Comment Re:Rule of law (Score 1) 58
Why are you accusing the AC of lying when you dislike what they say?
You're a liar. I didn't say you were lying because I dislike what you say; I say you were lying because you lied. You either know it can take less than two years, or you said it with reckless disregard for truth or falsity (which is also lying).
If you knew anything at all you would know that even once the house and senate convict the president, a new process has to begin in order to remove the president.
And that can happen in mere days.
None of this is quick.
It might be; it might not be. You're lying. Again.
Furthermore, you very casually glossed over the "submission of data" part. Starr actually did an investigation, and interviewed meaningful witnesses.
You're lying. I explicitly addressed what makes this different in the Obama case: we don't need further investigation for Obama.
It's similar to the Clinton situation, in that when Janet Reno and the federal court started the investigation process by asking Ken Starr to investigate what happened with Lewinsky, the point was not to impeach Clinton. They were just investigating what happened. Only after the facts came out did they decide to impeach. Similarly, we've been investigating -- formally through Congress some, but mostly just by watching what he actually does -- Obama for years now. As I already said, there's no need for an investigation of Obama.
Currently the GOP has a bunch of wild accusations against Obama and no meaningful evidence of any sort.
You're lying. In fact, every allegation the House has offered of Obama has been proven true. He has offered subsidies, in direct contravention of the law. He has refused to enforce mandates, in direct contravention of the law. His IRS has been targetting conservatives in particular, in direct contravention of the law. He lied about "the video" causing the Benghazi murders. All of this is proven true. None of it is seriously controversial at this point.
This means an investigation needs to be conducted (and funded) before an impeachment can even begin.
You're lying. Even if these things were not proven, no investigation would have to be done: the House could put it to a vote any time they wanted to.
You are also overlooking the fact that impeachment begins not with a trial in the house, but with a grand jury
I hope you're lying, because if you really believe that, it's pretty sad. It's simply untrue.
Interesting that you didn't give any examples.
Because I assume you're not a fucking moron. Should I? Boehner is threatening a lawsuit over Obama's nonenforcement of the employer mandate, and there's an existing lawsuit likely to be heard by SCOTUS over Obama's blatantly illegal subsidies to people in the federal exchange. There's more, but I assume you know at least some of the obvious ones.
Of course, I listed some above, and there's more.
It could not be a quick process
You're a liar. I already proved it.
Why do you so dislike the rule of law?
You're a liar. Nothing in the law -- in any law we have -- says impeachment should take a certain amount of time, or that it shouldn't be done quickly.
Would you have supported a "quick process" if the democrats had found the stones to try to impeach Bush when he was president?
Absolutely, yes. I would want it to take about one month, maybe two, tops. There's no reason for it to take longer. With Bush -- and there was no serious case against Bush, not like there could be against Clinton or Obama -- we already knew everything we needed to know. We knew there was no serious evidence of deception about the WMD. We knew the Congress backed Bush in invading Iraq. The House impeaching and the Senate convicting Bush for what they said he could do, or for things they spent years trying to prove but never could, would have been idiotic.
I've seen other possible articles against Bush, and all of them are stupid. For example, "suspension of the constitutional right of habeas corpus," which a. never happened and b. what did happen -- restrictions on statutory habeas corpus rights, not constitutional ones -- was passed by Congress.
But even if they had a case to make, fine. Make it quickly and Move On. It drags on the whole country, and whether you remove him or not, I want it to happen quickly, not slowly.
(which would be more than twice as long as the ordeal Clinton put on this nation).
How, exactly, were you personally hurt by his blowjob?
You're a liar: I didn't say i was personally hurt, and I didn't say "his blowjob" hurt the country. I said Clinton hurt the country, and he obviously did. He even admitted he did. And the way he did it -- obviously -- is through his lying under oath.