Well, well, well. Sen. David Vitter (R-LA) stated the reasons that Obama would not be impeached at a town hall meeting Monday night when responding to an audience member who asked a question about impeachment. One reason given fell along the famous Trey Gowdy line of “Have you met Joe Biden?” The other reason given is it would mean Hillary Clinton being president.
According to The Blaze via the Advocate, Vitter stated, “What does it look like to have Joe Biden as president instead of Barack Obama? I’ll tell you what it looks like, it looks exactly the same. So what do we do the next time, impeach Joe Biden? What do you think the next presidential election looks like? Do you think that hurts Hillary? Because I don’t. I think that elects Hillary. I think that elects Hillary for eight years.”
Attending with Vitter was Rep. Garrett Graves (R-LA), who stated that Joe Biden being president concerned him the most.
Graves said, “We would have Joe Biden as president of the United States, which I tell you probably concerns me more than anything else.”
Graves did relent and state that executive overreach by the president provides grounds for impeachment. However, he said the “better solution is to adjust the balance of power so Obama – or any other president – cannot ‘run over’ Congress.” Admitting that Obama had gone beyond the boundaries of the law as president, Graves indicated the “path forward shows impeachment would require a lot of time and trouble for slim to no payoffs.” Vitter echoed Graves’ sentiment.
There you have it – the lamest reasons to not follow the law in history: “Have you met Joe Biden” and it’s too troublesome for the time involved without a decent payoff.
According to Vitter, a Biden presidency would look “exactly the same” as if Obama were still president. Now, why would Vitter think that? Oh, yes, because Congress is not using the checks and balances powers it was given via the Constitution nor is Congress exercising its power of the purse in withholding funding for unconstitutional laws and executive overreach. In fact, Congress is busy trying to continually pass unconstitutional legislation itself. It has nothing to do with “who” is president but has everything to do with the Congress being willing to do its duty according to the Supreme Law of the Land.
Going a bit further, Congress has been busy functioning as an extinct entity anyway as many of its members are already treating Obama as dictator and king by “asking” Obama to violate the constitution by “rewriting” immigration law and altering deadlines contained in the unconstitutional Obamacare via executive order. The leadership in both chambers have been busy dancing to the Pied Piper Obama’s tune for the last six years – Republicans as well.
Vitter, however, wants everyone to believe the same thing would happen under Joe Biden. He’s right. It will; but, only if Congress continues on the path of “allowing” it. And, don’t think for one minute that Vitter fails to understand several tenets surrounding impeaching a sitting president, in addition to one that is ineligible in the first place. He understands it very well if he received a proper high school education.
In addition, yes, Biden can be impeached as well – so can Biden’s successor. While upholding the law does require effort and time, the Constitution is clear in dealing with a president who has overstepped authority, committed “high crimes and misdemeanors,” and treason regardless of how they attained the office. Upholding the law is never “trouble,” but the lawful and right thing to do. Vitter knows this as well. His rationale that “he thinks” it would elect Hillary in 2016 for eight years is a strawman argument.
Graves’ suggestion for the executive overreach problem is to “adjust the balance of power” so any president can’t over run or do an end run around Congress. This points to the fact that either Graves doesn’t know the Constitution or that he does and Congress has been busy unconstitutionally giving their powers away to the president. The Constitution is clear in separating the powers of the three branches of government and no additional “adjustment” needs to be made. Graves knows this. He is trying to deflect from the fact that Congress relinquished the authority given to it by the States as the legislative branch to the executive. If that was not the case, Congress would not have “allowed” executive action on immigration, funded Obama’s unconstitutional immigration executive overreach and would not have slinked off to the “king” to alter a deadline in a piece of unconstitutional legislation.
It’s kind of difficult for Congress to uphold the Constitution in regards to impeaching a criminal, lawless, traitorous president when they themselves have committed the same crimes. And yes, Congress, as a whole, has been derelict, with some members having dirtier hands than others. The Constitution provides for dealing with errant members of Congress as well through expulsion (Article I, Section 5) and arrest for Treason, a felony and breach of the peace, even while in office (Article I, Section 6). However, Congress maintains they themselves are privileged from arrest for any reason while holding office – not according to the Constitution, which requires an amendment to change.
Congress, basically, created this mess over the years by not holding presidents accountable for overreach. With each president, more authority has been usurped from Congress because Congress allowed it. Since Obama, that usurpation has been more exponential and “in your face.” Now, members of Congress want to say, “well, there’s nothing we can do because it would mean Biden would be president and truly, it’s just too much trouble to follow the law.”
Everyone should call bull hockey on this one. Congress has its hand in the “cookie jar” holding a fist full of cookies. Should they impeach Obama, their criminal, treasonous activities would be totally exposed. Their stance is more about protecting themselves. That’s where the “too much trouble” comes into play.
Of course, the fact that some individuals in this nation view Obama as the “first” black president would mean that race would enter into the equation with any drafting of articles of impeachment. We all know how Republicans hate media criticism and being called names or labeled. So, with Congress, the law is the law and will be upheld only when it doesn’t require a lot of time, is little trouble and has a big payoff. That’s coming from Republicans – those who said “vote for us and we’ll do the ‘right’ thing.”
It should anger every US citizen that they are being treated like children by these Congressional schticks. It should anger every US citizens that these “self-appointed” nobles and elitists are telling their employer that they will not follow the law, while expecting every US citizen to abide by the law – constitutional as well as unconstitutional. It angers some, but not enough to institute a change in the attitudes of the members of Congress.
They, the federal government of which Congress is a part, are busy implementing the military/police state by putting troops on the streets in psyop operations to condition citizens to accept military presence on a daily basis. Operations such as Jade Helm 15 are conducted on US soil so citizens will think nothing about it when the “snatching” of dissidents occur. Pastors are being recruited to “assist” the government in “soothing” those in reeducation/internment camps when families are separated. Unconstitutional alphabet agencies are arming their personnel and stockpiling billions of rounds of ammunition. The government has been busy naming certain groups of law-abiding citizens as “terrorists” or threats to national security. Members of Congress are busy trying to eradicate the unalienable right to bear arms, abolish religious freedoms for Christians and Jews and control if not quelch freedom of speech.
Using Vitter’s rationale that following the law regarding impeachment is too much trouble because of “slim to no payoffs,” one has to wonder what big payoff is coming through continued violation of the tenets of the Constitution.