Republicans on the far right in Congress are already agitating to defund any executive action President Barack Obama takes on immigration reform.
Conservative pundit Charles Krauthammer said Thursday that he thought another government shutdown was a terrible idea, but also said he considered the forthcoming executive action to be an “impeachable offense.”
“Some say Republicans have no choice but to call out that perceived lawlessness and do something as politically unpopular as impeach him,” Fox News host Megyn Kelly told Krauthammer.
“Look, I believe it is an impeachable offense,” Krauthammer responded.
“This idea of prosecutorial discretion is really a travesty,” he added. “It is intended for extreme cases, for a case where you want to show mercy for an individual or two. Where it’s unusual incident, unusual circumstances and you say, ‘Okay, we’re going to give this person a pass.’ It was never intended to abolish a whole class of people subject to a law and to essentially abolish whole sections of a law. And that’s exactly what’s happening here.”
While Krauthammer chalked the executive order up to an “impeachable offense,” last summer he suggested that if the GOP would be walking straight into a trap set by the Democrats if they actually pursued impeachment.
“Such a calculation — amnesty-by-fiat to deliberately court impeachment — is breathtakingly cynical. But clever. After all, there is no danger of impeachment succeeding,” Krauthammer wrote at the time, calling it a “political bonanza for Democrats.”
"While Krauthammer chalked the executive order up to an
“impeachable offense,” last summer he suggested that if the GOP would be
walking straight into a trap set by the Democrats if they actually
pursued impeachment. "
A Flop,Flop eh ?
Bring it on.
Teatroll Rosetta Stone says: “Governing while not a Republican is an impeachable offense.”
Sounds like a plan to me.
Telling the Fox Viewers what they want to hear.
FYI,if you care to read:
"Political philosophy
Krauthammer has been called a conservative;.[35][36] Krauthammer is a supporter of legalized abortion;[37][38][39] an opponent of the death penalty;[40][41][42][43] an intelligent design critic and an advocate for the scientific consensus on evolution, calling the religion-science controversy a “false conflict;”[44][45] a supporter of embryonic stem cell research using embryos discarded by fertility clinics with restrictions in its applications;[46][47][48] and a longtime advocate of radically higher energy taxes to induce conservation.[49][50][51][52] Meg Greenfield, editorial page editor for The Washington Post
who edited Krauthammer’s columns for 15 years, called his weekly column
“independent and hard to peg politically. It’s a very tough column.
There’s no ‘trendy’ in it. You never know what is going to happen next.”[3]
Hendrik Hertzberg, a former colleague of Krauthammer’s at The New Republic during the 1980s, said that when the two first met in 1978, Krauthammer was “70 per cent Mondale liberal, 30 per cent ‘Scoop Jackson
Democrat,’ that is, hard-line on Israel and relations with the Soviet
Union;” while in the mid-1980s, he was still “50-50: fairly liberal on
economic and social questions but a full-bore foreign-policy
neoconservative.” Hertzberg now calls Krauthammer a “pretty solid 90-10
Republican.”[53]
Krauthammer’s major monograph on foreign policy, “Democratic Realism: An American Foreign Policy for a Unipolar World,”[25]
is critical both of the neoconservative Bush doctrine for being too
expansive and utopian, and of foreign policy “realism” for being too
narrow and immoral; instead, he proposes an alternative he calls
“Democratic Realism.” In a 2005 speech (later published in Commentary Magazine)
he called neoconservatism “a governing ideology whose time has come.”
He noted that the original “fathers of neoconservatism” were “former
liberals or leftists”. More recently, they have been joined by
“realists, newly mugged by reality,” such as Condoleezza Rice, Richard Cheney, and George W. Bush,
who “have given weight to neoconservatism, making it more diverse and,
given the newcomers’ past experience, more mature.” In “Charlie Gibson’s
Gaffe” in The Washington Post, September 13, 2008, Krauthammer elaborated on the changing meanings of the Bush Doctrine in light of Gibson’s controversial questioning of Republican Vice-Presidential candidate Sarah Palin
regarding what exactly the Bush Doctrine was, as if there was a single
definition. Palin was criticized for her response. Krauthammer states in
the article that “The Bush Doctrine” has had “four distinct meanings,
each one succeeding another over the eight years of” the Bush
Administration. Krauthammer states that the phrase “Bush Doctrine”
originally referred to “the unilateralism that characterized the
pre-9/11 first year of the Bush administration.” He states that “There
is no single meaning of the Bush Doctrine. He also states “the fourth
and current definition of the Bush doctrine, the most sweeping
formulation of the Bush approach to foreign policy and the one that most
clearly and distinctively defines the Bush years: the idea that the
fundamental mission of American foreign policy is to spread democracy
throughout the world.”[54]”