Can Senate Republicans be impeached for not reviewing President Obama's Supreme Court nominee?
In theory, any Senator can be impeached for any reason. It's supposed to be for "high crimes and misdemeanors." But the Supreme Court refuses to determine whether an impeachment was done properly, so in one sense there is no actual limit. However, the US Constitution provides that Senators, like other federal elected officials, can only be impeached by the House of Representatives. The impeachment has no effect unless the Senate agrees to convict. Expelling Senate Republicans would have to be done by... House Republicans and Senate Republicans. So in a legal sense, yes. In a practical sense, no.Furthermore, the only case of a senator being impeached was William Blount, way back in 1797. The Senate refused to consider the impeachment, though. Instead, it relied on another part of the Constitution (Article I, Section 5), which says that each House of Congress can set its own rules and expel members with a 2/3 majority. The Senate got rid of Blount that way.15 Senators have been expelled through American history, but except for Blount, all were expelled for supporting the Confederacy. And of course, expulsion of Senate Republicans under the current Senate would require the approval of... Senate Republicans. No matter what the reason, the answer to your question is: In a legal sense, yes. In a practical sense, no.
Have the Republicans drafted articles of impeachment against President Obama?
No, and it is unlikely that they will, since President Obama has not committed treason, nor "high crimes and misdemeanors," the constitutional standard for impeachment. Dislike, or even hatred, of a president is not grounds for impeachment. That said, out on the campaign trail, some Republican candidates have at one time or other floated the idea that he should be impeached-- it's a line that gets applause from the crowd. But beyond political rhetoric, which is generally inflammatory and usually free of facts, the chances of impeaching Mr. Obama are non-existent.
Why do the House Republicans want to sue President Obama?
Why? Because he's black and he became President. Twice.Seriously, Mitch McConnell stated just after Obama was first elected that "Our #1 goal is to make Obama a one-term President'.It's important to note that when Mr. McConnell said this, the USA was sliding deep into an economic free-fall and our economy was in tatters after 8 years of Bush and two (2) wars. Jobs were being lost by the tens of thousands weekly, Wall Street had run amok, the entire US Auto industry was nearly extinct, our housing & construction industry had completely crashed and our global credibility was very badly damaged.Mr. McConnell's unfortunate choice of direction resulted in American growth being curtailed and suppressed across many sectors that's still being felt today, almost six years after Obama was first elected.The most important thing Republicans are doing is trying to build a narrative that Obama is somehow 'illegitimate', not a US citizen, a secret Muslim, or that he won through giving money away to poor people, all of which has been proven false. A lawsuit simply builds on that narrative, however false. Finally, Republicans cannot stand the idea that Obama is steadily FIXING the problems caused by Republicans during the Bush years. When George W. Bush got elected, there was NO deficit and the US enjoyed a significant surplus. They now hate the very idea that a black Democrat could RE-fix the US economy, because of how it will look historically.
Why was Bill Clinton impeached?
Bill Clinton was being sued by Paula Jones for a sexual harassment case that dated back to when he was the Arkansas governor. The courts had agreed that her claims were valid enough to allow the case to proceed. In testimony he gave, he swore that he had not had sex with any employees. As everyone knows, this was not true. This is called perjury. And to make matters worse, he attempted to cover up his sexual relation with Monica Lewinsky and convince her to also lie under oath. This is called suborning perjury. He was not able to explain away the 'stained blue dress'. The cover up is so often more serious than the crime itself.
Was Bill Clinton Impeached or not??????
since i was very young, maybe like 7 or 9 when this occured, i always hear two different answers. some say that he did get impeached for lying he had an affair with Monica Lewinsky but i also heard that he wasnt. which i also think becuase didnt he finish his 8th year in office? besides i still like Bill Clinton, even under a Republican controlled house he had the balls to help this country. and because of him we had a budget surplus. which of course George Bush jr came in and completely wiped that out with his two wars and screwing this economy over.
Have the Republicans drafted a summons and complaint against President Obama?
The House has authorized the lawsuit, but has not yet moved forward with it. One assumes that members of both parties are happy to fundraise based on this issue as long as possible before moving it forward. It would be hard for anyone, Democrat or Republican, to raise money if a judge slaps it down the second it is lodged.
Why was Nixon impeached for wiretapping a Hotel room but Obamas AP wiretap was never even investigated?
A funny thing called legality. The NSA is approved by the Congress, along with the FISA court. Nixon broke the law. Then lied about it, attempted to manipulate the investigation and tampered with evidence. Those are BIG non-nos. He resigned in disgrace, by the way.
If President Obama had anywhere near the rumors that surround Trump. Would Republicans be talking about impeachment?
First off, the issues surrounding Trump are far more than rumors. There is very strong evidence that is available to anyone that Trump:obstructed justiceviolated campaign finance laws by paying the porn stars he paid for sex to keep quiet during the campaignat least had campaign advisors who colluded with RussiaThere is good reason to suspect he actually did collude with Russia, violated the foreign emoluments clause, and engaged in other criminal behavior.Secondly, to answer your question, if Obama had remotely as much evidence of wrongdoing against him, the Republicans would have been climbing all over and wetting their pants in their eagerness to impeach him.Look at the Clintons. Republicans spent millions and millions of dollars over three decades to launch investigation after investigation into both of them. With the exception of the Lewinsky matter, they came up with nothing at all. Contrast this with the enormous amount of dirt that Mueller has turned up on the Trump administration in a little over two years. If the Clintons were 1/10th as dirty as Trump, all of the investigations would have turned up something.With Obama, they didn’t launch any investigations or clamor (much) for impeachment because OBAMA GAVE THEM NO GROUNDS. Obama ran a scandal-free administration. If Trump had done the same and Russian tampering had not put his election under a cloud, there would be no investigations or talk of impeachment either.