This article was modified.
On Sunday, July 13th, Jason Easley -- at politicsusa.com, which bills itself "Real Liberal Politics" -- bannered, "Top House Republican Admits That There Are No Grounds To Impeach President Obama," and Easley reported that, "The [Republican] chairman of the House Judiciary Committee admitted today that Republicans have no grounds for articles of impeachment against President Obama."
Both video and transcript were shown of that; here's the transcript, from ABC News, "This Week," on Sunday:
STEPHANOPOULOS: One of the other things you see coming out of this are more and more calls for the president to be impeached, Sarah Palin most prominently this week. Any articles of impeachment would be drawn up by your committee. Is this something you're considering? Or do you agree with Speaker Boehner who says it's off the table?
GOODLATTE: We are not working on or drawing up articles of impeachment. The Constitution is very clear as to what constitutes grounds for impeachment of the president of the United States. He has not committed the kind of criminal acts that call for that.
Easley notes: "Republicans have been calling for this president to be impeached for things that George W. Bush did. Currently, some Republicans want to impeach Obama for Bush's immigration policy. It never stops." And he is correct about that: doing it would be impeaching him "for things that George W. Bush did." And that's why Republicans really don't want to do it.
Easley writes as a Democrat, and he expresses smug satisfaction that Obama is protected from being impeached because it would have to be "for things that George W. Bush did." But I think that Easley's smug assumption there, that avoiding impeaching Obama would be good for the Democratic Party, is shallow and profoundly false; in fact, I think it would be a terrible thing for the Democratic Party, and also horrible for the nation.
I write both as a Democrat (which Barack Obama merely claims to be, but shows by his actions that he is not) and as an American (which Obama, unfortunately, actually is, but which Republicans, in their craziness, often deny), in the hope of preserving the honor not just of my Country, but of my Party, both of which Obama violates routinely. Thus: I am not so smug as Easley is, and I think that, actually, the only way that congressional Democrats can retain control in the Senate and maybe even win back control of the House, during the mid-term congressional elections this coming November, would be for congressional Democrats to push for Obama's impeachment. Obama is a terrifically unpopular President, and his being called a "Democrat" is, in fact, destroying the Democratic brand, which desperately needs to be rebuilt.
On Tuesday, July 15th, the Washington Post bannered, "New Election Lab forecast suggests 86 percent chance that GOP wins Senate," so that Republicans starting next year would control both houses of Congress, and the final two years of Obama's Presidency are expected to be passing only legislation that Republicans want. This is merely the latest in a long line of such predictions of a total Republican grip on Washington during Obama's closing two years, 2015 and 2016. All polling shows that anything else than that outcome would require almost a miracle. But if Democrats push for Obama's impeachment, that impeachment of Obama by Democrats might provide this "miracle."
President Obama is far less popular now than is even former President George W. Bush, and the widespread disgust with Obama is the chief thing that's crippling the Democratic Party's chances of retaining control in the Senate. People are blaming congressional Democrats as if they're extensions of this profoundly unpopular President.
Furthermore, Obama ought to be impeached. It is the right thing to do; it is, indeed, a moral necessity, and not only a practical one. Here's why:
When President Obama refused to allow the prosecution of George W. Bush and Dick Cheney for their manifest crimes, after they had been in office (their having lied this country into invading a country that was no imminent threat to the United States, tortured people, violated the 4th Amendment by unleashing the NSA against the American public, unleashed Wall Street crooks against the American people via MBS frauds, etc.), Obama thereby took upon himself Bush's and Cheney's crimes, as being his own. Those crimes still need to be prosecuted -- now by America prosecuting Obama himself, for his covering them up: he still does it, after all of these years. Those crimes are no less heinous and, indeed, no less treasonous, now that a so-called "Democrat" is hiding them, than they were when his self-acknowledged Republican predecessors, and now in some cases even the fake "Democrat" Obama himself, were and have been and still are perpetrating them. They still need to be prosecuted, in order for the U.S. to possess any honor going forward, and any realistic hope of a better future for our nation. Without accountability, there is nothing but dictatorship. That's the reality of our situation. The people who possess power without accountability are our dictators: they stand above the law; we stand below the law, as their subjects, no longer as authentically American citizens, for they have stolen our democracy from us, and made it into their own kingdom, instead. This is not America; and for us to accept it as if it were, would be for us to defile our great Founders, who waged their Revolution in order to defeat such tyrants -- tyrants who now have come back from the dead, only with different faces and names.
There are several important reasons why the resurgence of torture remains a possibility in post-Bush America:
Torture did not necessarily end when Obama took office.