheon wielding goons on May 15, 2013 - 12:54 am

  5. #6 by Richard Warnick on May 15, 2013 - 7:19 am

    Nothing wrong with the response to Benghazi (although there was inadequate security before the attack – ask the GOP about that, they cut the funding).

    The IRS was just trying to do its job, although none of the tea partyers were denied tax-exempt status, and Karl Rove got away with everything he did.

    So the Republicans have got nothing, and they are tryng to convince the media they’ve got something.

    Meanwhile, the Obama administration is:

    (1) Conducting widespread warrantless surveillance
    (2) Putting Americans on kill lists
    (3) Refusing to prosecute torture, in violation of the UN Convention Against Torture (a treaty signed by Ronald Reagan)
    (4) Continuing the Bush policy of indefinite preventive detention without charges
    (5) Going after government whistle-blowers more than any previous administration (Nixon included)

    With the exception of Senator Rand Paul, the right wing has nothing but praise for these high crimes.

  6. #7 by brewski on May 15, 2013 - 7:41 am

    “Nothing wrong with the response to Benghazi”
    Except lying to a grieving mother and to the American people and the UN.

    “The IRS was just trying to do its job”
    Then why did they apologize and why did Rachel Maddow say they were not just doing their job?

    “although none of the tea partyers were denied tax-exempt status”
    But some withdrew their applications and others were delayed their approval

    “So the Republicans have got nothing”
    Which is why Jon Stewart is siding with the Republicans on this one.

    “they are tryng to convince the media they’ve got something”
    The media is now on the Republicans’ side because of the AP scandal.

    “Meanwhile, the Obama administration is:
    (1) Conducting widespread warrantless surveillance
    (2) Putting Americans on kill lists
    (3) Refusing to prosecute torture, in violation of the UN Convention Against Torture (a treaty signed by Ronald Reagan)
    (4) Continuing the Bush policy of indefinite preventive detention without charges
    (5) Going after government whistle-blowers more than any previous administration”
    You must be a racist, just ask Cliff.

  7. #8 by brewski on May 15, 2013 - 8:27 am

    “Never mind that terrorist attacks on U.S. diplomats happened 13 times during the Bush administration, and killed 98 people.”

    How many of these 13 terrorist attacks did the Bush administration deny were terrorist attacks? How many grieving mothers did Bush look into the eye and lie to them that the death of their child was caused by something other than a terrorist attack?

    Please provide a list.

    • #9 by Richard Warnick on May 15, 2013 - 9:49 am

      brewski–

      Your “grieving mother” changed her story with a little prompting from Faux News Channel. She’s being exploited by the right-wing noise machine, which has no shame.

      The Dems ought to have investigated the hell out of Bush, but even after they re-took control of Congress they did next to nothing. Maybe they are learning their lesson now.

      • #10 by brewski on May 15, 2013 - 10:02 am

        False.

  8. #11 by cav on May 15, 2013 - 8:46 am

    Keep in mind…it’s not as though Bush created NO grieving mothers. That is just a small part of the CIA supported territory that is the American presidency.

  9. #12 by brewski on May 15, 2013 - 9:19 am

    Not the point.

    • #13 by cav on May 15, 2013 - 10:08 am

      The point is what you say the point is. I’m not seeing the scandal here that equates to lying about WMD, auditing the NAACP or threatening the tax status of All Soul’s Episcopal Church.

      But I’m a partisan….

      In any event it brings the Clenis impeachment to mind.

      Shark whistling in the intentional darkness.

  10. #14 by obama's jack booted truncheon wielding goons on May 15, 2013 - 9:45 am

    thanks brewski for taking the time to point by point respond to the progressive idiocy, he could probably murder an American citizen and these progressive fools would make some kind of excuse for his actions and incompetent reasoning. Oh WAIT! HE DID! and got away with it…just like bush..for now.

    I just don’t have the patience. It will be well enough to simply have him shitcanned or a lame duck for the next 3 odd years..

  11. #15 by cav on May 15, 2013 - 10:05 am

    I remember when the complaint was that Carter (Jimmeh!) was busy reviewing the schedules for the White House tennis courts.

    Now we complain because Obama didn’t know about an IRS report about to come out on the latest “scandal,” which TPM sez was tipped by a loose-lipped IRS employee a few days early.

    Clearly every investigative report conducted by every agency of the federal government should be brought to the President’s attention because he doesn’t have enough to worry about. Or something.

    • #16 by Richard Warnick on May 15, 2013 - 10:28 am

      I think the IRS “scandal” is pretty thin stuff. But progressives are not rallying around Obama, as brewski points out. Why would they? The hippies got punched a few times too many.

      For the “independent progressive” group Action for a Progressive Future, which runs the Rootsaction.org web site, the tax-exempt process took 18 months and also involved intrusive questions.

      Co-founder Jeff Cohen said tax-exempt status is a privilege, so he didn’t mind answering the intrusive questions, as long as those questions were consistent and fair.

      “From my perspective, if the IRS can hold up legitimate Tea Party applications today and get away with it, then who knows if progressive groups will be held up and specially scrutinized in a few years. It’s utterly unacceptable, if that’s what happened,” he said.

      • #17 by brewski on May 15, 2013 - 10:44 am

        It isn’t whether or not the questions were legitimate or not. It is whether the rules were being applied and enforced in an even-handed way. If you are applying special attention to any organization with the term Tea Party and not the ones with the word Progressive, then that is not even-handed. Rachel Maddow recognizes the fact that the method of only looking for certain words and not other words is not even-handed. You seem to be unable to see anything in a non-partisan and non-ideological way. Sometimes evidence is just evidence even if you don’t like it. If the IRS under Bush had used Progressive as a key word search and asked the same questions you would go ballistic. You do not look at anything in an objective way. Everything is partisan.

        • #18 by Richard Warnick on May 15, 2013 - 12:06 pm

          When Bush was in office, the IRS investigated the NAACP’s tax status for two years. But they got to keep their tax-exempt privileges, even after criticizing President Bush during the 2004 presidential campaign. That was unfair, but in the end the IRS did the right thing.

          When a partisan political group applies for 501(c)(4) status, they are lying about the purpose for which they were formed. Masquerading as a social welfare organization, they just want to run political ads while keeping the names of their donors secret.

          The IRS Was Dead Right To Scrutinize Tea Party

          It looks like some pro-Obama groups may not have been subjected to the same scrutiny as the tea partyers, but independent progressive groups certainly did NOT get a pass. Karl Rove was the biggest violator of all, but he was lawyered up and the IRS steered clear of him.

          The Seven Questions That Got The IRS In Trouble

          Only in the absurd, hyper-partisan political environment of Washington is this considered a big deal. There was no illegality at all on the part of the IRS. If this proves to be the downfall of the Obama administration, after everything else they have done that violates federal criminal statutes and the Constitution itself, that would be weird.

          Meanwhile:

          (1) The economic recovery stinks, and 4 million Americans are long-term unemployed
          (2) Nothing has been done about climate change
          (3) We still have soldiers dying for no good reason halfway around the world in Afghanistan
          (4) The Republicans in Congress have proved they can block any legislation, even if supported by 90 percent of Americans

          • #19 by brewski on May 15, 2013 - 5:09 pm

            So if Bush was president, and the IRS did keyword searches using Progressive and Labor to focus on organizations to scrutinize, then you’d be fine with that?

  12. #20 by cav on May 15, 2013 - 10:57 am

    I chose Him over McCain. I’m so ashamed.

  13. #21 by Richard Warnick on May 15, 2013 - 5:33 pm

    Bush WAS President, and he used the IRS, FBI, CIA and Secret Service to go after opponents of his administration. And Faux News Channel was fine with that. Critics of the Bush administration were even put on the No-Fly List. Karl Rove maintained a Bush enemies list with a reported 30,000 names.

    What goes around comes around. Why all the whining now? Let me venture a guess — partisanship!

    • #22 by brewski on May 15, 2013 - 7:29 pm

      So you are fine with Bush doing that. Thank you.

      • #23 by Richard Warnick on May 16, 2013 - 9:09 am

        No, I’m pointing out that what the Bushies did was wrong and the right-wingers never got concerned about it.

        Now the same people who said nothing about Bush’s corruption seem to think that the Obama administration is trying to pull some of the same political dirty tricks. Their outrage is fake.

        But corruption and extreme hypocrisy is nothing new in Washington. I can’t get excited about it, because I’m not on the partisan merry-go-round. If you really want to impeach President Obama, there is a list of ready-made charges that neither major political party wants to discuss.

        • #24 by brewski on May 16, 2013 - 10:11 am

          Thank you for proving my point that everything is about partisan politics to you. You are just incapable of saying that the IRS did something wrong and illegal. You have to blame it on Bush or Bushies or whatever. You have one prism and it is partisan. That’s all you know.

          • #25 by Richard Warnick on May 16, 2013 - 11:28 am

            If the IRS did something illegal, I am perfectly capable of saying so. So far, the information we have indicates they did nothing illegal, and maybe not even wrong. There is no indication that the IRS was influenced by the Democratic Party. The IRS Commissioner was a Bush appointee.

            Not a single tea party group was denied, despite the fact that every application violated the spirit if not the letter of the law. There isn’t a single tea party organization in the country that isn’t primarily concerned with political matters. None of them should have qualified for tax-exempt status. None.

            The only political organization denied 501(c)(4) status in 2012 was Emerge America, a progressive group.

            I’ll say again, if you really want to impeach President Obama then let’s talk about something he actually was responsible for.

          • #26 by brewski on May 16, 2013 - 12:56 pm

            You just don’t get it.

          • #27 by brewski on May 16, 2013 - 12:57 pm

            House Oversight Committee ranking member Elijah Cummings (D., Md.) called the IRS’s targeting of conservative groups “one of the most alarming things I’ve ever seen,” and believes that those involved likely broke the law.

            “Yes, laws were probably broken,” Cummings said yesterday on CNN. “And if it’s not against the law, we need to create some laws to make it so.”

  14. #28 by Larry Bergan on May 15, 2013 - 6:39 pm

    Can we just acknowledge the fact that the “Tea Party” is not a registered party. It is a fake organization that is funded, in part, by the Koch Bro’s. There may be some ‘”Independents or Constitutionalists or Libertarians – actual registered parties – who would call themselves Republicans if they weren’t embarrassed of where their party has gone, and they might be showing up at some of these fake rallies, but the fact remains; these rallies are faked.

    Barry – Goddamned – Goldwater was embarrassed about where his party was going.

    Tell me why the IRS should be giving ANY consideration to a fake organization?

  15. #29 by brewski on May 15, 2013 - 9:06 pm

    Ask MoveOn.org

  16. #30 by Larry Bergan on May 15, 2013 - 9:45 pm

    The IRS has been giving MoveOn.org special perks?

    Prove it.

  17. #31 by brewski on May 16, 2013 - 6:58 am

    They are a 501c4

  18. #32 by Richard Warnick on May 16, 2013 - 1:38 pm

    brewski–

    You copied and pasted from the National Review website without providing a link to the source.

    Regarding what Rep. Elijah Cummings said to CNN, what laws does he think were broken by the IRS? Can he name one?

    You made the same accusation. Can you tell me what law(s)?

    Check it:

    “This is not the O.J. Simpson case here,” said David Laufman, a former Justice Department lawyer and congressional investigative attorney. “We’re talking about regulatory misconduct and possibly just misjudgment by people in a zone of conduct that had extreme political consequences. If these folks at the IRS were acting in the misguided belief that they were complying with their legal duties and obligations and authorities, that conduct is going to fall short for what is necessary to bring criminal charges.”

  19. #33 by brewski on May 16, 2013 - 2:26 pm

    Coming from the man who thinks that Media Matters counts as a source, not to mention alter net, thinkregress, FDL and a bunch of other hysterical rags, I find your comment funny.

    • #34 by Richard Warnick on May 16, 2013 - 3:39 pm

      Why copy and paste without giving a link to your source?

      • #35 by brewski on May 16, 2013 - 8:20 pm

        Who cares? A quote from Mr. Cummings doesn’t change if it is from the World Workers Daily or Pravda. He still said it.

        • #36 by Richard Warnick on May 17, 2013 - 8:53 am

          IMHO it’s original only if you write it. Otherwise, it’s good practice to say where you got it.

  20. #37 by brewski on May 16, 2013 - 2:32 pm

    My position is the same as the honorable gentleman from Maryland.

    You are a racist.

    • #38 by Richard Warnick on May 16, 2013 - 3:41 pm

      He can’t say what laws, if any, were broken by the IRS — and neither can you.

  21. #39 by Richard Warnick on May 16, 2013 - 4:36 pm

    Another progressive group that got hassled by the IRS:

    “[W]hen we applied for tax-exempt status, Progress Texas received the same type of additional scrutiny that Tea Party groups are complaining about. The similar treatment indicates the IRS was likely addressing a flood of 501c4 applications after Citizens United, and undermines the paranoid notion that Tea Party groups were singled out.”

    • #40 by brewski on May 16, 2013 - 8:20 pm

      False.

      • #41 by Richard Warnick on May 17, 2013 - 8:57 am

        Factually false, or just “false” because you don’t want to believe it?

        • #42 by brewski on May 17, 2013 - 9:44 am

          You are entirely missing the point which I have repeated many times. So you seem to be willfully ignoring the problem which I have already stated.

          • #43 by cav on May 17, 2013 - 9:53 am

            Yes, brewski is the official keeper of the spot-light. And, of course, it needs no further mention…The ‘truth’.

          • #44 by brewski on May 17, 2013 - 9:56 am

            No, but to respond to my points by not responding to my points is pointless.

    • #45 by cav on May 17, 2013 - 9:29 am

      Around a third of the organizations receiving extra scrutiny were “Tea Party”, “9/12″ or “Patriot” organizations. What were the rest? What other screening criteria were used to identify organizations that were likely political rather than social welfare? Is there any truth to claim liberal political organizations were not given the same scrutiny? Or, is it just a matter that the IRS was flooded with applications from tea party organizations and with liberal ones.

      Is there any evidence that these organizations were chosen by the upper eschalons for ideological reasons rather than for the fact that the IRS employees thought they were more likely to be political than social welfare because of their names?

      If this is a case of the IRS employees targeting organizations for ideological reasons, that’s a reason for some outrage – directed at the perpetrators. It’s not Watergate or Iran-Contra.

      If it’s a case of IRS employees trying to do their jobs without sufficient guidance and resources, and being politically tone-deaf and naive, that’s a different problem.

      • #46 by Richard Warnick on May 17, 2013 - 9:35 am

        Some people are claiming that federal laws were broken by the IRS, however they seem unable to figure out which ones.

        • #47 by brewski on May 17, 2013 - 9:57 am

          Some people who are congressmen from Maryland will find one or make one.

          You are a racist.

  22. #51 by cav on May 17, 2013 - 9:49 am

    Some people saw mushrooming clouds where there were none.

    I think much of the underlying commotion is just more diversionary ‘play’ on the part of those who, even after running successfully for office, cannot find it inside themselves to make the calls that really need to be made.

    IOW: a lamentable waste of skin.

  23. #52 by Richard Warnick on May 17, 2013 - 1:15 pm

    brewski–

    YOU didn’t read it. Here’s the exchange from the congressional hearing quoted on TPM (emphasis added):

    Price: Would you care to recharacterize the ‘unnecessary’ word? Is it illegal, what they have done?

    Miller: It is absolutely not illegal.

    Price: It’s not illegal what the IRS has done?

    Miller: So let me understand the question. What is your statement as to what is illegal?

    Price: Do you believe it is illegal for employees of the IRS to create lists to target individual groups and citizens in this country?

    Miller: I think the treasury inspector general indicated it might not be, but that others will be able to tell that.

    Price: What do you believe?

    Miller: I don’t believe it is.

    Not illegal. In this so-called “scandal,” the only lawbreakers were the partisan political groups falsely claiming to be social welfare organizations.

    And I’d like to know which law you think the IRS violated.

    • #53 by brewski on May 18, 2013 - 11:38 pm

      Biggest lie of all tax exempts:

      Media Matters for America is a 501(c)(3)

      Makes me want to puke.

      • #54 by Richard Warnick on May 19, 2013 - 11:14 am

        Take an Imodium tablet. Media Matters is non-political.

  24. #55 by brewski on May 17, 2013 - 2:22 pm

    He went from “Absolutely Not” to “might not” to “others will be able to tell that” to “I don’t believe”.

    Pretty big walking back.

    • #56 by Richard Warnick on May 17, 2013 - 2:38 pm

      There was no walk back. He said “absolutely not illegal” and stuck to that position. Under questioning, he suggested others may have a different opinion.

      I’m still curious about what law, if any, you think the IRS ran afoul of.

      I find it amazing that right-wingers keep attacking the Obama administration for so-called “scandals” that do not involve illegal acts, while this same administration continues to violate federal law and the Constitution right under their noses.

      • #57 by brewski on May 17, 2013 - 3:22 pm

        Richard, I understand that you don’t speak English, so here is a little help:

        Absolutely:
        With no qualification, restriction, or limitation; totally.

        Might:
        Used to express possibility

        • #58 by Richard Warnick on May 19, 2013 - 10:59 am

          Admitting that others might have different opinions is not the same as changing your own position.

          For example: I’m certain that the IRS did not break the law by asking questions before granting tax-exempt status. Others believe otherwise, but cannot say what laws were broken, if any.

  25. #59 by cav on May 17, 2013 - 5:48 pm

    I don’t suppose there’d be any real benefit in pursuing the true definition of ‘understand’ in brewski’s condescending sentence above, especially when The newest Crisis is breaking…

    Umbrella gate once more shows Obama’s lack of leadership and failure to reach out to people in D.C.

  26. #60 by obama's jack booted truncheon wielding goons on May 18, 2013 - 1:01 pm

    All over but the cryin’ for “bubbles”. It was a pretty good run.

  27. #61 by cav on May 18, 2013 - 2:10 pm

    Better a ‘crisis’ bubble than doing anything that would indicate we’re on to that game.

    Anyone ready for the CO2 bubble? Gasp. Good run alright.

      • #63 by brewski on May 18, 2013 - 6:31 pm

        LIberal advice to Democrats: Solve problems, don’t be so corrupt.

        • #64 by Cliff on May 20, 2013 - 9:06 am

          Corrupt like lying about WMD or outing Valerie Flame, or corrupt like taking the economy and bank regulation.

          • #65 by brewski on May 20, 2013 - 9:24 am

            1.
            “Iraq has failed to turn over virtually all the documents requested by the inspectors. Indeed, we know that Iraq ordered the destruction of weapons-related documents in anticipation of an UNSCOM inspection.

            So Iraq has abused its final chance.

            As the UNSCOM reports concludes, and again I quote, “Iraq’s conduct ensured that no progress was able to be made in the fields of disarmament.

            “In light of this experience, and in the absence of full cooperation by Iraq, it must regrettably be recorded again that the commission is not able to conduct the work mandated to it by the Security Council with respect to Iraq’s prohibited weapons program.”

            In short, the inspectors are saying that even if they could stay in Iraq, their work would be a sham.”

            President William Jefferson Clinton

            2.
            Wilson outed his wife by two actions—countenancing the nepotism of accepting a recommendation from his wife, and enhancing the public record with the Who’s Who entry.

            3.
            http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/05/10/stephanie-cutter-bank-of-america_n_3255326.html

            You lose. Try again.

          • #66 by obama's jack booted truncheon wielding goons on May 21, 2013 - 9:35 am

            Not going to help the Afreak Prince there Cliffy..he’s goin’ down for being the criminal he is…at least we can get this one…he’s dumber than bush..

  28. #67 by cav on May 18, 2013 - 2:37 pm

    Saw that. Those porcine a-holes!

    This will be available tomorrow evening. You’re gonna want a glass of ice and your bottle of Drano handy.

    http://www.thisamericanlife.org/radio-archives/episode/495/hot-in-my-backyard

  29. #68 by Larry Bergan on May 19, 2013 - 9:22 pm

    The radio broadcast cav linked to above is now available here.

  30. #69 by John Witherspoon on May 19, 2013 - 9:58 pm

    Admin: brewski posts here as John Witherspoon

    au contraire mon frere

    Organizing for Action is a nonprofit organization established to support President Obama………OFA will operate as a “social welfare” organization within the meaning of section 501(c)(4) of the Internal Revenue Code.

  31. #70 by Anonymous on May 20, 2013 - 6:46 am

    brewski :
    BTW, TPM is not a source.

    True that, get your info straight from Glenn Becks ass, like brewski does….

    • #71 by cav on May 21, 2013 - 5:41 pm

      I can see Mr. Beck, looking over his shoulder at brewski, smiling (ok -both of ‘em), and suggesting, “There’s plenty more where that came from!”

      Crude, I know, but it’s ‘hump day’, not Sunday, fer goodness sake.

    • #74 by Larry Bergan on May 21, 2013 - 5:53 pm

      The video implies that Chaffetz is only pimping the Obama impeachment to get money from his constituents, and that’s probably the reason.

      The thing that ticks me off, is that the Democrats keep pretending like they’re fighting hard against these horrible people and asking for money too.

  32. #75 by Richard Warnick on May 22, 2013 - 6:24 pm

    What is more popular with Americans, the Internal Revenue Service or the Congress that’s investigating the IRS?

Comments are closed.

%d bloggers like this: