- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
re: Many in intellegence community think Bergdahl was active collaborator w/ Taliban
Posted on 6/2/14 at 5:53 pm to goldennugget
Posted on 6/2/14 at 5:53 pm to goldennugget
This has "Homeland" written all over it
0
Posted on 6/2/14 at 6:03 pm to Navytiger74
quote:
It evidences an historical understanding of the gravity of impeachment--and puts the worthiness of particular executive actions into perspective.
Bill Clinton was impeached by Congress for lying about receiving a blow job from a White House intern.
Posted on 6/2/14 at 6:04 pm to RollTide1987
quote:
lying under oath
Important distinction
Posted on 6/2/14 at 6:16 pm to boosiebadazz
To that end, it must be said that President Obama broke the law when he failed to notify Congress in advance of this prisoner exchange. That is an impeachable offense in and of itself.
I'm not saying he should be impeached, mind you, but it must be noted that he broke a law - quite publicly I might add.
I'm not saying he should be impeached, mind you, but it must be noted that he broke a law - quite publicly I might add.
Posted on 6/2/14 at 6:18 pm to RollTide1987
quote:
Bill Clinton was impeached by Congress for lying about receiving a blow job from a White House intern.
1. He was impeached primarily for perjury.
2. That's a poor example considering, I don't know, Iran-Contra.
Posted on 6/2/14 at 6:23 pm to RollTide1987
quote:
To that end, it must be said that President Obama broke the law when he failed to notify Congress in advance of this prisoner exchange. That is an impeachable offense in and of itself.
I'm not saying he should be impeached, mind you, but it must be noted that he broke a law - quite publicly I might add.
Seems pretty clear-cut that he did. I don't know the jurisprudence on breaking a law you eventually challenge on constitutional grounds.
Posted on 6/2/14 at 6:32 pm to Lsut81
How about we save the wasted money, time, and effort and just let the guy live out his lame duck term. Impeachment would be a joke, and probably only serve to martyr the guy. Your new President, Joe Biden! Lol.
Posted on 6/2/14 at 6:32 pm to Navytiger74
quote:
1. He was impeached primarily for perjury.
And for obstruction of justice, a pretty serious charge.
Posted on 6/2/14 at 6:37 pm to NHTIGER
quote:
And for obstruction of justice, a pretty serious charge.
One of those is much more clear-cut than the other.
Posted on 6/2/14 at 6:38 pm to NHTIGER
quote:He obstructed Ken Starr from finding out about his blowjob.
And for obstruction of justice, a pretty serious charge
Posted on 6/2/14 at 6:41 pm to mmcgrath
BTW, I think there should be a law against asking someone about a blowjob under oath unless that blowjob directly led to a crime. 
Posted on 6/2/14 at 6:52 pm to goldennugget
Fox news? 
Enjoy the the hot waterheads but please don't take them seriously.
This is the same news organization that held the water for retards Iraq lie. 0 credibility.
Enjoy the the hot waterheads but please don't take them seriously.
This is the same news organization that held the water for retards Iraq lie. 0 credibility.
Posted on 6/2/14 at 6:52 pm to mmcgrath
quote:
I think there should be a law against asking someone about a blowjob
He perjured himself during questioning on the Paula Jones matter, too. #waronwomen
Posted on 6/2/14 at 7:21 pm to Navytiger74
quote:
One of those is much more clear-cut than the other.
He is the President of the United States, the head of the Executive Branch, charged with enforcing the laws set forth by Congress. He broke the law by not informing Congress of this prisoner exchange thirty days out. That, by definition, is an impeachable offense.
Posted on 6/2/14 at 7:24 pm to RollTide1987
He is also the Commander-in-Chief who is responsible for leading our military endeavors.
It is arguable that obtaining the safe release of an American soldier falls under this authority.
This is really a constitutional question, but I doubt it gets up to the Supreme Court.
It is arguable that obtaining the safe release of an American soldier falls under this authority.
This is really a constitutional question, but I doubt it gets up to the Supreme Court.
Posted on 6/2/14 at 7:26 pm to RollTide1987
quote:
charged with enforcing the laws set forth by Congress.
Pardon and reprieve, including held prisoners of war, are well within the sole province of any executive--especially one of the character of an American President. The signing statement itself challenged the law. In all issues pertaining to the Warpowers act, presidents note that they concur "pursuant to" and not "in accordance with" arguably unconstitutional statutes. Rules limiting this kind of executive authority would not withstand constitutional challenge.
Posted on 6/2/14 at 7:28 pm to RollTide1987
quote:
He is the President of the United States, the head of the Executive Branch, charged with enforcing the laws set forth by Congress. He broke the law by not informing Congress of this prisoner exchange thirty days out. That, by definition, is an impeachable offense.
it's pretty black and white
Posted on 6/2/14 at 7:31 pm to monsterballads
quote:
it's pretty black and white
Frick you, u racist.
Wait. Wut?
This post was edited on 6/2/14 at 7:32 pm
Posted on 6/2/14 at 7:31 pm to boosiebadazz
quote:
Seems pretty clear-cut that he did. I don't know the jurisprudence on breaking a law you eventually challenge on constitutional grounds.
Maybe I'm missing something but he did sign this rule into law.. Was it part of some blockbuster bill where this was a single paragraph issue not worth vetoing over and if yes, are they actively challenging the law as written?
Posted on 6/2/14 at 7:33 pm to TROLA
Yeah, it was included in the National Defense Authorization Act.
Page 2 of 4
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News