Obsessed Schultz Sees Impeachment Plot
I'm an official card-carrying member of the Vast Right-Wing Conspiracy, sitting in every morning on the super-secret nationwide conference call during which we receive our marching orders from the Forces of Evil. But unless I've missed something—and granted, maybe the extra-bold coffee doesn't always kick in—not once have I heard mention of a plan to impeach Pres. Obama.
So what does Ed Schultz know that I don't? He splattered his MSNBC show this evening with incessant dark speculation to the effect that the new Republican majority is plotting to impeach Pres. Obama. View video after the jump.
Have a snicker at Schultz's paranoid delusions.
ED SCHULTZ: Mr. Boehner, can I ask you tonight: are you going to take impeachment off the table? . . . And Reverend [Sharpton], do you think the Republicans should make sure the American people know that impeachment is off the table? . . . They gotta get impeachment off the table . . . I think he also has to bring the Republican leadership into the Oval Office and say what's this about impeachment? . . . Coming up: I think Republicans are plotting to impeach the President . . . And in my playbook tonight, get ready for a slew of investiations. I think they're going to try to impeach the President.
Bonus Coverage: Ah, the always-classy Ed. Rolling tape of an emotional John Boehner recalling his challenging upbringing and belief in the American Dream, Schultz refers to the soon-to-be Speaker as a "barfly."
- Mark Finkelstein's blog
- Login to post comments
Comments
Why should impeachemnt be off
Submitted by Dan The Man 2 on Wed, 11/03/2010 - 9:02pm.
Why should impeachemnt be off the table, never ever take any tools off the table. McCain took off any questions about Obama's legitimacy and his ideology in 2008 and lost his but. I believe if he had asked questions relentlessly then he would have won.
I'm all for impeachment -
Submitted by killa37 on Wed, 11/03/2010 - 11:55pm.
I'm all for impeachment - with two conditions. 1) that it is a guaranteed result, with indisputable evidence, and is a speedy and straight to the point trial. And 2) that Joe Plugs Bite-Me is part of the deal, for being in on the scam. That way, we get rid of both of them, and have a chance to complete the 'un-usurption' of what happened in 2008...........
Of course, I'm probably delusional...................
Yes you are, so much we have
Submitted by Dan The Man 2 on Thu, 11/04/2010 - 3:29am.
Yes you are, so much we have to take you out back and shoot ya.
Well sinced you brought it up ...
Submitted by LibertyAtStake on Wed, 11/03/2010 - 9:12pm.
... Special Ed, the case file is busting at the seams.
http://libertyatstake.blogspot.com/
"Because the Only Good Progressive is a Failed Progressive"
impeachment?
Submitted by MidAmerica on Wed, 11/03/2010 - 9:15pm.
Impeachment would be political suicide unless obama does something so outrageous that the country is in an uproar.
The impeachment of Bill Clinton blew up in the faces of the Republicans because they thought that they could on their own depose a President that the voters had put in office. But the REAL judge and jury is the American people and just like in the old Roman days when the crowd would signal a thumbs up or thumbs down to indicate the fate of a gladiator so too must congress be sure that the American people signal their opinion. Congress must act at the will of the people and we have just seen an election illustrating how important that is.
Finally, a new post! Now,
Submitted by Chris Norman on Wed, 11/03/2010 - 9:25pm.
Finally, a new post! Now, back to our coded comments on our plans to impeach Obama and install the much better Joe Biden in the presidency.
Gee Schotzy
Submitted by hbnolikeee on Wed, 11/03/2010 - 9:29pm.
You're not suggesting that there is some impeachable offense the we should look into (or not), are you?
Ed is a closet birther too
Submitted by ckc1227 on Wed, 11/03/2010 - 9:55pm.
He's worried that Republicans will force Obama to finally come clean, and he's afraid of what they might find.
Secret Wish
Submitted by FranklinR on Wed, 11/03/2010 - 9:30pm.
Maybe he secretly wants them to. Wouldn't that get him one or two more viewers??
No impeachment
Submitted by tampamom25 on Wed, 11/03/2010 - 9:55pm.
What a waste of time, money and energy that would be. Impeachment doesn't guarantee removal from office, as we saw with Clinton. Get ready for all sorts of stupidity from the left as they try to splutter their way back to being meaningful again.
I haven't heard anyone but
Submitted by Radical1979 on Wed, 11/03/2010 - 10:27pm.
I haven't heard anyone but MSNBC mention impeachment. Besides, what would be the point? Clinton lied under oath, was impeached but not removed. I think most of us want the deficit lowered, spending cut, and healthcare repealed.
Oh wait!!!! If we get rid of
Submitted by MidAmerica on Wed, 11/03/2010 - 10:39pm.
Oh wait!!!! If we get rid of obama AND crazy Uncle Joe then the next in line is.... the Speaker of the House!!!! Quick men... to the ramparts. We haven't a moment to lose. Grab all the torches and pitchforks you can find!!!
There....that ought to give shultzie a bad night.
Well, at least we're letting him live
Submitted by Texndoc on Wed, 11/03/2010 - 11:05pm.
Once upon a time Special Ed's big cry was that "Republicans are trying to get Obama killed! I think that! I really do!"
OH, Schultzie...
Submitted by NevadanConservative on Wed, 11/03/2010 - 11:56pm.
... someone might want to clue that goober ( and yes, I apologize to all the peanuts in the world for being compared to Schultzie ) in on the actual PROCESS of impeachment.
Herewith, from Wikipedia:
The impeachment process is a two-step procedure. The House of Representatives must first pass by a simple majority articles of impeachment, which constitute the formal allegation or allegations. Upon their passage, the defendant has been "impeached". Next, the Senate tries the accused. In the case of the impeachment of a president, the 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. 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.
To convict the accused, a 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.
-30-
Come Jan. 3 (with all speed, please) we will seat 46-48 Senators, depending on things in Washington State, Colorado and Alaska, or so the last I heard. ( Anyone with up to date info, I'd be glad to have it. )
Two-thirds of the senate is 67... Means we would have to co-opt 19-21 of the people who so steadfastly back BHO to get rid of him.
Get a grip, Schultzie.
NVCon... who apologizes most heartfeltedly for our failure to dislodge the Filthy One...but must point out we DID get rid of Dina "I haven't met a spending bill I didn't sign" Titus and replace her with Joe Heck.
NVCon---
Submitted by matthewdean on Thu, 11/04/2010 - 1:43am.
Look to the west.
Moonbeam Jerry Brown. Gavin Newsom.
Barabara Boxer. Again. Forever?
You have absolutely nothing to apologize for.
You Nevada conservatives gave it a hell of a try against gravedigger Harry Reid; plus you stopped his progeny from committing dynasty!!
MD
Special Ed and MSNBC being
Submitted by Dotcoman on Thu, 11/04/2010 - 12:11am.
Special Ed and MSNBC being the Short Bus of the cable news world, what a perfect fit.
Ed...
Submitted by AgentAmerican on Thu, 11/04/2010 - 1:30am.
Bwhaahahahahaha!
(rolls around the floor)
This is too much!
What. A. Nut.
MSNBC should add Al Queda
Submitted by Thoreau on Thu, 11/04/2010 - 8:26am.
MSNBC should add Al Queda hosts to their news shows while they're at it. I think they're the only one's that want to destroy America more.
Schultz is just vying for a
Submitted by Beukeboom on Thu, 11/04/2010 - 8:47am.
Schultz is just vying for a guest spot on Jesse Ventura's conspiracy theory TV show.
I hope Schultz goes on the unemployment line soon after Comcast takes over MSNBC.
Yes, with 1/6 of the power in
Submitted by wiwf on Thu, 11/04/2010 - 9:04am.
Yes, with 1/6 of the power in Washington, that's what republicans are plotting...This guy is nuts
Submitted by zachlind on Thu, 11/04/2010 - 10:52am.
Besides, why would anyone listen to a guy named after a talking horse?
I hope that Comcast
Submitted by totsotvaitn on Thu, 11/04/2010 - 12:10pm.
is not stuck with the snarky, childish clowns that now occupy the MSNBC daily lineup. Several hosts of the evening lineup appear to be on the verge of mental breakdowns.
A Different Hope And Change
Submitted by Beukeboom on Thu, 11/04/2010 - 12:27pm.
I am anticipating (hoping at the very least) sweeping changes at MSNBC once Comcast takes over. One major change that would not surprise me is a rebranding of the network via changing the name from MSNBC to something else. And I am also hoping that most, if not all, of their hosts will be axed. I could see Olbermann staying but on a much shorter leash and perhaps Maddow and Scarborough. But the rest of them would need to go.
I'm wondering if when Comcast
Submitted by marpel on Thu, 11/04/2010 - 12:30pm.
I'm wondering if when Comcast takes over this septic tank that a fumigation of these vermin will take place...I sure hope so.... Between KO, KO's 12 yr old son, Tingles, and Special Ed, this network is a complete Gong Show...
"Deep within my heart lies a memory. A song of ol' San Antone..."
Sorry, but Chuck Barris'
Submitted by Beukeboom on Thu, 11/04/2010 - 12:32pm.
Sorry, but Chuck Barris' show was more entertaining.
Conviction unlikely
Submitted by nkviking75 on Thu, 11/04/2010 - 2:00pm.
I agree with earlier posters here. I think Obama deserves impeachment for the damage he's done to America, but I seriously doubt that the Democrat Senate would convict him unless the charge is something so radical that even they can't cover for it. I highly doubt conviction would happen. The GOP would be better off making plans to defeat him in 2012.
“Always love your country — but never trust your government!" -- Bob Novak (1931-2009)
When you put the clowns in charge, don't be surprised when a circus breaks out.