Get PJ Media on your Apple

A Case for Impeachment? Not Even Close

What is driving the right to emulate the worst tactics of the left?

by
Rick Moran

Bio

May 11, 2013 - 12:01 am
<- Prev  Page 2 of 2   View as Single Page

John McCain also believes that Benghazi is worse than Watergate, so Mr. Simon doesn’t stray far from the mainstream by making that charge.

What puzzles many is that in all this passionate rhetoric, there seems to be some words missing. Huckabee never mentions them. Simon didn’t include them. And in all those 100 proposed articles of impeachment against the president, the words never appear.

How can you impeach a president without mentioning “high crimes and misdemeanors”?

That’s the constitutional standard, and for people who purport to love our founding document, there is precious little said about a serious case to be made that the lies, the incompetence, the political calculation, the whitewashing, and even the stonewalling and denial of documents add up to a reason to overturn the election and make Joe Biden president.

Michael Hirsh writes in National Journal:

All this will no doubt come back to haunt Hillary Clinton should she decide to run for president; in some cases, she appeared to have been too removed from the events in Benghazi. Hicks at one point testified that that he personally spoke to Clinton at 2 a.m. on the night of the attacks, which makes the administration’s vague description in subsequent days even more suspicious.

But that hardly adds up to a cover-up. In the end, Darrell Issa, R-Calif., the chairman of the committee, may find himself digging yet another dry well, as he has done so many times. Even before he took over the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee, with zero evidence in hand, Issa called Obama “one of the most corrupt presidents in modern times.” In his relentless search for evidence (and headlines) since, he has found nothing to back up that statement, including his highly publicized and largely fruitless hearings last June into the the Justice Department’s botched “Fast and Furious” gun-tracking program.

Benghazi was a tragedy. It will, almost certainly, remain a political issue. What it is not – by a long shot — is a scandal yet.

That last point by Hirsh may be more wishful thinking than cogent analysis. What the administration’s actions and omissions regarding Benghazi isn’t, by a long shot, is criminal or impeachable — yet. A scandal it surely is, especially after the testimony this week from three highly credible witnesses seriously contradicted the story about the attack and its aftermath coming from the White House. Even the House GOP report on Benghazi issued last month contains the germ of scandal regarding the way that the unclassified talking points were altered.

But an impeachable offense never makes an appearance in the report, nor did any of the compelling testimony this week come close to attaching direct blame for any of the transgressions mentioned — none of them impeachable — to the president. You can’t impeach a president for being a naive fool or an incompetent boob. You can’t impeach a president because he chose aides, assistants, or cabinet secretaries who can’t, or won’t, do their jobs. You can’t impeach a president for looking into a camera and lying to the American people. You can’t impeach a president because he tries to hide an error that would cost him votes in an election. Nor can you impeach a president for playing politics with national security, failing to rescue Americans under attack, or going to sleep in the middle of a crisis.

It is embarrassing for so many on the right to talk about the “unraveling” of the Benghazi narrative being the “end of Obama’s presidency.” The fact is, even if the press went into a feeding frenzy over this story, fulfilling the dreams of Obama’s most strident opponents and spreading the details of the scandal far and wide, it is doubtful that the public would be outraged enough to demand the impeachment of the president. Obama’s approval rating is still in the low 40s and, given his base of support, it is unlikely to drop into the mid 20s — a number that eventually convinced Richard Nixon, with the help of GOP leaders who believed if  the president stuck it out through a Senate trial it would destroy the party, to resign.

The last two presidents have had to deal with the issue of impeachment from rabid partisans who care little about constitutional standards and less about the good of the country. Both left and right have made fools of themselves the last decade by treating the extraordinarily serious issue of impeachment as just another political tool, employing it as the ultimate attack — the WMD of political combat.

It is not edifying for the right to emulate the absolute worst tactics of their opponents. Yes, hold Obama and his administration accountable by getting to the truth of what happened in Benghazi. But unless real evidence surfaces that ties the president directly to an impeachable offense, it would behoove all of us to abandon the idea of creating a serious national crisis that would ultimately tear the country apart at a time when we have to deal with so many critical problems.

<- Prev  Page 2 of 2   View as Single Page
Rick Moran is PJ Media's Chicago editor and Blog editor at The American Thinker. He is also host of the"RINO Hour of Power" on Blog Talk Radio. His own blog is Right Wing Nut House.

Comments are closed.

Top Rated Comments   
First, a key difference between the Democrats' "Bush lied and people died" narrative and Benghazi. There is not a shred of evidence that President Bush made any misrepresentation, much less that he did so knowingly. By contrast, it is plain as day to anyone watching that President Obama pushed the youtube video story knowing it not to be true.

Second, a question. If The attack in Benghazi is designated a crime to be investigated by the FBI, and that investigation was obstructed by the false statements made knowingly by the Administration, as Mr. Hicks' testimony suggests, is there really no crime committed?
48 weeks ago
48 weeks ago Link To Comment
What CAN you impeach a president for? What constitutes "high crimes and misdemeanors" to you, Rick? You sound like a Democratic apologist for Obama.
You're just as "bad" as the right wing extremists! You'll swallow a lie (and four deaths) as big as an elephant but choke on a gnat. If ever there was a reason for me to not read your column, you just handed it to me. You're beginning to sound more and more like a faux republican. In fact, you're beginning to sound like John McCain.
48 weeks ago
48 weeks ago Link To Comment
I have no idea of what your point is, Rick. This piece is all over the map. I understand you are afraid of right-wing extremists - yes, they are everywhere and are clearly disturbing your dreams. Take it easy.
48 weeks ago
48 weeks ago Link To Comment
All Comments   (74)
All Comments   (74)
Sort: Newest Oldest Top Rated
Rick, normally like your stuff but this dog won't hunt. Matter of fact this here's a lap dog ain't even a hunting dog. People round here ain't got much use for a lap dog. Might want to check the pedigree. Just saying, most of us common folk know right off.
48 weeks ago
48 weeks ago Link To Comment
Today the reports are finally out of a video showing a Syrian rebel cutting the heart from a soldier and taking a bite.

We were arming these same monsters via Ambassador Chris Stevens.

IMPEACH. IMPEACH. IMPEACH.

Who could have run guns and missiles to Syrian rebels through an American ambassador? Who's responsible? How could President Obama not have known about it?

IMPEACH. IMPEACH. IMPEACH.
48 weeks ago
48 weeks ago Link To Comment
“I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will faithfully execute the Office of President of the United States, and will to the best of my Ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States.”

So Article One of the Impeachment would be the unconstitutional appointment of "czars" who were not subjected to confirmation by the Senate as explicitly required.

Article Two would be his failure to appoint a prosecutor to investigate and, potentially prosecute, Attorney General Eric Holder for "Contempt of Congress".

The list goes on and on. And all of they are all "high crimes and misdemeanors" for failure to abide by Obama's sacred oath of office.
48 weeks ago
48 weeks ago Link To Comment
"But this is getting ridiculous — and embarrassing, if you’re a conservative."

That should leave you alone. I'm unaware of anything you want to conserve unless it's relics of New Deal Policy, LBJ's successes.
48 weeks ago
48 weeks ago Link To Comment
Yes, how embarrassing it must be for Rick Moran to link himself to people who believe President Obama is responsible for injecting chaos into global politics, getting his proxy and other innocents killed in the process, and then trying to hide what he's done to avoid responsibility.

How very embarrassing, indeed.
48 weeks ago
48 weeks ago Link To Comment
Rick:

Is your view obstructed by your proximity (Chicago editor) to The Owe's power base?
48 weeks ago
48 weeks ago Link To Comment
My, my! The constitution refers to impeachable as treason, misdemeanors and high crimes. Treason is well defined constitutionally. Misdemeanors and high crimes encapsule 'incapacitated, bribary and abuse' of office -- most of the latter would pertain to statutory laws. Far more important in a legal constitutional context, comes the issue of separation of powers. Refer to Andrew Johnson for which history has not judged well those who brought the charges against Johnson. crf-usa - impeachment/high-crimes-and-misdemeanors

Gerald Ford commented “an impeachable offense is whatever a majority of the House of Representatives considers it to be at a given moment in history” and was fully rejected in his attempt to impeach a sitting supreme court justice on the grounds he was to liberal.

For all those who want impeachment, how about wrting up the charges of impeachment so we can tell if you know anything about impeachment or just acting in fine radical partisan emotion.

48 weeks ago
48 weeks ago Link To Comment
So, the President refuses to come to the aid of his State Department employees who were under attack by Al Qaida. He then issued orders to have federal employees to lie about the true nature of the attack; and he and his Sec of State lied to the face of the victims' families as to the true nature of the attack.

The President was derelict in his duties as President -criminally so. A military officer would be court martialed and sent to prison if he left his own men to die despite having resources available to rescue them. And deceiving the American people in order to win an election is certainly an impeachable offence.

As usual Mr. Moran takes the "safe position". Don't rock the boat; get along with the Progressive Masters who run things.

What President Obama and his minions did was certainly criminal.
48 weeks ago
48 weeks ago Link To Comment
I honestly can't tell if Moran is being ironic or not. I'm hoping he's using absurdity to illustrate the absurd. Otherwise this article is a hopeless mess of fractured logic.

I note his recurring point: "You can’t impeach a president for being a naive fool or an incompetent boob." Carter was a naive fool. Clinton was an incompetent boob. They were ill-informed liberals who were nonetheless attempting to work for America's best interests within the framework of their deeply flawed theories.

A third option is carefully avoided by Moran: that Obama is not naive, nor incompetent, but is an evil, bitter, anti-colonial collectivist who does NOT have America's best interests at heart -- he hates America, and is doing everything he can to first punish it, and then re-form it into something that it was never intended to be, by giving it over to our enemies.

So, if not impeachable, then how about treason?
48 weeks ago
48 weeks ago Link To Comment
The author of this drivel is insane. For fast and furious alone ovomit is impeachable.
48 weeks ago
48 weeks ago Link To Comment
How would Rick Moran know what is properly conservative? He isn't one.
48 weeks ago
48 weeks ago Link To Comment
1 2 3 4 Next View All

One Trackback to “A Case for Impeachment? Not Even Close”