GOP Chairman Priebus suggests impeachment is coming over Benghazi

Republican party chairman Reince Priebus said on television this morning that impeachment is coming over Benghazi.

Here’s the National Journal’s (and former AP reporter) Ron Fournier on Priebus bizarre comments:

Priebus was scheduled to appear Thursday on MSNBC’s “Morning Joe” shortly after my appearance on the show so I pointed out the tweet to panelist John Heilemann of New York magazine. He pressed Priebus to clarify. The chairman doubled down.

“You have to allow the evidence to come into play,” Priebus said. “You have to connect the dots. I said a week ago, look, you don’t call for impeachment until you have the evidence.”

Interesting frame: Impeachment is coming, folks, but first some evidence! (emphasis in the original)

RNC chair Reince Priebus: Some say dark elf, I say Romulan.

RNC chair Reince Priebus:
Some say dark elf, I say Romulan.

Coming from the head of the Republican National Committee, the chairman of the entire Republican party, that’s no small revelation.

This isn’t the first time Priebus has suggested that the GOP might impeach the President over Benghazi.  The other day Priebus said that it was too soon, but that he wouldn’t rule out, impeaching Obama over the faux-conspiracy.

The Republican National Committee chairman and a leading conservative, Kentucky Sen. Rand Paul, urged caution Monday for Republican critics calling for President Barack Obama’s impeachment, but would not rule out impeachment altogether as new details emerged about the White House’s role in the developing scandal at the Internal Revenue Service.

“There’s a few chapters before we get to the last one. So it’s up to us to connect the dots first,” RNC chairman Reince Priebus told reporters when asked about impeachment ahead of a New Hampshire GOP fundraiser.

The notion that President Obama should be impeached has already been put out there by lesser Republicans as well. Here are a few:

GOP Rep. Michele Bachmann (R-MN) says she’s constantly being asked (by trees, presumably) when they’re going to impeach Obama:

Michele's fabulous husband Marcus, being pilloried by Jon Stewart.

Michele’s fabulous husband Marcus, being semi-outed by Jon Stewart.

“I will tell you, as I have been home in my district, in the sixth district of Minnesota, there isn’t a weekend that hasn’t gone by that someone says to me, ‘Michelle, what in the world are you all waiting for in Congress? Why aren’t you impeaching the president? He’s been making unconstitutional actions since he came into office.”

No word on what constituents are asking Bachmann about her fabulous husband Marcus.  But we know what Jon Stewart and Jerry Seinfeld are asking her:

Crazy Jim Inhofe, the GOP Senator from Oklahoma who opposes disaster aid, unless it’s for tornadoes in Oklahoma, suggested that the GOP just might try to impeach the President over the Benghazi conspiracy theory:

Sen. James M. Inhofe (R-Okla.)has labeled the Benghazi case “the most serious and most egregious coverup in American history.”

“We may be starting to use the I-word before too long,” Inhofe told conservative talk radio host Rusty Humphries, referring to the possibility of impeachment.

Yes, the biggest coverup in American history. Other than Roswell, of course.  And the Oklahoma tornado, which we now know was caused by the government and hologram-sporting Jews.  And Sandy Hook, which was also the government.

And outspokenly anti-gay Utah Republican Jason Chaffetz, who does a swell Lindsey Graham impression, says he is not willing to take impeachment “off the table”:

Utah Republican Jason Chaffetz.

Utah Republican Jason Chaffetz.

“Look, it’s not something I’m seeking,” Chaffetz said. “It’s not the endgame. It’s not what we’re playing for. I was simply asked: ‘is that within the realm of possibilities?’ And I would say ‘yes.’ I’m not willing to take that off the table.”

What are you willing to take off, Jason? (Call me.)

Follow me on Twitter: @aravosis | @americablog | @americabloggay | Facebook | Instagram | Google+ | LinkedIn. John Aravosis is the Executive Editor of AMERICAblog, which he founded in 2004. He has a joint law degree (JD) and masters in Foreign Service from Georgetown; and has worked in the US Senate, World Bank, Children's Defense Fund, the United Nations Development Programme, and as a stringer for the Economist. He is a frequent TV pundit, having appeared on the O'Reilly Factor, Hardball, World News Tonight, Nightline, AM Joy & Reliable Sources, among others. John lives in Washington, DC. .

Share This Post

120 Responses to “GOP Chairman Priebus suggests impeachment is coming over Benghazi”

  1. karmanot says:

    “Two words: President Biden” GAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA. Just the thought of it.

  2. karmanot says:

    Benghazi is the Republican fetus, whose right to life will be aborted.

  3. Indigo says:

    The Trash certainly enjoy their spin on the merry-go-round. It’s as if this one got dizzy and vomited more nonsense than usual.

  4. ARP says:

    It’s also a way not to get anything done and then blame Obama/Dems for not getting anything done. So when the election rolls around they can keep using the impeach approach, or that backfires, they can move to “they didn’t do anything.”It’s a win-win (except for the country).

  5. Butch1 says:

    Pribus, I have some advise for you: ” Wish in one hand and sh*t in the other and see which fills up the faster.”

    Now run along and play nice. It’s obvious you never got to play with the big boys when you were growing up; you’re still trying to get even.

  6. Badgerite says:

    Even if everything they said about the Government talking points on Benghazi were true, ( and since they fabricated quite a bit of it themselves that is not the case ), I would like to ask them exactly what high crime or misdemeanor would have been committed? Spin? The GOP has really gone in the toilet if this is their idea of governance. It was bad enough with Clinton. Private consensual affairs are simply not grist for the mechanism of impeachment. Again, he did not commit the crime of perjury. The legal requirements which include an absolute lack of ambiguity in wording, were not met. But this, along with improper use of the filibuster, is their ‘go to’ approach whenever they can’t win an election. As to the IRS case, heightened scrutiny to see that the laws are being enforced does not equal harassment or improper targeting. Especially since the suspicions were, after all, well founded and based on recent changes in the laws which usually has a certain time lag in determining proper enforcement. Targeting reporters for heightened surveillance at least presents a Constitutional issue but one where the law is currently is a great state of flux ( see Guantanamo, see also the threatened mass resignations by the head of the FBI others during the reign of GW due to overreaching not yet disclosed to the public). This is an issue that should properly be settled either in court or by the currently proposed press shield law. Impeachment? I don’t think so. No matter what their constituents want, impeachment was not meant as a mechanism or harassment ( one branch of the other ) or as a means to undo the will of the people as expressed convincingly at the last election. To put it more clearly, they suck.

  7. Houndentenor says:

    This is all the GOP has to offer their base. They don’t have much in the way of solutions for the problems the country faces and the ones they have are going to tank (like the Ryan Budget) as soon as they learn about the details. so it’s going to be Benghazi Benghazi Benghazi on talk radio and Fox News for the next three years because it’s all they can think of to placate their angry old white male base.

  8. paulabflat says:

    always perform the double tap.

  9. paulabflat says:

    rinsed penis. i laughed right out loud!

  10. paulabflat says:

    paraphrasing heller. the case against the president was open and shut. the only thing missing was something to charge him with.

  11. zorbear says:

    I can’t see the GOP actually letting it happen (although they’d certainly take it right to the edge before finding that they didn’t have “the votes”). Why? Two words: President Biden…

  12. Well, it’s really our fault. We’ve proven there are no consequences for these stunts, so they’d be stupid not to try actually.

  13. Please proceed, chairman.

  14. JayRandal says:

    Congressional GOPers know they have the votes in House to impeach President Obama, the same as they did to Bill Clinton, but same as for Bill the GOPers don’t have two-thirds majority votes in Senate to convict Barack for removal from office. Their game plan failed to remove Bill Clinton, but basically undermined Al Gore enabling George Bush Jr. to get into presidency. Their game plan the same to
    undermine Joe Biden and Hillary Clinton too. Thus to get a GOPer again into White House in 2016.

    Since President Obama is perceived by GOPers to be too weak to counterattack them they intend to
    impeach him in House before 2016 election. GOPers do not care about losing a few House seats in
    2014 election doing impeachment, but might wait to impeach Obama after midterm election is over.

  15. BillFromDover says:

    I understand that when in this condition, their movements are slowed.

    Simply find a baseball bat or something similar and bash its fucking head in… problem solved.

    Then, get yourself a Golden Retriever who will love you forever, ( ) until bitten, of course.

  16. TyrannicalDictator says:

    They are definitely stretching it out. We know that Hillary wanted the CIA to buy back some stinger missles that State sold to Al Quida to use against Ghadaffe. CIA told Hillary they want nothing to do with it, so that’s what Chris the Ambassador was working on was buying back the stinger missles but they turned on him because of the drone killing of Anwar al awlak!

  17. jadezakozyl says:

    мy вeѕт ғrιeɴd’ѕ eх-wιғe мαĸeѕ $80/нr oɴ тнe ιɴтerɴeт. ѕнe нαѕ вeeɴ wιтнoυт α joв ғor тeɴ мoɴтнѕ вυт lαѕт мoɴтн нer pαyмeɴт wαѕ $21691 jυѕт worĸιɴɢ oɴ тнe ιɴтerɴeт ғor α ғew нoυrѕ. reαd мore oɴ тнιѕ ѕιтe Zap2­2­.c­o&shym&shy

  18. Candy's Dog says:

    If they had anything real it would be leaked immediately. This sort of hyperbole is part of Priebus’ job as chairman. Look, they can’t even really describe the alleged malfeasance and they’ve had months to figure it out.

  19. TyrannicalDictator says:

    These folks have info they are not letting out yet. They know something that we don’t!

  20. Jonas Grumby says:

    LOL. One of my favorite posts ever.

  21. Jonas Grumby says:

    Oh PLEASE do!!!!! There’s a good 10 extra seats for the Dems in 2014.

  22. Zachary Smith says:

    **** The (republican-controlled) house votes to impeach, but the trial takes place in the (democratic-controlled ) senate. ****
    True, but those ‘Democratic’ senators will vote the way thery’re told to. If this is merely political theater, they’ll retain BHO. If the scheme is to actually get the black guy out of office, they’ll discover some serious constitutional issues in one or more of the charges.
    In the (unlikely in my opinion) event BHO is to depart, look for one or more scandals to erupt. There will plenty of valid charges if somebody feels they’re needed.

  23. Zachary Smith says:

    Didn’t Al Capone get nailed for tax evasion? So impeaching BHO for the totally fake scandal of Benghazi would be some kind of justice in any event.
    On the downside, Biden would become president, and there would be a much higher probability of him getting elected in 2016. The Power Elites who installed BHO must like him, or he wouldn’t be sitting in the VP office right now. All Biden would have to do would be throw a few crumbs in the direction of the electorate and he’d likely be “in like Flynn”.

  24. arcadesproject says:

    Wouldn’t it make a lot more sense to impeach Reince Priebus for being a failed anagram?

  25. FunMe says:

    With all these so called “scandals”, Obama’s ratings are going higher. I really doubt he could be impeached by their silliness.

  26. karmanot says:

    If you are lying through your teeth with every breath, talking pretty will not impress history. Obama will be noted as the first black president and for very little else.

  27. nicho says:

    Well, the Clinton impeachment is what saved Social Security and Medicare. Hill&Bill, Inc. was ready to sell us out, when Monica interceded on bended knee. So an impeachment might not be a totally bad thing.

  28. BillFromDover says:

    OK, so one outta two.

  29. silas1898 says:

    I knew Gore lost when he picked that rancid little moralistic scold Lieberman for VP. I was surprised it was that close.

  30. Snaggletooth says:

    “mediocrity is its own reward” Lol. Funny I always thought being caught in an uncompromising situation was considered negative along with compromised ideals and compromised integrity. . .

  31. billylost says:


  32. Snaggletooth says:

    It’s kinda funny, he got elected easily even though he had a huge amount political enemies determined to ruin him and yet he stabbed all his allies in the back for money after his success. He’s done more things wrong than I can count, a few things ok-ish, and none right. Now his enemies are coming and he has very little support. I guess his 4th dimensional chess didn’t take these things into account…

  33. FLL says:

    I agree with you that close elections are easier to steal, and a larger margin makes that impossible. However, in your second paragraph, you’re still assuming that the Clinton impeachment helped the Republicans more than it hurt them. I don’t think that was the case at all. Public opinion was solidly against the Republican effort to impeach Clinton. I don’t think the current effort to impeach Obama will win the Republicans any votes either. The Republicans are obviously determined to impeach any Democratic president whenever they control the House, even though there is no case and the Senate will never convict. You may think that this now permanent Republican strategy helps them at the polls, but I don’t.

  34. FuzzyRabbit says:

    “BTW, exactly what was his impeachable offense?”

    He’s a Democrat. Not only that, he’s black.

  35. Thanks! Got it a few years ago, can’t remember exactly when.

  36. karmanot says:

    You are way cool Mr. N.

  37. karmanot says:

    Who would have thought we be raising the quality of Michael Steele?!

  38. citizen_spot says:

    Whats all this fuss about zombie whores? What? Oh…..Nevermind.

  39. karmanot says:

    Interesting paradox: both the left and right can’t stand Obozo, but for diametrically different reasons. Obot propaganda would opine that’s because he’s doing something right—— a concept that simply comprises the idea that mediocrity is its own reward.

  40. BeccaM says:

    That’s the funny thing, isn’t it? They’re throwing around the I-word, but not a one of them can come up with what the charges would actually be.

  41. HolyMoly says:

    “Gore won both the popular vote and (it later turns out) the vote in the Electoral College, but the Supreme Court handed Bush the election. I really don’t think the Republicans succeeded in attaching any lingering stench to either Clinton or Gore because of the Monica Lewinsky impeachment proceedings.”

    True, but who knows? Maybe Gore would have had a 5-point margin over Bush if not for Clinton’s impeachment.

    In order to steal an election, all you need is for the actual polling to be close. Then changing a few votes, suppressing a few votes, and losing a few votes here and there is all you need. Then you argue that though polls showed Gore leading by 1% or 2%, the margin of error is +/- 3%.

    With a larger margin, you can’t do that; it would be way too obvious that something fishy was going on.

  42. Dave of the Jungle says:


  43. citizen_spot says:

    I guess you are probably right. Crazy must be fed, while hopeful can be strung along, slowly starving.

  44. FauxReal says:

    If Republicans begin impeachment proceedings against this President then Bush and Cheney belong behind bars for their crimes – from lying us into war, to the deaths of thousands and thousands, to the use of torture, to breaking the economy.

  45. HolyMoly says:

    I just wish he would be held to account for things he REALLY did that was illegal. But those are things the Repubs have committed under Bush/Cheney and wish to continue to do their next time in the WH.

  46. BillFromDover says:

    To my knowledge, Spitzer. had his sex straight up.

    Vitter, had his in diapers.

    Go figure!

  47. Whitewitch says:

    I like your avatar!

  48. Whitewitch says:

    Oh for the sake of everything holely please please please make them shut the [insert dirty word] up. I am so beyond tired of these guys…it is driving me to drink.

  49. samNH says:

    I thought it was Rancid Penis.

  50. BillFromDover says:

    Was Jason the impetus for the Friday the 13th series?

    Was Jason spotted in Mexico passed out with his face on a table enveloped in 10 lbs (US avoirdupois, of course) of heroin?

    Was Jason the one who couldn’t get it up at a Berlusconi Bunga-Bunga party until a 13 year-old Greek boy slathered in Russian dressing and sporting a chocolate doughnut on his cock arrived?

    Stay tunes, fans, details to follow in… well, perhaps, maybe… meh!

    God Dammit, Grammatus (Goddess of punctuation), why did it take me this long to realize the power of the question mark?

    Ya said Fox. what… I didn’t quite get that?

  51. HolyMoly says:

    Clinton’s numbers went up, but Gore’s didn’t fare so well. People wanted to put the drama, and anything associated with it, behind them. Gore had nothing to do with any of it, but he paid the price. As it was, the 2000 elections were very close; it may be that Gore would have had a larger margin to play with had the impeachment not taken place.

  52. BillFromDover says:

    Jesus Christ in a septic tank!

    Where is Michael Steele when we need him?

  53. slappymagoo says:

    As far as they’re concerned, if they can impeach him (even only in the House), great, it’s “an effective statement as to how the people are fed up with this fraud of a President, this un-American traitor,” blah blah blah…

    And if they can’t impeach him, that doesn’t mean they didn’t have the evidence, per se. It only goes to prove what lengths and depths that man and his Chicago lackeys would go and stoop to keep the stolen Presidency in their crooked hands, blah blah blah.


  54. karmanot says:

    The more to the story was his wife’s close proximity to Hills Clinton, otherwise it might have been possible to wear the ‘diaper’ and stay in Congress.

  55. BillFromDover says:

    “…by throwing out red meat to their zombie hoard.”

    The zombies hoard may eat brains, but they certainly don’t use them!

  56. FLL says:

    Agreed. It didn’t hurt the Republicans that badly because they always bounce back with the help of the Koch brothers et al.

  57. BillFromDover says:

    Don’t forget that 9-11 was an inside job!

  58. karmanot says:

    If they were zombie cats, I would then be very concerned.

  59. I maintain that they don’t care if they’ll actually succeed in impeachment. That’s not the point any more than it was with Clinton.

  60. karmanot says:

    Says a lot about the level of minimax these days. :-)

  61. nicho says:

    Yes, Obama merely has anyone who disagrees with him tazed.

  62. BillFromDover says:

    No way in hell.

    The (republican-controlled) house votes to impeach, but the trial takes place in the (democratic-controlled ) senate.

    Do you have any idea what a circus this would be for the republicans and how many swing-voters they will lose do to this charade?

    I can’t see anybody but baggers buying into your argument… however well constructed, I might add.

    BTW, exactly what was his impeachable offense?

  63. I guess you’re right there in your critique of my first point. I’m still reluctant to dismiss it completely, though. Forget any idea that the impeachment push against Clinton actively helped the Republicans in any way. But I still don’t think it hurt them that badly either, certainly not badly enough to dissuade the Republicans from trying it again.

  64. BillFromDover says:

    “So it’s up to us to connect the dots first,”

    Damn! And all this time i thought it was up to ABC.s super-journalist Johathak Karl to connect the dots for us:

  65. Naja pallida says:

    Hoarding zombies might well explain the Republican electorate better than being a horde. :)

  66. FLL says:

    I have no quarrel with your second and third points. Impeachment over consensual sex is beyond ridiculous, and I don’t think the Benghazi impeachment strategy rises to that level of idiocy. Although Benghazi is a topic worthy of more serious discussion, I still think the Republican “evidence” is fatally weak. If there is any fallout, it will be for wasting the nation’s time when no crimes are unearthed.

    Yes, the Republicans have the votes in the House to impeach Obama for spitting on the sidewalk simply because they have a majority, and I don’t doubt their willingness to do it. I will have to disagree with you regarding your first point. I think you’re drawing a cause and effect relation where there really isn’t one. As another commenter mentioned, Gore won both the popular vote and (it later turns out) the vote in the Electoral College, but the Supreme Court handed Bush the election. I really don’t think the Republicans succeeded in attaching any lingering stench to either Clinton or Gore because of the Monica Lewinsky impeachment proceedings. I just can’t see that the Republicans helped themselves in any way. For various other reasons, Bush got the presidency, but I don’t think the Lewinsky hearings were a factor in Bush’s favor.

  67. MyrddinWilt says:

    It only worked for Stalin because he had everyone who disagreed with him shot.

    I have been predicting that the GOP will go through with impeachment for several months now. They are living in a soap opera and its the inevitable culmination of their plot lines.

    It is going to be an ugly disaster for them as they don’t have the votes to convict and they won’t even if they win every single Senate seat up for election in 2014. The impeachment is likely to come before that though as they try to win their primaries by throwing out red meat to their zombie hoard.

    If they do it is going to utterly crush them. Clinton’s numbers went up when he was impeached despite the fact that everyone knew that he had in fact lied to the court according to any meaningful definition. The case against Clinton was ridiculous but the case against Obama simply doesn’t exist. Nobody can explain what Obama is meant to have done that was criminal and they can’t even show that he was responsible for what was allegedly done wrong. And on top of all that the GOP is using deceptively modified emails to try to make the case that the administration tried to deceive.

    Let the GOP impeach, no beg them to. It will cost them the house for sure and might even cost them the supermajority in the Senate.

  68. BeccaM says:

    Absolutely, couldn’t agree more.

  69. Clecinosu says:

    More than likely, pretty far. They’ll grasp at anything if only to see it through to the end, consequences be damned.

    They’re going to suffer for their actions, but with all the wealth and power of their corrupt supporters behind them, they won’t suffer for long.

  70. gaylib says:

    And maybe if Al Gore hadn’t pretended like Bill didn’t exist it wouldn’t have been close enough for Bush to steal…

  71. gaylib says:

    Well actually they were given the presidency by the SCOTUS, and managed to makeBill Clintom a living legend. Didn’t hurt Hillary’s run for the senate either. Even Newt Gingrich admits it was a mistake.

  72. Snaggletooth says:

    Maybe they can slow down his corporate agenda while they do it. He might be too busy saving his ass to screw us more.

  73. Snaggletooth says:

    I hope they do try to impeach him. Actually I hope they succeed. Benghazi is bullshit, but who cares. The man is traitor to the working class and every real leftie who voted for him. I have no respect or sympathy for traitors. I hope they eat him alive.

  74. I’m pretty sure they’re going to go for it if possible. I think I’m repeating myself here but, the way I see it, the Republicans will try to impeach for the following reasons:

    1. They have no reason to regard their impeachment attempt against Clinton as a failure. Yes, the party’s popularity suffered and they lost a few seats in Congress by not all that many. Two years later they had the presidency and a pretty solid grip on the legislature too and it’s possible that the lingering stench of the Republican witch-hunts against Clinton contributed to hurting Gore’s chances.

    2. They have stronger ammunition than they did against Clinton, at least in the sense that there’s more of an aura of credibility to the Republicans’ loony Benghazi conspiracy theories than there was to their loony obsession with Clinton’s sex life. As much as the GOP tried to make their case against Clinton sound impressive with much talk of the grave crimes involved, really in the end it was about blowjobs. The Republicans are cutting far less ridiculous figures this time round.

    3. Republicans just love to refight old battles. We might be thinking, “God, are they really going to try this again?” They’re probably thinking, “Cool, we get to do this again!”
    So, yeah. This is going to happen. It’s just a question of how far it will go.

    EDIT: Let me add also a suspicion that I’ve already voiced, that the Republicans are going to start dragging other ginned-up “scandals”. Birtherism will get its day on the congressional floor.

  75. sane37 says:

    again? they never stopped

  76. usagi says:

    Likewise. I was actually expecting it sooner. The sad part is it’ll be over some right-wing fever dream instead of some of the actual impeachable things Obama’s done (they won’t touch those since they want to have access to the power when they retake the White House).

  77. usagi says:

    Don’t be too sure. Their crazy base requires that they actually do stuff for them instead of believing the sweet, sweet lies when they whisper how much they care about their issues to them.

  78. What harm did it do them? They lost a few seats in 1998 and got themselves the presidency two years later.

  79. Naja pallida says:

    Which is coincidentally the same percentage that still think Obama is a Muslim, Kenyan, Socialist, Nazi, and that George W. Bush was the bestest President ever.

  80. Naja pallida says:

    Personally, I think Weiner gave up way too easily. Had me thinking at the time that there was more to the story that he was trying to hide.

    As for Eliot Spitzer… if David Vitter can still be in Congress, and wholeheartedly supported by his constituents, there’s no reason why Spitzer shouldn’t be Attorney General right now.

  81. nicho says:

    I don’t know what everyone has against BenGay. I use BenGay all the time. I think it shouldn’t make any difference if the president uses BenGay too. I can imagine that if these Republicans pulled a muscle or something, they would want some BenGay too. BenGay is no reason to impeach the president. What? Oh, that certainly make a difference — never mind.

  82. Naja pallida says:

    Yeah, but firing political enemies and replacing them with political friends is pretty much standard practice for every administration, except for apparently Obama’s. I think Obama’s keeping on people who are blatantly undermining him is more of a scandal than Clinton firing people who he didn’t want around.

    There is a lot of blame to go around for banking and loan scandals, but when it comes right down to it, none of those scandals have been because of liberal or progressive policies. They were based around Republican economic policies, that Democrats were complicit in.

  83. nicho says:

    Hey, it worked for Stalin. US conservatives have learned at the feet of a master.

  84. ComradeRutherford says:

    The GOP made up fake emails and now they are planning to impeach Obama based on their fake ‘evidence’. And 37% of the American People fervently believe every lie the GOP invents.

  85. citizen_spot says:

    They won’t do it. They are just feeding their base what they want to hear in order to scare up donations. Same as the Dems when they put on their “progressive” costumes to gin up the base and get funding, only to fail to deliver the actual progressive goods when its time to vote on legislation.

  86. BeccaM says:

    Well, among the actual Clinton ‘scandals’ — besides his philandering — there was ‘Travelgate’. What does appear to have been politically-motivated firing of the WH travel staff so they could be replaced by friends from Arkansas. Also possibly improper campaign donations from Chinese nationals. And the Marc Rich pardon.

    Back in the Carter era, it was mainly his poor choice of advisors and friends. One that comes to mind is Bert Lance, who was eventually tied up in all kinds of banking scandals, including BCCI.

    As far as it goes for major scandals involving foreign policy or statutory crimes, I can’t come up with anything. (Except, of course, for the unconstitutional behavior of the current administration…)

  87. karmanot says:

    Yep, I’m just waiting for organic corn dogs and biggie fries.

  88. karmanot says:

    Yuucckkk. Is that what they call it?

  89. karmanot says:

    I would like to see Weiner on the national stage again—-as soon as possible. Same with Elliot Spitzer.

  90. karmanot says:

    By all means, let’s sit back and watch Chairman Rinsed Penis start up an impeachment movement. I’ll bring the organic popcorn.

  91. Naja pallida says:

    I’m trying to think of a major political scandal in US politics since Watergate that was not Republican-policy in origin. Help me out?

    And no, I don’t consider Anthony Weiner’s weiner to be a scandal.

  92. BeccaM says:

    They want those powers for themselves. That’s why not.

    Sadly, that’s also why the Dems took Dubya’s impeachment off the table, even though it would have been solidly legal and justified.

  93. BeccaM says:

    I’ve heard credible reports from anonymous sources that he blows goats in his spare time. I mean, really, you don’t get purdy, well-moisturized full lips like that without a whole lot of goat-blowing. We’re talking non-stop compulsive goat-blowing, probably with unmentionable accessories and costumes.

    If my sources are wrong, well, it’s up to Chaffetz to prove otherwise. And to apologize to all those goats.

  94. Naja pallida says:

    I honestly think this is something that has been happening ever since Watergate. The Republicans were caught in a big, embarrassing scandal, and ever since, they’ve been trying to pin one of equal disaster on the Democrats. The problem is, there just hasn’t been one. They’ve basically just been throwing everything they can at the wall, hoping eventually one will stick.

  95. I’m not saying Chaffetz is a pedophile and a murderer… ‘is that within the realm of possibilities?’ And I would say ‘yes.’

  96. BeccaM says:

    Yet interestingly it was eventually reported that yes, the Dubya administration did deliberately manipulate its TERROR! BE AFRAID! color-code warnings to influence polls and elections — and were never called to task for it.

    I remember one in particular right round the Democratic convention in ’04, one of their more blatant attempts — yet nary a peep about it being suspiciously timed or flat-out illegal.

  97. brian says:

    Agreed. Maybe we should impeach him for those things to send a message there is no one above the law. Unfortunately, they will try to get him on trumped of charges about some scandal that is not a scandal.

  98. FLL says:

    The only time since the Civil War when the party of a second-term president actually gained seats in Congress was in 1998. The magic formula? All Monica, all the time… All Monica, all the time…
    All Monica, all the time… All Monica, all the time… All Monica, all the time…
    Come on, folks. Let’s turn Washington D.C. into Comedy Central again, just for old times’ sake.

  99. nicho says:

    They didn’t have anything to go on with Clinton. Didn’t stop them.

  100. Naja pallida says:

    Well, there are things worthy of impeachment: extrajudicial imprisonment, spying on Americans, illegal acts of war, assassination of US citizens… but those are all things that the regressives like, so would never speak out against them.

  101. BeccaM says:

    True enough. The idiots…

  102. BeccaM says:

    Nor Reagan for his act of treason in negotiating with the Iranians in advance of the 1980 elections, nor for the Iran-Contra scandal that followed.

  103. nicho says:

    Go to a meeting of your local Tea Party. They’re pretty good at erasing minds.

  104. nicho says:

    Maybe they’ll impeach — maybe not. But just talking about it will give conservatives the cover they need to continue with their ongoing treason. While the rubes are distracted, the traitors can get away with a lot.

  105. gaylib says:

    To be fair neither were the democrats

  106. BeccaM says:

    The Republican party opened that particular Overton Window during the Clinton administration, when a pointless investigation into a real estate deal where the Clintons appear to have been bilked and lost money became a never-ending panty-sniffing fishing expedition.

    Frankly, I’m a little surprised the GOPers haven’t begun impeachment hearings already.

  107. brian says:

    I do not think they will actually go forward with impeachment. They really have nothing to stand on for impeachment. I am not sure distributing talking points to someone on the Sunday shows is considered a high crime, but they might go after him saying he influenced the election. My feeling is that they will use this to hammer at Democrats through the 2014 election. I can see my TV filled with GOPers running ads against Democrats and stating that they must elect GOP members to impeach the President.

  108. citizen_spot says:

    Newt Gingrich’s shame hole

    Now I need brain bleach. ; )

  109. loona_c says:

    But they weren’t interested in impeaching Bush for “weapons of mass destruction” (not) or any of the other lies that got us into the neverending war(s)

  110. BeccaM says:

    In the immortal one-word response of Lana Kane, “Nooooope!”

  111. nicho says:

    Please. The corporatist media needs only three weeks to convince the “American people” of almost anything.

  112. Naja pallida says:

    They could do it in the House tomorrow, without even having any debate or reason put forth. Just a straight up vote, and the Republicans would vote to impeach without a second thought. If someone like Bachmann was in charge, they probably would have already done it… but Boehner is more pragmatic. He knows if he lets such a thing come to the floor of the House without an iron clad case that has majority public support, it will essentially immasculate the party and destroy their chances in the next midterms, and he will end up disappearing into Newt Gingrich’s shame hole.

  113. gaylib says:

    Did they learn nothing from the last trip to that well?

  114. They better not even begin proceedings on this b.s. or they will pay a heavy price. The American people will absolutely not put up with this.

© 2019 AMERICAblog Media, LLC. All rights reserved. · Entries RSS