I recently wrote on the issue of impeachment that has been reportedly so widely in the media. As I noted in the column and in prior interviews, there is no serious move toward impeachment by the Republicans and most of the impeachment talk has come from the White House and Democrats, including in fund-raising campaigns. Indeed, I was critical of the Washington Post column after one of the hearings in which I testified on executive over-reach. While the issue of impeachment was mentioned only a handful of times and usually to dismiss it as an option, the column was entitled “Republicans see One Remedy for Obama — Impeachment.” It seems that even denying impeachment as an option still constitutes discussing impeachment. Now The Hill newspaper has looked at the congressional record to see who is raising impeachment more often. The result was that Democrats raised the issue 20 times more often than Republicans, who barely uttered the “I” word.
The Hill found just 4 references to impeachment on the House and Senate floors by Republicans while finding 86 such references by Democrats.
Of course, the issue remains a cash cow for Democrats with millions being raised to fight off impeachment when the money could be just as well spent on chupacabra repellant. As of yet, President Obama has not committed an impeachable act and Speaker Boehner has steadfastly ruled out such an effort in the House.
The top three House Democratic leaders — Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi (Calif.), Whip Steny Hoyer (Md.) and Assistant Democratic Leader James Clyburn (S.C.) also have all been flogging the impeachment horse. The black caucus has also been active in raising the issue, including Rep. Sheila Jackson Lee who raised it 18 times. She is followed by Georgia Rep. Hank Johnson (six times), New York Rep. Hakeem Jeffries (nine times), CBC Chairwoman and Ohio Rep. Marcia Fudge (once), California Rep. Barbara Lee (twice), New Jersey Rep. Donald Payne (once), North Carolina Rep. G.K. Butterfield (twice) and Maryland Rep. Donna Edwards (once). Other members discussing impeachment are Reps. Kurt Schrader (Ore.), Bill Pascrell (N.J.), Steven Horsford (Nev.), Luis Gutierrez (Ill.), Louise Slaughter (N.Y.), Jackie Speier (Calif.), Chris Van Hollen (Md.) and Debbie Wasserman Schultz (Fla.), the chairwoman of the Democratic National Committee.
Source: The Hill
Elaine M.,
In your video, the head of Goldschmidt and the “very attractive waste of time” obviously is capable and superior (equal, at least).
Did she avail herself of affirmative action, do you imagine? Of course she is an actress in a fictional skit.
Is there a need for affirmative action?
Are you opposed to affirmative action?
Is it a disingenuous contradiction or hypocrisy for you to imply abundant competence if not superiority and espouse and promote affirmative action?
Are you afraid of an environment with an absence of affirmative action?
However [political parties] may now and then answer popular ends, they are likely in the course of time and things, to become potent engines, by which cunning, ambitious, and unprincipled men will be enabled to subvert the power of the people and to usurp for themselves the reins of government, destroying afterwards the very engines which have lifted them to unjust dominion.
GEORGE WASHINGTON, Farewell Address, Sep. 17, 1796
The hypocrisy of the Democrat voters on here is making a statement.
Makes me sick to see what my party has become. No better than the friggin Republicans are. You sit around making excuses for the party and meltdown anytime someone dares mention that the party is nothing but liars just like the GOP.
Anyone bashing JT for going after Obama and the party should be ashamed of themselves. If you had ANY integrity at all you would stand by him instead and call out the party for its open outright lying to Democrat donors.
You guys act just like fanatics. Zealots. Yeah some of you might not like Obama and say things about him but you still draw the line at the party.
The Thin Blue Line.
Hypocrites.
Z – they do not rise to the level of hypocrites. To do that, one has to have a moral compass that one violates.
Dred – I have never rejected science, I have rejected some ‘so-called’ scientists. And I do reject calling social science a science. I also reject calling it social. You know you are not a scientist when the real scientists don’t invite you to their parties.
Annie
Elaine, where is that video? The British one that depicts women knowing their place? Funny as heck and being seen on this very blog.
*****
I posted two of the Harry Enfield videos on the Ginsburg thread a few days ago. Here they are again:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LS37SNYjg8w
Elaine – lest we not forget the episode of Married with Children where Kelly learns a fact.
When the Bundy TV set blows its condenser, Al decides to try out for a place on a new sports trivia game show, hoping to win a new TV set as the first prize. But when he is denied because of his lack of personality, Al tries to transfer his knowledge of sports to Kelly to win the show for him. But for each fact that she takes in, another falls out.
John
…
I would call it CONCERN for the DOMINION of LAW.
========================
I would call it concern for the DUHminion of law.
Paul the S,
The scientists using the science you rejected has found the basis of your machinations (On the Origin of the Genes of Viruses – 10).
That link includes a photo of Spinny in case you want to do some admiring.
Tom,
I would call it CONCERN for the DOMINION of LAW.
While some don’t have the stamina, the law of the sun never gets tiresome and constitutional law never gets tiresome.
Your comments could be analogized as inappropriate personal animosity toward a long-suffering, exploited and abused, hypothetical bank robber. After all, he was just hungry and needed a buck for a burger, right?
Perhaps you prefer not a society of law but a society of whim.
Are you being ridiculous to make a point or are you sufficiently defective to suggest that we ignore the law?
Paul C. Schulte
Dredd – you cannot convict someone if you do not have enough votes on the jury. Did you ever take civics? Or were you awake during that class? Right now there are not enough votes to convict Obama, so why waste the energy to impeach him? If you get the votes to convict him, or you think you might be close enough, then impeach.
=======================
This must be your first rodeo.
Why vote to repeal The Affordable Care Act 32 times when the Senate will put it in the round crazoid file?
The answer is “to impress supporters like you in gerrymandered right wing districts.”
Buy some cattle and lose the hat.
Dred – in my state the only gerrymandering we do is to create safe left-wing districts.
Never let facts get in the way of a good campaign line. With all the real problems the GOP causes, you would have thought the DNC could find something better than the Impeachment Monster.
As much as I dislike the current House leadership, and the general failure the entire Congress has become, times like this make me ashamed to have similar ideas as Congressional Democrats.
I’m not ashamed to be a liberal, but I sure hate some of the people that share the same label.
Late to the party. But I find the criticism of this post bizarre. The Hill conducted a study of the Congressional record to see which legislators have talked the most about impeachment while engaging in debate – for which they are being paid by taxpayers – from the House and Senate floors. That’s what The Hill report is about and Professor Turley simply blogged about The Hill article and its study.
I think we can infer two things from the study. Democrats have used their official time on the floor to talk about impeachment so much as a tactic to scare their voters into thinking that Republicans plan to impeach the Democrat president. They want Democrat voters to get angry at Republicans and show their support for the president by voting for Democrats in November!
The second reason is even more cynical. Elected Democrats know that elected Republican leaders have dismissed impeachment. But Democrats also know that they are being filmed by CSPAN when they speak from the House and Senate floor. So Democrats use their time while the camera is rolling to create emotional content for campaign commercials and/or to be played on blogs and MSNBC. It’s performance art at taxpayer and CSPAN expense for the purpose of separating loyal Democrats from their cash.
The Hill study shows how gullible elected Democrats believe their supporters are.
The media has been rife with Republicans broaching the subject of impeachment. Just because it hasn’t been brought up on the senate floor or in congress by Republicans as often doesn’t mean this is all that one sided. Your constant attacks on the Obama administration are becoming tiresome. Your personal animosity towards the Prez is pretty thinly disguised.
John, it may be a mating ritual on an elementary school playground, where the boys pulled the girls pigtails, but we are adults, no?
Please indulge my reprise of an important threat as, previously, there were no comments;
NEWSFLASH – ISIS HQ
“I say this to America, that the Islamic Caliphate has been established. And we will not stop. Don’t be cowards and attack us with drones. Instead send your soldiers, the ones we humiliated in Iraq. We will humiliate them everywhere, God willing, and we will raise the flag of Allah in the White House.“
*******************************************************************************************
They did that in 2008 when the ineligible son of a foreign citizen was not denied by Speaker Pelosi and was illegally ensconced in the White House.
Barrack Hussein Obama.
The reason the requirement for president was increased from “citizen” to “natural born citizen” in the final constitutional draft was to preclude foreign allegiances (per the Washington/Jay letter) requiring two citizen-parents drawing from the definition in the Law of Nations, the contemporary legal reference, which the framers “pounced on” according to Franklin.
The flag of Allah is fundamentally transforming America.
John – there are Black Irish, however, Black in that context means stranger or foreigner, it is not a color.
“Darren Smith The Lions of Discord have returned.”
Some might find that an image of a mating ritual.
In the meantime, Obama and the US State Department are all worked up in a tizzy over the ISIS takeover of Iraq’s Mosul Dam.
The U.S. says any failure of the dam could be “catastrophic.” “The short answer is no one knows. This is all guesswork anyway.”
Stupid question. Can someone be impeached for doing guesswork? Wild guess answers will be considered as matter of fact.
Celtic. I stand corrected.
Six of one, half dozen of another. That type of correct redundancy is employed for purposes of clarification.
Redundancy in an electrical or hydraulic system on an airliner is correct.
At least historically, to be Irish is to be white. White Irish is an unnecessary redundancy or incorrect. Correct?
The Lions of Discord have returned. Watching from atop Capitol Hill, the party is rambunctious as the Parties cannot get along.
The Irish can be American? I thought they were all British.
{quickly ducking and running for cover}