Impeachment hearings to begin for king obama

[Bitter Clinger]

http://dailycurrant.com/2013/10/14/house-republicans-schedule-obama-impeachment-hearings/

[SuperiorDG]

So Michele Bachmann was on Sean Hannity last night and did not say anything about this?

[Zundfolge]

You do realize that the Daily Currant is a satire site (http://dailycurrant.com/about/) (like The Onion).

[Bitter Clinger]

You do realize that the Daily Currant is a satire site (http://dailycurrant.com/about/) (like The Onion).

I do now[Bang]

[jhirsh5280]

Not entirely untrue...

http://dailycaller.com/2013/10/18/rep-stockman-gives-all-house-members-a-book-on-impeachment/

[wctriumph]

They wouldn't do it anyway, not much bravery on the hill and besides, they wouldn't want to knock off their own kind. It might give people ideas like their vote counts or something.

[asmo]

You all do realize that impeachment doesnt really mean shit.. Impeachment is just a formal listing of charges. Big effing deal.

Besides to actually DO something the impeachment would need to have a CONVICTION by a supermajority -which wont happen- to mean anything..

[asmo]

The impeachment process is a two-step procedure. The House of Representatives (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_House_of_Representatives) must first pass, by a simple majority of those present and voting, articles of impeachment, which constitute the formal allegation or allegations. Upon passage, the defendant has been "impeached". Next, the Senate (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Senate) tries the accused. In the case of the impeachment of a president, the Chief Justice of the United States (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chief_Justice_of_the_United_States)presides over the proceedings. For the impeachment of any other official, the Constitution is silent on who shall preside, suggesting that this role falls to the Senate's usual presiding officer. This may include the impeachment of the vice president, although legal theories suggest that allowing a defendant to be the judge in his own case would be a blatant conflict of interest (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conflict_of_interest). If the Vice President did not preside over an impeachment (of anyone besides the President), the duties would fall to the President pro tempore of the Senate (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/President_pro_tempore_of_the_United_States_Senate) .
To convict the accused, a two-thirds majority (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Two-thirds_majority) of the senators present is required. Conviction automatically removes the defendant from office. Following conviction, the Senate may vote to further punish the individual by barring him from holding future federal office, elected or appointed. Conviction by the Senate does not bar criminal prosecution. Even after an accused has left office, it is possible to impeach to disqualify the person from future office or from certain emoluments of his prior office (such as a pension). If there is no charge for which a two-thirds majority (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Two-thirds_majority) of the senators present vote "guilty", the defendant is acquitted and no punishment is imposed.

[rondog]

Hell would turn into a BBQ joint first.

[mb504]

Or they would just ignore it, just like Eric Holder ignored being held in contempt of Congress. No one willing to enforce it.

[streetglideok]

Michelle backed off her initial rhetoric a few days later. There is no way the senate would convict the Chosen One. Now come 2014, I do not know the number of communist seats up for grabs, but if they lost enough then it may be worth the try. We all know any such vote will go along party lines.