Chumph – Ethnic Cleansing the Government

What is going on at State Department is playing out all over the government as the Chumph assembles his Gestapo.

This is also interesting because of the announcement of Mr Tillerson’s exit from State…

 

Diplomats Sound the Alarm as They Are Pushed Out in Droves

 Of all the State Department employees who might have been vulnerable in the staff reductions that Secretary of State Rex W. Tillerson has initiated as he reshapes the department, the one person who seemed least likely to be a target was the chief of security, Bill A. Miller.

Republicans pilloried Hillary Clinton for what they claimed was her inadequate attention to security as secretary of state in the months before the deadly 2012 attacks in Benghazi, Libya. Congress even passed legislation mandating that the department’s top security official have unrestricted access to the secretary of state.

But in his first nine months in office, Mr. Tillerson turned down repeated and sometimes urgent requests from the department’s security staff to brief him, according to several former top officials in the Bureau of Diplomatic Security. Finally, Mr. Miller, the acting assistant secretary for diplomatic security, was forced to cite the law’s requirement that he be allowed to speak to Mr. Tillerson.

Mr. Miller got just five minutes with the secretary of state, the former officials said. Afterward, Mr. Miller, a career Foreign Service officer, was pushed out, joining a parade of dismissals and early retirements that has decimated the State Department’s senior ranks. Mr. Miller declined to comment.

The departures mark a new stage in the broken and increasingly contentious relationship between Mr. Tillerson and much of his department’s work force. By last spring, interviews at the time suggested, the guarded optimism that greeted his arrival had given way to concern among diplomats about his aloofness and lack of communication. By the summer, the secretary’s focus on efficiency and reorganization over policy provoked off-the-record anger.

Now the estrangement is in the open, as diplomats going out the door make their feelings known and members of Congress raise questions about the impact of their leaving.

In a letter to Mr. Tillerson last week, Democratic members of the House Foreign Relations Committee, citing what they said was “the exodus of more than 100 senior Foreign Service officers from the State Department since January,” expressed concern about “what appears to be the intentional hollowing-out of our senior diplomatic ranks.”

Senator John McCain, Republican of Arizona, and Senator Jeanne Shaheen, Democrat of New Hampshire, sent a similar letter, telling Mr. Tillerson that “America’s diplomatic power is being weakened internally as complex global crises are growing externally.”

Mr. Tillerson, a former chief executive of Exxon Mobil, has made no secret of his belief that the State Department is a bloated bureaucracy and that he regards much of the day-to-day diplomacy that lower-level officials conduct as unproductive. Even before Mr. Tillerson was confirmed, his staff fired six of the State Department’s top career diplomats, including Patrick Kennedy, who had been appointed to his position by President George W. Bush. Kristie Kenney, the department’s counselor and one of just five career ambassadors, was summarily fired a few weeks later.

None were given any reason for their dismissals, although Mr. Kennedy and Ms. Kenney had been reprimanded by Trump transition officials for answering basic logistical questions from Nikki R. Haley, President Trump’s pick as United Nations ambassador. Mr. Tillerson is widely believed to dislike Ms. Haley, who has been seen as a possible successor if Mr. Tillerson steps down.

In the following months, Mr. Tillerson launched a reorganization that he has said will be the most important thing he will do, and he has hired two consulting companies to lead the effort. Since he decided before even arriving at the State Department to slash its budget by 31 percent, many in the department have always seen the reorganization as a smoke screen for drastic cuts.

Mr. Tillerson has frozen most hiring and recently offered a $25,000 buyout in hopes of pushing nearly 2,000 career diplomats and civil servants to leave by October 2018.

His small cadre of aides have fired some diplomats and gotten others to resign by refusing them the assignments they wanted or taking away their duties altogether. Among those fired or sidelined were most of the top African-American and Latino diplomats, as well as many women, difficult losses in a department that has long struggled with diversity.

One of them was Linda Thomas-Greenfield, a career Foreign Service officer who served as ambassador to Liberia under Mr. Bush and as director general of the Foreign Service and assistant secretary for African affairs during the Obama administration. Ms. Thomas-Greenfield was among those asked to leave by Mr. Tillerson’s staff, but she appealed and remained until her retirement in September.

“I don’t feel targeted as an African-American,” she said. “I feel targeted as a professional.”

For those who have not been dismissed, retirement has become a preferred alternative when, like Mr. Miller, they find no demand for their expertise. A retirement class that concludes this month has 26 senior employees, including two acting assistant secretaries in their early 50s who would normally wait years before leaving.

The number of those with the department’s top two ranks of career ambassador and career minister — equivalent to four- and three-star generals — will have been cut in half by Dec. 1, from 39 to 19. And of the 431 minister-counselors, who have two-star-equivalent ranks, 369 remain and another 14 have indicated that they will leave soon — an 18 percent drop — according to an accounting provided by the American Foreign Service Association.

The political appointees who normally join the department after a change in administration have not made up for those departures. So far, just 10 of the top 44 political positions in the department have been filled, and for most of the vacancies, Mr. Tillerson has not nominated anyone.

 

$10 Million to Impeach The Chumph!

Gettin’ hot in here! Larry Flynt, owner of Hustler Magazine and occasional political gadfly, has offered a $10 million reward for information resulting in the Impeachment of the Chumph.

Last time he did this during Bill CLinton’s impeachment, it wound up in ending the careers of about a half dozen Republicans, including Neut Gingrich and Bob Livingstone who were sucessive Speakers of the House who turned out to have sexual peccadilloes of their own.

This kind of money even boy toy Putin may finally release the “Pee Tape”!

Larry Flynt is offering $10 million for info resulting in Trump’s impeachment

Larry Flynt, the founder and publisher of Hustler magazine is offering a $10 million  reward for information leading to the impeachment of President Donald Trump.

Fox Anchor Liz Claman, who broke the story, tweeted an image of an advert for the money. Flynt himself subsequently retweeted the story. Hustler had not replied to a request for comment at the time of publication.

The advert says: “Buried in Trump’s top-secret tax returns or in other records from his far-flung investments there may be a smoking gun.”

“The attempt to impeach Donald Trump will strike many as a sour grapes plot by Democrats to overturn a legitimate election,” it continues.

“But there is a strong case to be made that the last election was illegitimate in many ways—and that after nine tumultuous months in office, Trump has proven he’s dangerously unfit to exercise the extreme power accrued by our new ‘unitary executive.’”

The full page advertisement says that Trump “only” won the election thanks to the “quirks” of the electoral college, which it calls “a real anachronism today.” It accused Republicans of a “scorched-earth spree of gerrymandering” after the 2010 census.

The advert says that Trump’s missteps include “inciting violent civil strife with his racial dog whistling,” “gross nepotism,” and “sabotaging” the Paris accord on climate change.

“Most worrisome is that, long before a climate change apocalypse strikes, Trump might trigger a nuclear world war,” it adds.

“Impeachment would be a messy, contentious affair,” the ad concedes, “but the alternative—three more years of destabilizing dysfunction—is worse.”

Flynt also offered a similar reward in 1998, during the impeachment trial of former President Bill Clinton. He has also shared clips from Hustler criticizing Trump, calling him a “buffoon” and a “narcissist,” and a piece calling on the Democrats to be “more than the party of no.”

 

Sessions (Again) Caught Red Handed Lying About Russians

The timing on his one looks like an inside job from the Chumph Administration. Sessions caught red handed lying again about Russian contacts during the election in NSA Intercepts.

They got the whole conversation on tape (like I been telling certain folks). And there is likely a LOT MORE of this nailing the Chumph’s synchophats and the CHumph to the wall.

Looks like they are throwing their boy Sessions under the bus.

WasPo is knocking it out of the park!

Sessions has now been caught in multiple lies about his meetings and discussions with Russian agents. That is not only Perjury – it is Treason. His ass needs to be removed from office immediately.

Sessions discussed Trump campaign-related matters with Russian ambassador, U.S. intelligence intercepts show

Russia’s ambassador to Washington told his superiors in Moscow that he discussed campaign-related matters, including policy issues important to Moscow, with Jeff Sessions during the 2016 presidential race, contrary to public assertions by the embattled attorney general, according to current and former U.S. officials.

Ambassador Sergey Kislyak’s accounts of two conversations with Sessions — then a top foreign policy adviser to Republican candidate Donald Trump — were intercepted by U.S. spy agencies, which monitor the communications of senior Russian officials both in the United States and in Russia. Sessions initially failed to disclose his contacts with Kislyak and then said that the meetings were not about the Trump campaign.

One U.S. official said that Sessions — who testified that he has no recollection of an April encounter — has provided “misleading” statements that are “contradicted by other evidence.” A former official said that the intelligence indicates that Sessions and Kislyak had “substantive” discussions on matters including Trump’s positions on Russia-related issues and prospects for U.S.-Russia relations in a Trump administration.

Sessions has said repeatedly that he never discussed campaign-related issues with Russian officials and that it was only in his capacity as a U.S. senator that he met with Kislyak.

“I never had meetings with Russian operatives or Russian intermediaries about the Trump campaign,” Sessions said in March when he announced that he would recuse himself from matters relating to the FBI probe of Russian interference in the election and any connections to the Trump campaign….more here…

 

But Wait! There’s More! This is Just The First Comey Memo

Comey took a lot of notes. There are possibly several dozen of these memos. We know some are classified.

The basis for impeachment, and conviction could well be in those memos which have not been released yet.

A recent poll showed that 48% of Americans want the Chumph Impeached. That is more than believe he should stay in office.

The only reason the Chumph hasn’t been impeached and convicted yet is Republicans covering up the incriminating evidence. This writer believes that when that evidence comes out, and is made public – it not only will form the basis for the Chumph’s Impeachment and conviction – but destroy the political careers of Republicans who have hidden it from the public and obstructed justice.

The Chumph is going to jail…And so are a number of his staunch Republican allies.

 

 

 

Another Chumph Bombshell – Comey Memo Documents Efforts to Shut Down FBI Investigation

Yet more evidence of the Chumph attempting to cover-up the investigation into his collusion with Putin’s Spies.

Comey Memo Says Trump Asked Him to End Flynn Investigation

President Trump asked the F.B.I. director, James B. Comey, to shut down the federal investigation into Mr. Trump’s former national security adviser, Michael T. Flynn, in an Oval Office meeting in February, according to a memo Mr. Comey wrote shortly after the meeting.

“I hope you can let this go,” the president told Mr. Comey, according to the memo.

The existence of Mr. Trump’s request is the clearest evidence that the president has tried to directly influence the Justice Department and F.B.I. investigation into links between Mr. Trump’s associates and Russia.

Mr. Comey wrote the memo detailing his conversation with the president immediately after the meeting, which took place the day after Mr. Flynn resigned, according to two people who read the memo. The memo was part of a paper trail Mr. Comey created documenting what he perceived as the president’s improper efforts to influence a continuing investigation. An F.B.I. agent’s contemporaneous notes are widely held up in court as credible evidence of conversations.

Mr. Comey shared the existence of the memo with senior F.B.I. officials and close associates. The New York Times has not viewed a copy of the memo, which is unclassified, but one of Mr. Comey’s associates read parts of the memo to a Times reporter.

“I hope you can see your way clear to letting this go, to letting Flynn go,” Mr. Trump told Mr. Comey, according to the memo. “He is a good guy. I hope you can let this go.”

Mr. Trump told Mr. Comey that Mr. Flynn had done nothing wrong, according to the memo.

Mr. Comey did not say anything to Mr. Trump about curtailing the investigation, only replying: “I agree he is a good guy.”

In a statement, the White House denied the version of events in the memo.

“While the president has repeatedly expressed his view that General Flynn is a decent man who served and protected our country, the president has never asked Mr. Comey or anyone else to end any investigation, including any investigation involving General Flynn,” the statement said. “The president has the utmost respect for our law enforcement agencies, and all investigations. This is not a truthful or accurate portrayal of the conversation between the president and Mr. Comey.”

In testimony to the Senate last week, the acting F.B.I. director, Andrew G. McCabe, said, “There has been no effort to impede our investigation to date.”

Mr. McCabe was referring to the broad investigation into possible collusion between Russia and the Trump campaign. The investigation into Mr. Flynn is separate.

A spokesman for the F.B.I. declined to comment.

Mr. Comey created similar memos — including some that are classified — about every phone call and meeting he had with the president, the two people said. It is unclear whether Mr. Comey told the Justice Department about the conversation or his memos.

Mr. Trump fired Mr. Comey last week. Trump administration officials have provided multiple, conflicting accounts of the reasoning behind Mr. Comey’s dismissal. Mr. Trump said in a television interview that one of the reasons was because he believed “this Russia thing” was a “made-up story.”

The Feb. 14 meeting took place just a day after Mr. Flynn was forced out of his job after it was revealed he had lied to Vice President Mike Pence about the nature of phone conversations he had had with the Russian ambassador to the United States…

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Tkvuf84KwA4

 

Comey Fired By Trump After Asking For Resources to Expand Russia Investigation

Definitely a cover-up. Comey was fired because he had evidence of the Chumph’s collusion with the Russians.

Comey sought more resources for Russia probe days before he was fired by President Trump, officials say

Last week, then-FBI Director James B. Comey requested more resources from the Justice Department for his bureau’s investigation into collusion between the Trump campaign and the Russian government, according to two officials with knowledge of the discussion.

Comey, who was fired by President Trump on Tuesday, made the request in a meeting last week with Rod J. Rosenstein, the deputy attorney general, and briefed the chair and Democratic ranking member of the Senate Intelligence Committee on Monday, the officials said.

However, Justice Department spokeswoman Sarah Isgur Flores said reports that Comey had requested more funding or other resources for the Russia investigation are “totally false.” Such a request, she said, “did not happen.”

Rosenstein wrote the memo that was used to justify Trump’s swift and unexpected firing of Comey on Tuesday evening.

Asked by reporters Wednesday whether she was briefed by Comey on requests for additional funding for the investigation, Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D-Calif.), a member of the Intelligence Committee, said: “I was not. But I understand that there have been additional requests. That’s all I can say.”

It’s unclear where the FBI investigation stands. Comey acknowledged publicly in March that the FBI was looking into possible coordination between the Kremlin and the Trump campaign, and he said the investigation had begun in late July. Comey said that for a counterintelligence probe, “that’s a fairly short period of time.”

Last summer, the FBI obtained a secret court order to monitor the communications of Carter Page, who was an early adviser to the Trump campaign, as part of its investigation. Page has not been accused of any crimes, and it is unclear whether the Justice Department will eventually seek charges against him or others in connection with Russian interference in the 2016 campaign.

Law enforcement officials are also examining contacts between former national security adviser Michael Flynn and Russian officials.

 

British Intelligence Intercepted Trump Campaign Collusion With Russian Spies

American, as well as the Intelligence Services of our allies, routinely surveil known Russian spies and operatives. They also do this against any hostile government’s agents. The British GCHQ was picking up ongoing discussions between Putin’s Bitch’s people and the Russian FSB starting in 2015. Meaning that collusion between the Russians and the Trump Campaign had been ongoing for nearly a year before the FBI finally got a clue. This is proof positive that criminal collusion was going on – and evidence that Trump committed treason.

What was in those conversations has not been made public, and is still classified.

It is well past time to impeach, convict, and hang this POS for his Treason.

 

 

He Must Go…

 

40% of US Want’s Trump Impeached

In the worst showing for a new President in history, over 40% of the electorate want Putin’s Bitch impeached.

There are (at least) three crimes he can be impeached for…So far –

1. His treasonous relationship with Putin and interference with the election – Republicans fear this one the most, because legally it means Hillary won the election. Treason is a “High Crime” as defined by the Constitution – and is a Criminal Act.
2. His “Conflict of interests” – Trump continues to hold events for which he charges the US Government and taxpayers millions of dollars on his properties. Money which directly goes into his pockets. He has also pushed regulations which directly benefit him financially. Third World Tinpot Dictators should have it so good. This, just as his Treason falls into the area of criminal activity.
3. His order Banning immigration from Muslim Countries he has no business interests in, is un-Constitutional, But that isn’t the real problem. The issue is ordering Homeland Security to continue deportations and VISA removals even after a Federal Judge ruled them un-Constitutional. That, as defined by the Constitution is a “High Crime”.

Republicans put Party before the welfare of the nation – so they are actively blocking Investigations and Congress moving forward at this point.  Perhaps when 10 million people show up in DC demanding their heads they will get the message.

The article below is from The Hill, which describes anything that is bad news for a Republican…As “Left leaning”.

Poll: 4 in 10 support impeaching Trump

Forty percent of registered voters support impeaching President Trump, according to a poll released Thursday from the left-leaning Public Policy Polling (PPP).

Nearly half of voters, 48 percent, are opposed to impeaching Trump, and 12 percent remain unsure, according to the poll.

Pollsters also found that a majority of voters, 52 percent, would prefer former President Obama in his old role rather than Trump; 43 percent prefer Trump, and 5 percent are uncertain.

“Usually a newly elected president is at the peak of their popularity and enjoying their honeymoon after taking office,” PPP President Dean Debnam said in a statement.

“But Donald Trump’s making history once again with a sizeable share of voters already wanting to impeach him, and a majority of voters wishing they could have Barack Obama back.”

PPP polling found that 49 percent of voters disapprove of Trump’s performance since his inauguration on Jan. 20 and 47 percent approve.

Overall impressions of Trump remain negative, according to the poll, with 52 percent viewing him unfavorably and 45 percent viewing him favorably.

A number of major protests have punctuated the first two weeks of Trump’s presidency, including over women’s issues and Trump’s order last week denying U.S. entry to travelers and refugees from several Muslim-majority countries.

Democrats and civil rights organizations have hammered Trump’s move as unconstitutional and biased against Muslims. Trump has dismissed those criticisms, arguing that the order is crucial for protecting the nation from terrorism.

Rep. Joaquin Castro (D-Texas) on Wednesday said Congress should mullimpeaching Trump if he orders federal agencies to ignore a judge’s ruling halting parts of that order.

“There should be a resolution of censure,” he told BuzzFeed. “And if he does it again, there should be articles of impeachment.”

The PPP survey of 725 registered voters was conducted via phone and online interviews Jan. 30–31. It has a margin of error of 3.6 percentage points.

 

High Crimes – Stopping he SCOTUS Vote

The charge of high crimes and misdemeanors covers allegations of misconduct peculiar to officials, such as perjury of oath, abuse of authority, bribery, intimidation, misuse of assets, failure to supervise, dereliction of duty, conduct unbecoming, and refusal to obey a lawful order.

Sound to me that there are ample grounds to put Mr McConnell (and his supporters) in the hoosegow.

Especially with the new projections showing a Democrat Majority is possible in the House which would try an Impeachment.

McConnell: No Vote on Supreme Court Nominee Even if Democrat Wins Presidency

Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell doubled down on his insistence that Republicans would not consider President Obama’s nominee for the Supreme Court this year. Even if it seems that the next president could pick someone the Republicans would like even less, McConnell is adamant his fellow party members won’t budge on Merrick Garland. “I can’t imagine that a Republican-majority Congress, in a lame-duck session, after the American people have spoken would want to confirm a nominee opposed by the NRA, the NFIB and that the New York Times says would move the court dramatically to the left,” McConnell told CNN.

The Senate majority leader insisted that the reasoning behind refusing to vote is the same, regardless of timing. “The principle is the same, whether it’s before the election or after the election,” McConnell said on Fox News. “The principle is the American people are choosing their next president and their next president should pick this Supreme Court nominee.”

What if a Democrat wins the presidency and decides to appoint someone more liberal than Garland? “It’d be hard to be more liberal than Merrick Garland,”McConnell told NBC News.

White House chief of staff Denis McDonough insisted Obama has no intention of withdrawing Garland’s name from consideration, regardless of what happens in November. “We will stand by him from now until he is confirmed and he’s sitting on the Supreme Court,” McDonough said on Fox News.

 

Republican Say the “I” Word

In yet another episode of mass suicide, Republicans in the House are now talking about impeaching President Obama.  Never mind small issues like the Constitutional requirement of “High Crimes and Misdemeanors”…

President Obama has certainly pushed the edge of Executive Power.  However I don’t see how he could not to keep the country operating with a Republican Congress which has done everything in their power to destroy the country.

The only “High Crime” I can see is President Obama’s failure to do some things required by law. That is to prosecute and bring to justice the people responsible for lying us into the Iraq War, who illegally tortured captives, illicitly caused the homicidal deaths of over 5,000 American men and women in the Military,  and through collateral damage are responsible for hundreds of thousands of deaths of Iraqi women and children. It is the President’s job, through his Attorney General to enforce the law.

Of course the problem with the President doing that if followed to its logical conclusion to include co-conspirators and collaborators, there wouldn’t be enough Republicans left in the House or Senate to make a majority anymore.

I certainly respect President Obama’s position to protect the Office of the Presidency by not starting a precedent for the incoming Administration to punish members of the old with investigations and prosecution…

But does anyone truly believe anymore that today’s crop of Tea Bagged Republicans actually have any respect or regard  for our Democracy and Constitution when they have abused the filibuster to try and block virtually every Presidential appointee, attempted to send the country into fiscal insolvency, and failed to pass any legislation the past 3 years? That “Shutdown Ted” Cruz were he to win the Presidency would have the foresight or integrity not to abuse the office like some Third World tinpot Dictator  to punish political rivals?

Who would stop him? The Supreme Court? Who believes in the impartiality or legitimacy of the Court after the 2000 Bush v Gore politically partisan decision? The corporate “personhood” decision allowing the flood of secret money into politics…And the subsequent financial relationships with the Koch Brothers who are the largest “dark money” financiers of the far right.

Of course then there are the inevitable comparisons with the Clinton Impeachment. What Republicans had before the top 3 most powerful Republicans, along with many of the rabid Impeachment supporters in the Congress bodies hit the floor for committing exactly the same sins as they were accusing Clinton -and the prosecution of the Iraq War and Economic Meltdown… Was legitimacy. I mean look at the poll numbers for the Republican Congress…Only slightly more people approve of them than the number who enjoy head lice. And if you will remember that bloodletting during and after the Clinton Impeachment – what would you like to bet there won’t be 20 more Rep. Trey Radel’s uncovered?

They quite simply don’t have the legitimacy anymore to manufacture a case.

 

 

Republicans see one remedy for Obama: impeachment

History will record that on Tuesday, Dec. 3, 2013, the U.S. House of Representatives Committee on the Judiciary met to consider the impeachment of Barack Hussein Obama.

They didn’t use that word, of course. Republican leaders frown on such labeling because it makes the House majority look, well, crazy.

It is, Rep. Steve King (R-Iowa) said from the dais, “the word that we don’t like to say in this committee, and I’m not about to utter here in this particular hearing.”

One of the majority’s witnesses, Georgetown law professor Nicholas Rosenkranz, encouraged the Republicans not to be so shy. “I don’t think you should be hesitant to speak the word in this room,” he said. “A check on executive lawlessness is impeachment.”

This gave the lawmakers courage. “I’m often asked this,” said Rep. Doug Collins (R-Ga.) “You got to go up there, and you just impeach him.”

Rep. Blake Farenthold (R-Tex.), who has said there are enough votes in the House to impeach Obama, added: “We’ve also talked about the I-word, impeachment, which I don’t think would get past the Senate in the current climate. . . . Is there anything else we can do?”

Why, yes, there is, congressman: You can hold hearings that accomplish nothing but allow you to sound fierce for your most rabid constituents.

The Republicans in the House know there is no chance of throwing this president from office. Yet at least 13 of the 22 Republicans on the panel have threatened or hinted at impeachment of Obama, his appointees or his allies in Congress. They’ve proposed this as the remedy to just about every dispute or political disagreement, from Syria to Obamacare.

Tuesday’s hearing was titled “The President’s Constitutional Duty to Faithfully Execute the Laws.” The unanimous view among Republicans was that Obama had not done his duty, and it’s true that this president has stretched the bounds of executive authority almost as much as his predecessor, whose abuses bothered Republicans much less (and Democrats much more).

But what to do about it? They’ve failed at cutting off funding, they’ve had difficulty suing Obama in court and they lost the 2012 election. That basically leaves them with the option of making loud but ineffectual noises about high crimes and misdemeanors.

In recent days, Rep. Steve Stockman (Tex.), one of the more exotic members of the Republican caucus, has distributed proposed Articles of Impeachment to his colleagues. Last month, 20 House Republicans filed Articles of Impeachment against Attorney General Eric Holder. Around that time, Rep. Michele Bachmann (R-Minn.) accused Obama of “impeachable offenses.”

Rep. Trey Radel (R-Fla.), before his cocaine arrest and guilty plea, invoked the prospect of impeaching Obama over gun policy. Rep. Duncan Hunter (R-Calif.) raised the specter of impeachment over Obama’s threat to bomb Syria without congressional approval. Rep. Kerry Bentivolio (R-Mich.) said it would be his “dream come true” to write the Articles of Impeachment, and Rep. Bill Flores (R-Tex.) said that if “the House had an impeachment vote it would probably impeach the president.”

Sen. Jim Inhofe said Obama could be impeached over the attack on Americans in Benghazi, Libya, while fellow Oklahoma Republican Sen. Tom Coburn said in August that Obama was “getting perilously close” to meeting the standard for impeachment (though he called Obama a “personal friend”). Sen. Tim Scott (R-S.C.) thought it would have been an impeachable offense if Obama unilaterally raised the debt ceiling. Sen. Ted Cruz (R-Tex.) branded Obama “lawless.”

On the House Judiciary panel, impeachment has been floated by GOP Reps. Jason Chaffetz (over Benghazi), Louie Gohmert and King (default on the debt), Darrell Issa (presidential patronage), Trent Franks (Defense of Marriage Act enforcement) and Lamar Smith (who said Obama’s record on immigration comes “awfully close” to violating the oath of office). Rep. Tom Marino (R-Pa.) gets creativity points for proposing the impeachment of Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.).

At Tuesday’s hearing, the committee chairman, Bob Goodlatte (R-Va.), accused Obama of “picking and choosing which laws to enforce” and of being “the first president since Richard Nixon to ignore a duly enacted law simply because he disagrees with it.”

Contributed Smith: “The president has ignored laws, failed to enforce laws, undermined laws and changed laws, all contrary to the Constitution.”

The majority’s witnesses added to the accusations. George Washington University’s Jonathan Turley said Obama had “claimed the right of the king to essentially stand above the law.”

This excited Franks, who embraced impeachment back in 2011. Obama’s actions, he said, “could be considered royal prerogatives, which is, if my history’s right, what we had that little unpleasantness with Great Britain about.”

Yikes! Why bother with impeachment? They need a revolution.