f Congress is considering impeachment charges related to the 2016 election, they should center not on President Trump but on former President Obama "and his Nixonian use of various agencies to target candidate Trump," contends Judicial Watch President Tom Fitton.
"If there is anyone who needs to be on the dock, it would be President Obama," he said in an interview Monday with WND.
Fitton's organization, with 30 lawsuits already in motion, has relentlessly pursued documents and communications related to the Obama administration's investigation of alleged collusion between Russia and the Trump campaign through Freedom of Information Act requests.
"The very nature of the activity suggests President Obama would have been advised and approved of the counter-intelligence/spy operation against candidate Trump," Fitton said.
The Judicial Watch chief was referring to the operation codenamed "Crossfire Hurricane," reported May 16 by the New York Times, which had at least one "government informant" in the Trump campaign who met several times with campaign volunteers Carter Page and George Papadopoulos.
Fitton said publicly available information indicates Obama approved of the activity.
He noted the Jan. 6, 2017, meeting at Trump Tower in which then-FBI director James Comey informed Trump of the "salacious and unverified" allegation in the Steele dossier of an incident with prostitutes at a Moscow hotel. Trump later said he thought Comey was trying to blackmail him. Obama's national security adviser, Susan Rice, Fitton pointed out, later wrote a "CYA" email to memorialize a Jan. 5, 2017, Oval Office meeting she attended with Obama and Comey in which they discussed confronting Trump the next day with the dossier information.
Rice wrote to herself: "President Obama began the conversation by stressing his continued commitment to ensuring that every aspect of this issue is handled by the Intelligence and law enforcement communities 'by the book.' The President stressed that he is not asking about, initiating or instructing anything from a law enforcement perspective. He reiterated that our law enforcement team needs to proceed as it normally would by the book."
Fitton explained that his tweet Sunday, saying "Obama, btw, can still be impeached," was to generate discussion about holding Obama accountable, not to suggest that impeachment necessarily would be the best course of action if evidence warranted prosecution. He wanted to emphasize, amid all the impeachment talk by Democrats on Capitol Hill, that if anybody should be impeached, the evidence indicates it should be Obama. William Murphy, a professor of American history at State University of New York at Oswego, confirmed that Congress could impeach a former president, noting the penalties of conviction including a ban from holding future office.
IG review 'necessary but not sufficient'
Fitton pointed out that the White House won't be subject to public-records disclosure for years, but Congress can obtain them, and the president has authority to release the records as well.
More~~~
http://www.wnd.com/2018/05/judicial-watch-obama-can-still-be-impeached/
That would be glorious.
Even if the democrats turn it into the race riots to end all riots.
As the bookend to the "Get Trump" campaign, nothing could be sweeter.
But even pissed off Trump would probably say "naaah, not good for the country. Let's put some other idiots in jail instead".
I don't think we'll see real justice for Obama. Unspoken presidential pardon. I'm hoping the line starts with HRC and WJC, then everybody else on down.
Maybe Trump will go as far as to disgrace Obama publicly with the truth. That would be an OK compromise I guess. And then say "we don't prosecute presidents"...... so everyone knows he should be.
But......... in the great fantasy in my mind........... the deep state goes overboard and takes a mis-aimed pot shot at somebody in Trump's family..........
Trump loses his mind and just whips out -
-Prosecution of every last democrat / obama hack that he has the goods on
-McCain and RINO pals too
-Blows out the JFK truth
-Goes full bore on Awans, Seth Rich, Sex Slush Fund, Clinton Foundation, Weiner Laptop, F & F, Benghazi, Iran Cash
-Drops the bomb on the false flag business and Arkanside industry
+ 20 other things just like this
A guy can dream .........
Wouldn't that be racist?
At least he's have a legacy.
Quote from: The Boo Man... on May 22, 2018, 05:33:37 PM
Wouldn't that be racist?
At least he's have a legacy.
Well he is half white.
I was just reading the comments on Discuss and some guy who claims to have inside knowledge, just posted this.
More
3) CNN, AP, and MSNBC....
Kyle
@HNIJohnMiller
Follow Follow @HNIJohnMiller
More
5) My one source inside one of these networks has informed me that the FCC has arrived and has seized all kinds of document as part of their investigation, including all of the source data the networks were using for their stories.
9:49 AM - 22 May 2018
https://twitter.com/HNIJohnMiller/status/998969018781523975
I can't find any other source for this, but I found out CNN and MSNBC have at least 160 viewers. :lol:
Media's 'Sh*thole' Coverage Draws Over 160 FCC Complaints, CNN Got the Most
https://www.newsbusters.org/blogs/nb/geoffrey-dickens/2018/04/04/medias-shthole-coverage-draws-over-160-fcc-complaints-cnn-got
Quote from: Solar on May 22, 2018, 06:59:21 PM
I was just reading the comments on Discuss and some guy who claims to have inside knowledge, just posted this.
More
3) CNN, AP, and MSNBC....
Kyle
@HNIJohnMiller
Follow Follow @HNIJohnMiller
More
5) My one source inside one of these networks has informed me that the FCC has arrived and has seized all kinds of document as part of their investigation, including all of the source data the networks were using for their stories.
9:49 AM - 22 May 2018
https://twitter.com/HNIJohnMiller/status/998969018781523975
This should be out on the MSM if true in no time at all I would think.
Quote from: walkstall on May 22, 2018, 07:16:04 PM
This should be out on the MSM if true in no time at all I would think.
Yeah, odd, it was posted hours ago and nothing so far, Not sure it's all that credible.
Quote from: Solar on May 22, 2018, 06:59:21 PM
I was just reading the comments on Discuss and some guy who claims to have inside knowledge, just posted this.
More
3) CNN, AP, and MSNBC....
Kyle
@HNIJohnMiller
Follow Follow @HNIJohnMiller
More
5) My one source inside one of these networks has informed me that the FCC has arrived and has seized all kinds of document as part of their investigation, including all of the source data the networks were using for their stories.
9:49 AM - 22 May 2018
https://twitter.com/HNIJohnMiller/status/998969018781523975
That would be amazing! Every hour new stuff keeps coming out.
This is definitely one of the dumbest articles I have read in a very long time. Since the OP does not know the meaning of the word "impeachment" I should explain that it is a process for removing someone from political office. If they are no longer in a political office, then they cannot be impeached. This is an obvious case of civic illiteracy.
Former Presidents are no different from anyone else. If they commit a crime they can be charged and prosecuted. If Obama committed a criminal act while President he can be charged and prosecuted now that he is no longer President. A sitting President enjoys a certain immunity from the law. However, a former President has no such immunity and does not need to be impeached since they no longer hold any political office.
It should also be noted that a President who uses the FBI, IRS, or any other part of the federal government against a candidate has committed an impeachable offense, but not a criminal act. Which means that Obama cannot be charged for any crime, assuming he did order the FBI to spy on Trump.
Quote from: |Glitch| on May 23, 2018, 01:18:16 AM
This is definitely one of the dumbest articles I have read in a very long time. Since the OP does not know the meaning of the word "impeachment" I should explain that it is a process for removing someone from political office. If they are no longer in a political office, then they cannot be impeached. This is an obvious case of civic illiteracy.
Former Presidents are no different from anyone else. If they commit a crime they can be charged and prosecuted. If Obama committed a criminal act while President he can be charged and prosecuted now that he is no longer President. A sitting President enjoys a certain immunity from the law. However, a former President has no such immunity and does not need to be impeached since they no longer hold any political office.
It should also be noted that a President who uses the FBI, IRS, or any other part of the federal government against a candidate has committed an impeachable offense, but not a criminal act. Which means that Obama cannot be charged for any crime, assuming he did order the FBI to spy on Trump.
Maybe you should actually take a civics class and read up on what "Impeachment" actually entails. It's formal document charging a public official with misconduct in office. Even after their tenure.
He would be charged for crimes he was in office, and being that he is still called President, he not only loses that title, depending on the outcome of Impeachment, but all that the position entails in retirement.
Impeachment does not necessarily mean removal, it's merely a charge reserved for public office but not limited too.
Quote from: |Glitch| on May 23, 2018, 01:18:16 AM
This is definitely one of the dumbest articles I have read in a very long time. Since the OP does not know the meaning of the word "impeachment" I should explain that it is a process for removing someone from political office. If they are no longer in a political office, then they cannot be impeached. This is an obvious case of civic illiteracy.
Former Presidents are no different from anyone else. If they commit a crime they can be charged and prosecuted. If Obama committed a criminal act while President he can be charged and prosecuted now that he is no longer President. A sitting President enjoys a certain immunity from the law. However, a former President has no such immunity and does not need to be impeached since they no longer hold any political office.
It should also be noted that a President who uses the FBI, IRS, or any other part of the federal government against a candidate has committed an impeachable offense, but not a criminal act. Which means that Obama cannot be charged for any crime, assuming he did order the FBI to spy on Trump.
Dont be a negative nancy, just say no...
Quote from: |Glitch| on May 23, 2018, 01:18:16 AM
This is definitely one of the dumbest articles I have read in a very long time. Since the OP does not know the meaning of the word "impeachment" I should explain that it is a process for removing someone from political office. If they are no longer in a political office, then they cannot be impeached. This is an obvious case of civic illiteracy.
Former Presidents are no different from anyone else. If they commit a crime they can be charged and prosecuted. If Obama committed a criminal act while President he can be charged and prosecuted now that he is no longer President. A sitting President enjoys a certain immunity from the law. However, a former President has no such immunity and does not need to be impeached since they no longer hold any political office.
It should also be noted that a President who uses the FBI, IRS, or any other part of the federal government against a candidate has committed an impeachable offense, but not a criminal act. Which means that Obama cannot be charged for any crime, assuming he did order the FBI to spy on Trump.
Arrogant ignorant is not impressive when done too loudly.
Your bottom line is that Obama is impervious / in the clear for anything he did ? Pretty big statement for zero legwork and proof.
Quote from: AndyJackson on May 23, 2018, 07:38:25 AM
Arrogant ignorant is not impressive when done too loudly.
Your bottom line is that Obama is impervious / in the clear for anything he did ? Pretty big statement for zero legwork and proof.
What part of "
If Obama committed a criminal act while President he can be charged and prosecuted now that he is no longer President" didn't you comprehend? Can you name a criminal act he committed, or is all you have pure fantasy?
Quote from: |Glitch| on May 23, 2018, 01:20:40 PM
What part of "If Obama committed a criminal act while President he can be charged and prosecuted now that he is no longer President" didn't you comprehend? Can you name a criminal act he committed, or is all you have pure fantasy?
I was referring to your final paragraph. Why would you say all that, then proclaim that you said something different earlier ?
Weird..... Daft even.
Quote from: |Glitch| on May 23, 2018, 01:20:40 PM
What part of "If Obama committed a criminal act while President he can be charged and prosecuted now that he is no longer President" didn't you comprehend? Can you name a criminal act he committed, or is all you have pure fantasy?
There are many. For example, he knowingly submitted a forged birth certificate. That's a fact.
Quote from: taxed on May 23, 2018, 05:53:57 PM
There are many. For example, he knowingly submitted a forged birth certificate. That's a fact.
If publishing something for public consumption - knowing it to be completely bogus and a flat-out lie - was a crime, the overwhelming majority of the media would be in prison by now.
Quote from: AndyJackson on May 23, 2018, 03:16:05 PM
I was referring to your final paragraph. Why would you say all that, then proclaim that you said something different earlier ?
Weird..... Daft even.
The final paragraph was for the benefit of those who couldn't tell the difference between an impeachable offense for the abuse of power, and a criminal act. Abusing the power of their office is grounds for impeachment, but there is no law being violated. In order to be a crime it must violate a law.
Quote from: |Glitch| on May 24, 2018, 12:53:52 AM
If publishing something for public consumption - knowing it to be completely bogus and a flat-out lie - was a crime, the overwhelming majority of the media would be in prison by now.
As they should be.
Quote from: |Glitch| on May 24, 2018, 12:53:52 AM
If publishing something for public consumption - knowing it to be completely bogus and a flat-out lie - was a crime, the overwhelming majority of the media would be in prison by now.
So forging documents is now protected speech under the First Amendment?
Quote from: |Glitch| on May 24, 2018, 01:00:18 AM
The final paragraph was for the benefit of those who couldn't tell the difference between an impeachable offense for the abuse of power, and a criminal act. Abusing the power of their office is grounds for impeachment, but there is no law being violated. In order to be a crime it must violate a law.
You speak as if you actually believe what you're saying will fool others, How cute.
What you just stated is pure semantics when it comes to breaking the law.
The only difference here is, a public citizen cannot be charged with impeachment, while an office holder can, regardless of which set of rules they choose to prosecute under.
As a CEO, I can't be fired for insulting my customers, while a President can be impeached for essentially the same crime. See the difference? Impeachment falls under 'Separation of Powers', look it up, Congress has the final say.
Quote from: Solar on May 24, 2018, 04:48:40 AM
So forging documents is now protected speech under the First Amendment?
Why do you ask the question when you already know the answer?
Quote from: Solar on May 24, 2018, 05:17:21 AM
You speak as if you actually believe what you're saying will fool others, How cute.
What you just stated is pure semantics when it comes to breaking the law.
The only difference here is, a public citizen cannot be charged with impeachment, while an office holder can, regardless of which set of rules they choose to prosecute under.
As a CEO, I can't be fired for insulting my customers, while a President can be impeached for essentially the same crime. See the difference? Impeachment falls under 'Separation of Powers', look it up, Congress has the final say.
Nobody is "charged" with impeachment, and impeachment does not fall under the "Separation of Powers." Impeachment is a process for removing someone from public office, nothing more, and only Congress has this power under Article I, Section 3, Clause 7 of the US Constitution. You truly do need an education, that much is very obvious. The amount of sheer ignorance you are spewing is staggering. I warned you not to discuss topics you had absolutely no knowledge about, but you chose not to heed my advice.
Quote from: |Glitch| on May 24, 2018, 09:16:45 AM
Why do you ask the question when you already know the answer?
Nobody is "charged" with impeachment, and impeachment does not fall under the "Separation of Powers." Impeachment is a process for removing someone from public office, nothing more, and only Congress has this power under Article I, Section 3, Clause 7 of the US Constitution. You truly do need an education, that much is very obvious. The amount of sheer ignorance you are spewing is staggering. I warned you not to discuss topics you had absolutely no knowledge about, but you chose not to heed my advice.
You can tell the age (teenager) based on the content of "your dum / I'm super smart / you shouldn't even be allowed to tell me anything".
If you aren't actually a teenager, the fact that you think, speak, act, and embarrass us as a teenager would........ is even more disturbing.
30, 40, 50, 60 years old with the mind of a kid ....... sad, and damned aggravating...... and will define what your life becomes. But every lowlife loser on the internet is a day trader CEO doctor who was a Navy SEAL............. so there's that.
Quote from: AndyJackson on May 24, 2018, 10:15:15 AM
You can tell the age (teenager) based on the content of "your dum / I'm super smart / you shouldn't even be allowed to tell me anything".
If you aren't actually a teenager, the fact that you think, speak, act, and embarrass us as a teenager would........ is even more disturbing.
30, 40, 50, 60 years old with the mind of a kid ....... sad, and damned aggravating...... and will define what your life becomes. But every lowlife loser on the internet is a day trader CEO doctor who was a Navy SEAL............. so there's that.
When you are intellectually challenged just breathing, it is not a good idea to discuss topics that you know absolutely nothing about. Most people comprehend that reality, but then there are others... Or are you of the mind that we should encourage such sheer ignorance? Maybe give them a cookie and pat on the head. :rolleyes:
Quote from: Solar on May 24, 2018, 04:48:40 AM
So forging documents is now protected speech under the First Amendment?
Cool, now I can fudge my log book with no consequences..Keep on Truckin' and Drive on... :thumbsup:
Quote from: |Glitch| on May 24, 2018, 09:16:45 AM
Why do you ask the question when you already know the answer?
You said:
QuoteThe final paragraph was for the benefit of those who couldn't tell the difference between an impeachable offense for the abuse of power, and a criminal act. Abusing the power of their office is grounds for impeachment, but there is no law being violated. In order to be a crime it must violate a law.
I gave an example, and if you've been following the news, you'd know treason may be some of the charges soon to come.
I just pointed out your failure of comprehension.
QuoteNobody is "charged" with impeachment,
DUH! The article points out the possibility, nothing more.
Quoteand impeachment does not fall under the "Separation of Powers." Impeachment is a process for removing someone from public office, nothing more, and only Congress has this power under Article I, Section 3, Clause 7 of the US Constitution. You truly do need an education, that much is very obvious. The amount of sheer ignorance you are spewing is staggering. I warned you not to discuss topics you had absolutely no knowledge about, but you chose not to heed my advice.
I love how you attempt profundity, only to expose yourself as a fool.
You really don't know what you're talking about.
Checks and balances, which modify the separation of powers. We're talking about Impeachment of a President, that falls under "Checks and balances", which is by definition "Separation of Powers", where only Congress can Impeach. Got it?
Quote from: CasND on May 24, 2018, 10:34:15 AM
Cool, now I can fudge my log book with no consequences..Keep on Truckin' and Drive on... :thumbsup:
:lol: :lol: :lol:
You go girl!
Quote from: |Glitch| on May 24, 2018, 09:16:45 AM
Why do you ask the question when you already know the answer?
Nobody is "charged" with impeachment, and impeachment does not fall under the "Separation of Powers." Impeachment is a process for removing someone from public office, nothing more, and only Congress has this power under Article I, Section 3, Clause 7 of the US Constitution. You truly do need an education, that much is very obvious. The amount of sheer ignorance you are spewing is staggering. I warned you not to discuss topics you had absolutely no knowledge about, but you chose not to heed my advice.
Some reading material for you.
"In the United States the impeachment process has rarely been employed, largely because it is so cumbersome. It can occupy Congress for a lengthy period of time, fill thousands of pages of testimony, and involve conflicting and troublesome political pressures. Repeated attempts in the U.S. Congress to amend the procedure, however, have been unsuccessful, partly because impeachment is regarded as an integral part of the system of checks and balances in the U.S. government." And this: "Impeachment, in common law, a criminal proceeding instituted against a public official by a legislative body. In Great Britain the House of Commons serves as prosecutor and the House of Lords as judge in an impeachment proceeding. In the federal government of the United States, the House of Representatives institutes the impeachment proceedings, and the Senate acts as judge. In Great Britain conviction on an impeachment has resulted in fine and imprisonment and even in execution, whereas in the United States the penalties extend no further than removal and disqualification from office."
If you need more https://www.britannica.com/topic/impeachment
Jeez, people! Let us comport ourselves with dignity, shall we?
The article's premise, that Obama could possibly be impeached for illegal/unconstitutional actions while in office, is quite simply incorrect. The reason is spelled out quite clearly in the Constitution.
From Article I, Section 3, paragraph 7:
QuoteJudgment in Cases of Impeachment shall not extend further than to removal from Office, and disqualification to hold and enjoy any Office of honor, Trust or Profit under the United States: but the Party convicted shall nevertheless be liable and subject to Indictment, Trial, Judgment and Punishment, according to Law.
In short, the process of impeachment (which is begun by the House, of course) can ONLY result in removal from office if the Senate should convict. A convicted president, once removed from office is then subject to additional prosecution for any crimes of which he was charged under the impeachment proceedings, but through the regular proceedings through a court of law. Since Obama is already out of office, impeachment serves no purpose.
However, going by the statement of a convicted president, once removed from office, being "liable and subject to indictment, trial, judgement and punishment"; Obama could still be legally prosecuted for actions he took while in office. The process would go through federal court, using a federal grand jury to indict. Not that it will ever happen - just theoretically possible to prosecute a FORMER president for any illegal actions he took while in office.
(This is why it was a mistake to try and impeach Clinton for perjury. They should have simply held charges in check until he was out of office, then proceeded with a normal trial for perjury without all the political interference.)
Quote from: s3779m on May 24, 2018, 02:33:10 PM
Some reading material for you.
"In the United States the impeachment process has rarely been employed, largely because it is so cumbersome. It can occupy Congress for a lengthy period of time, fill thousands of pages of testimony, and involve conflicting and troublesome political pressures. Repeated attempts in the U.S. Congress to amend the procedure, however, have been unsuccessful, partly because impeachment is regarded as an integral part of the system of checks and balances in the U.S. government." And this: "Impeachment, in common law, a criminal proceeding instituted against a public official by a legislative body. In Great Britain the House of Commons serves as prosecutor and the House of Lords as judge in an impeachment proceeding. In the federal government of the United States, the House of Representatives institutes the impeachment proceedings, and the Senate acts as judge. In Great Britain conviction on an impeachment has resulted in fine and imprisonment and even in execution, whereas in the United States the penalties extend no further than removal and disqualification from office."
If you need more https://www.britannica.com/topic/impeachment
In case I was not clear, I was referring to impeachment in the US. Not in some foreign nation. In the US impeachment is not a crime and nobody is "charged" with impeachment. Impeachment simply means the removal from public office, nothing more. What Great Britain has to do with any of this I have no idea.
Quote from: zewazir on May 24, 2018, 03:19:45 PM
Jeez, people! Let us comport ourselves with dignity, shall we?
The article's premise, that Obama could possibly be impeached for illegal/unconstitutional actions while in office, is quite simply incorrect. The reason is spelled out quite clearly in the Constitution.
From Article I, Section 3, paragraph 7:In short, the process of impeachment (which is begun by the House, of course) can ONLY result in removal from office if the Senate should convict. A convicted president, once removed from office is then subject to additional prosecution for any crimes of which he was charged under the impeachment proceedings, but through the regular proceedings through a court of law. Since Obama is already out of office, impeachment serves no purpose.
However, going by the statement of a convicted president, once removed from office, being "liable and subject to indictment, trial, judgement and punishment"; Obama could still be legally prosecuted for actions he took while in office. The process would go through federal court, using a federal grand jury to indict. Not that it will ever happen - just theoretically possible to prosecute a FORMER president for any illegal actions he took while in office.
(This is why it was a mistake to try and impeach Clinton for perjury. They should have simply held charges in check until he was out of office, then proceeded with a normal trial for perjury without all the political interference.)
I do not disagree with anything you said, but it should be noted that while it is indeed theoretically possible to prosecute a former President, it has to be an actual crime. In other words, the former President must have violated some law in order to be charged and prosecuted. Former Presidents cannot be prosecuted for acts they may have committed while President if it does not violate any law. For example, ordering the FBI to spy on a presidential candidate is not a violation of the law even though it certainly is abuse of power. Publishing a completely fictional birth certificate online is not a crime. Creating your own laws via Executive Order is obviously unconstitutional, but also not a crime. For any former President to charged and tried they must actually commit a crime.
Clinton did face punishment after he left office for his perjury and obstruction of justice, as well as his contempt of court in the Paula Jones case, albeit not a very stiff punishment. He had to pay $850,000 and had his law license suspended for 5 years.
Quote from: |Glitch| on May 24, 2018, 10:24:31 AM
When you are intellectually challenged just breathing, it is not a good idea to discuss topics that you know absolutely nothing about. Most people comprehend that reality, but then there are others... Or are you of the mind that we should encourage such sheer ignorance? Maybe give them a cookie and pat on the head. :rolleyes:
Aaaaaand yet again....... the "you so dum" rushes forth from thine hole.
The whole joke was your over-reliance on it. You weren't supposed to go right back to it and offer nothing else. Ugh.
Quote from: |Glitch| on May 24, 2018, 03:32:28 PM
In case I was not clear, I was referring to impeachment in the US. Not in some foreign nation. In the US impeachment is not a crime and nobody is "charged" with impeachment. Impeachment simply means the removal from public office, nothing more. What Great Britain has to do with any of this I have no idea.
Nobody is "charged with impeachment" just like nobody is "charged with arrest".
There is an underlying charge of
a crime for either procedure to be pursued.
My original spoof of you was your desire to state that Obama was free and clear of impeachment AND being charged with a crime, which is s a big stretch.
If proof of a crime by Obama is uncovered, as long as he isn't somehow beyond some statute of limitations, he can be charged.
Whether he will be is entirely different.
Quote from: AndyJackson on May 24, 2018, 03:50:13 PM
Nobody is "charged with impeachment" just like nobody is "charged with arrest".
There is an underlying charge of a crime for either procedure to be pursued.
My original spoof of you was your desire to state that Obama was free and clear of impeachment AND being charged with a crime, which is s a big stretch.
If proof of a crime by Obama is uncovered, as long as he isn't somehow beyond some statute of limitations, he can be charged.
Whether he will be is entirely different.
No, there isn't "an underlying charge of
a crime" for impeachment. Abuse of power is an impeachable offense, and not a crime. There are all sorts of reasons why someone might be impeached that have nothing to do with violating the law. Impeachment is a political process.
Quote from: |Glitch| on May 24, 2018, 03:42:41 PM
I do not disagree with anything you said, but it should be noted that while it is indeed theoretically possible to prosecute a former President, it has to be an actual crime. In other words, the former President must have violated some law in order to be charged and prosecuted. Former Presidents cannot be prosecuted for acts they may have committed while President if it does not violate any law. For example, ordering the FBI to spy on a presidential candidate is not a violation of the law even though it certainly is abuse of power. Publishing a completely fictional birth certificate online is not a crime. Creating your own laws via Executive Order is obviously unconstitutional, but also not a crime. For any former President to charged and tried they must actually commit a crime.
Clinton did face punishment after he left office for his perjury and obstruction of justice, as well as his concept of court in the Paula Jones case, albeit not a very stiff punishment. He had to pay $850,000 and had his law license suspended for 5 years.
The violation of any person's civil rights by an official of government IS a federal crime. Many officers of the law, from street cops to federal prosecutors have been indicted, tried, and convicted. Therefore, if a bear DOES crap in the woods, and Obama was complicit in infiltrating the campaign of Trump, then he CAN be prosecuted for it.
Also, while merely publishing a faked official state document could be washed over as not criminal, the use of forged documents for gain IS criminal - specifically, criminal fraud. Obama published his birth certificate in order to legitimize his election as president of the United States. In doing so, assuming it is a forgery, he did, indeed commit an actual crime.
Of course, nothing will happen. But I am certain you are mistaken that none of Obama's actions while in office were criminal.
Quote from: AndyJackson on May 24, 2018, 03:44:16 PM
Aaaaaand yet again....... the "you so dum" rushes forth from thine hole.
The whole joke was your over-reliance on it. You weren't supposed to go right back to it and offer nothing else. Ugh.
Actually, it is your posts that are not contributing to this thread. I have been explaining the impeachment process, and you are being an overly critical snowflake over the method I choose to explain that process. Did I trigger one of your "micro-aggressions?" Do you need that "safe space" now? Poor little snowflake.
Quote from: zewazir on May 24, 2018, 04:04:51 PM
The violation of any person's civil rights by an official of government IS a federal crime. Many officers of the law, from street cops to federal prosecutors have been indicted, tried, and convicted. Therefore, if a bear DOES crap in the woods, and Obama was complicit in infiltrating the campaign of Trump, then he CAN be prosecuted for it.
Also, while merely publishing a faked official state document could be washed over as not criminal, the use of forged documents for gain IS criminal - specifically, criminal fraud. Obama published his birth certificate in order to legitimize his election as president of the United States. In doing so, assuming it is a forgery, he did, indeed commit an actual crime.
Of course, nothing will happen. But I am certain you are mistaken that none of Obama's actions while in office were criminal.
The court can hold the government accountable for civil rights violations, but individuals could only be held accountable if they deprived someone of their civil rights. Last time I checked nobody was accusing Obama of depriving Trump of his constitutionally protected rights.
Obama didn't publish his birth certificate, the DNC did, and it is definitely bogus. There is no doubt. Since it is NOT an official document, and nobody ever attempted to use it, or treat it, as an official document, then it cannot be construed as criminal fraud.
Obama's birth had nothing to do with his legitimacy as President (which was something Hillary started in 2008, by the way). Under US law if just one of your parents is a US citizen then any offspring they produce - regardless of where they produce it - are automatic US citizens. Since Obama's mother was a US citizen that automatically makes Obama a US citizen, regardless of whether he was born in Hawaii or Kenya.
I also never said that none of Obama's actions were criminal. I have repeatedly posted that Obama can be charged and prosecuted for any crime, now that he is no longer a sitting President. The overwhelming majority however seem incapable of distinguishing between a violation of the law and a political act they don't like. The former is a crime, the latter is not.
Quote from: |Glitch| on May 24, 2018, 03:32:28 PM
In case I was not clear, I was referring to impeachment in the US. Not in some foreign nation. In the US impeachment is not a crime and nobody is "charged" with impeachment. Impeachment simply means the removal from public office, nothing more. What Great Britain has to do with any of this I have no idea.
Read this part again:Impeachment, in common law, a criminal proceeding instituted against a public official . The article refers to impeachment in Great Britain AND THE U.S.
Or this one "Impeachment is the process by which a legislative body formally levels charges against a high official of government. Impeachment does not necessarily mean removal from office; it is only a formal statement of charges, akin to an indictment in criminal law, and is thus only the first step towards removal. Once an individual is impeached, he or she must then face the possibility of conviction via legislative vote, which then entails the removal of the individual from office."
notice the part where it states : Impeachment does not necessarily mean removal from office"
Quote from: s3779m on May 24, 2018, 04:27:26 PM
Read this part again:Impeachment, in common law, a criminal proceeding instituted against a public official . The article refers to impeachment in Great Britain AND THE U.S.
Or this one "Impeachment is the process by which a legislative body formally levels charges against a high official of government. Impeachment does not necessarily mean removal from office; it is only a formal statement of charges, akin to an indictment in criminal law, and is thus only the first step towards removal. Once an individual is impeached, he or she must then face the possibility of conviction via legislative vote, which then entails the removal of the individual from office."
notice the part where it states : Impeachment does not necessarily mean removal from office"
Both I and zewazir have posted Article I, Section 3, Clause 7 of the US Constitution. You might want to take the time to actually read it:
QuoteJudgment in Cases of Impeachment shall not extend further than to removal from Office, and disqualification to hold and enjoy any Office of honor, Trust or Profit under the United States: but the Party convicted shall nevertheless be liable and subject to Indictment, Trial, Judgment and Punishment, according to Law.
Impeachment in the US only means the removal from office, and nothing more.
Quote from: s3779m on May 24, 2018, 04:27:26 PM
Read this part again:Impeachment, in common law, a criminal proceeding instituted against a public official . The article refers to impeachment in Great Britain AND THE U.S.
Or this one "Impeachment is the process by which a legislative body formally levels charges against a high official of government. Impeachment does not necessarily mean removal from office; it is only a formal statement of charges, akin to an indictment in criminal law, and is thus only the first step towards removal. Once an individual is impeached, he or she must then face the possibility of conviction via legislative vote, which then entails the removal of the individual from office."
notice the part where it states : Impeachment does not necessarily mean removal from office"
No, impeachment, by itself, is not removal from office. And history proves that impeachment does not necessarily lead to removal from office.
HOWEVER, since the ONLY POSSIBLE RESULT of impeachment under our Constitution (The Brits have their own system, but it isn't ours, is it?) is removal from office, then there is no purpose, nor any validity, in the impeachment of a former president who is no longer in office.
Therefore, any claim that Obama can still be impeached is, quite simply WRONG.
Quote from: zewazir on May 24, 2018, 03:19:45 PM
Jeez, people! Let us comport ourselves with dignity, shall we?
The article's premise, that Obama could possibly be impeached for illegal/unconstitutional actions while in office, is quite simply incorrect. The reason is spelled out quite clearly in the Constitution.
From Article I, Section 3, paragraph 7:In short, the process of impeachment (which is begun by the House, of course) can ONLY result in removal from office if the Senate should convict. A convicted president, once removed from office is then subject to additional prosecution for any crimes of which he was charged under the impeachment proceedings, but through the regular proceedings through a court of law. Since Obama is already out of office, impeachment serves no purpose.
However, going by the statement of a convicted president, once removed from office, being "liable and subject to indictment, trial, judgement and punishment"; Obama could still be legally prosecuted for actions he took while in office. The process would go through federal court, using a federal grand jury to indict. Not that it will ever happen - just theoretically possible to prosecute a FORMER president for any illegal actions he took while in office.
(This is why it was a mistake to try and impeach Clinton for perjury. They should have simply held charges in check until he was out of office, then proceeded with a normal trial for perjury without all the political interference.)
Oh Jeeeez. Clinton was Impeached, he just wasn't removed from office.
Quote from: zewazir on May 24, 2018, 05:20:03 PM
No, impeachment, by itself, is not removal from office. And history proves that impeachment does not necessarily lead to removal from office.
HOWEVER, since the ONLY POSSIBLE RESULT of impeachment under our Constitution (The Brits have their own system, but it isn't ours, is it?) is removal from office, then there is no purpose, nor any validity, in the impeachment of a former president who is no longer in office.
Therefore, any claim that Obama can still be impeached is, quite simply WRONG.
Nope. There is precedent, Secretary of War, William Belknap was in the process of being impeached, so he resigned, but the Impeachment process continued, though they couldn't come to a two-thirds requirement, so the process ended and he escaped conviction.
Quote from: |Glitch| on May 24, 2018, 12:53:52 AM
If publishing something for public consumption - knowing it to be completely bogus and a flat-out lie - was a crime, the overwhelming majority of the media would be in prison by now.
Oh, sorry. I thought providing a forged document to the federal government is illegal. If you say it isn't, then I guess it isn't.
Quote from: Solar on May 24, 2018, 04:48:40 AM
So forging documents is now protected speech under the First Amendment?
I can't wait until tax time next year!
Quote from: Solar on May 24, 2018, 05:54:37 PM
Oh Jeeeez. Clinton was Impeached, he just wasn't removed from office.
I thought everybody knew that. I learn something new every day.
Quote from: taxed on May 24, 2018, 06:43:54 PM
Oh, sorry. I thought providing a forged document to the federal government is illegal. If you say it isn't, then I guess it isn't.
Try telling that to the Census Bureau. :lol:
Quote from: Solar on May 24, 2018, 05:59:43 PM
Nope. There is precedent, Secretary of War, William Belknap was in the process of being impeached, so he resigned, but the Impeachment process continued, though they couldn't come to a two-thirds requirement, so the process ended and he escaped conviction.
Not much of a precedent, since he resigned AFTER impeachment had already begun. That's a long way from saying we can start impeachment proceedings against someone over a year after they left office.
Besides, if Obama were to be charged with crime(s) why would we want to go the impeachment route? Impeachment by itself means little more than an indictment would in the civilian world, and it takes a 2/3 majority of the Senate to convict - which will never happen. Obama could cut the heads off a dozen infants right in front of a fully attended joint session of congress, and the demoncraps would still vote against conviction.
Quote from: zewazir on May 24, 2018, 07:53:39 PM
Not much of a precedent, since he resigned AFTER impeachment had already begun. That's a long way from saying we can start impeachment proceedings against someone over a year after they left office.
Nixon did the same, only before they started Impeachment proceedings.
QuoteBesides, if Obama were to be charged with crime(s) why would we want to go the impeachment route? Impeachment by itself means little more than an indictment would in the civilian world, and it takes a 2/3 majority of the Senate to convict - which will never happen. Obama could cut the heads off a dozen infants right in front of a fully attended joint session of congress, and the demoncraps would still vote against conviction.
I agree, he most likely will never face Impeachment, but there is still the possibility due to the obvious. So depending, it could be part of a process in a long line of criminal and civil charges.
Start with Impeachment, assuring he'll never again serve in govt, then proceed with civil charges.
Quote from: zewazir on May 24, 2018, 07:53:39 PM
Not much of a precedent, since he resigned AFTER impeachment had already begun. That's a long way from saying we can start impeachment proceedings against someone over a year after they left office.
Besides, if Obama were to be charged with crime(s) why would we want to go the impeachment route? Impeachment by itself means little more than an indictment would in the civilian world, and it takes a 2/3 majority of the Senate to convict - which will never happen. Obama could cut the heads off a dozen infants right in front of a fully attended joint session of congress, and the demoncraps would still vote against conviction.
Why not give him a stain in the history books? They were going to do the same with Nixon for Watergate, so why would Hussein not be worthy of it?
Quote from: taxed on May 24, 2018, 08:49:07 PM
Why not give him a stain in the history books? They were going to do the same with Nixon for Watergate, so why would Hussein not be worthy of it?
My point is, if we have the goods on Obama committing crime(s), we should indict him using a regular federal grand jury, try him in a regular federal court, and then send him to a regular federal prison.
Impeachment is a meaningless political gesture since conviction is politically impossible. The left will make all kinds of hay about republicans being vindictive. Of course, they will do so anyway, even if Obama is tried in a regular court, but at least most of the politics will be negated in the trial process.
Nixon knew they had the goods on him and resigned, thus ending any attempts to impeach.
Clinton was impeached, but not convicted - though even as much as 80% of the left admitted he lied under oath - and they still treat him just short of God. To this day, they repeat the lie it was "impeachment over a blow job."
Besides, congress has better things to do with their time than be distracted by a totally meaningless gesture.
Quote from: zewazir on May 25, 2018, 06:40:35 AM
My point is, if we have the goods on Obama committing crime(s), we should indict him using a regular federal grand jury, try him in a regular federal court, and then send him to a regular federal prison.
Impeachment is a meaningless political gesture since conviction is politically impossible. The left will make all kinds of hay about republicans being vindictive. Of course, they will do so anyway, even if Obama is tried in a regular court, but at least most of the politics will be negated in the trial process.
Nixon knew they had the goods on him and resigned, thus ending any attempts to impeach.
Clinton was impeached, but not convicted - though even as much as 80% of the left admitted he lied under oath - and they still treat him just short of God. To this day, they repeat the lie it was "impeachment over a blow job."
Besides, congress has better things to do with their time than be distracted by a totally meaningless gesture.
Now that I would like to see.
Quote from: zewazir on May 25, 2018, 06:40:35 AM
My point is, if we have the goods on Obama committing crime(s), we should indict him using a regular federal grand jury, try him in a regular federal court, and then send him to a regular federal prison.
Impeachment is a meaningless political gesture since conviction is politically impossible. The left will make all kinds of hay about republicans being vindictive. Of course, they will do so anyway, even if Obama is tried in a regular court, but at least most of the politics will be negated in the trial process.
Nixon knew they had the goods on him and resigned, thus ending any attempts to impeach.
Clinton was impeached, but not convicted - though even as much as 80% of the left admitted he lied under oath - and they still treat him just short of God. To this day, they repeat the lie it was "impeachment over a blow job."
Besides, congress has better things to do with their time than be distracted by a totally meaningless gesture.
So you're saying Congress shirk its duties?
Congress has a duty to enforce the law, it's why we elect these sum.
Quote from: zewazir on May 25, 2018, 06:40:35 AM
My point is, if we have the goods on Obama committing crime(s), we should indict him using a regular federal grand jury, try him in a regular federal court, and then send him to a regular federal prison.
I'm thinking his crimes will go the military tribunal route.
Quote
Impeachment is a meaningless political gesture since conviction is politically impossible.
No it isn't. Impeach him so he can't run for office, and can't pretend he practices law anymore, and give him a big 'ol fat asterisk next to his name in the history books.
Quote
The left will make all kinds of hay about republicans being vindictive. Of course, they will do so anyway, even if Obama is tried in a regular court, but at least most of the politics will be negated in the trial process.
Who cares what libs think?
Quote
Nixon knew they had the goods on him and resigned, thus ending any attempts to impeach.
I thought it was meaningless?
Quote
Clinton was impeached, but not convicted - though even as much as 80% of the left admitted he lied under oath - and they still treat him just short of God. To this day, they repeat the lie it was "impeachment over a blow job."
Besides, congress has better things to do with their time than be distracted by a totally meaningless gesture.
It's not meaningless. To be an impeached President has to be embarrassing.
Quote from: Solar on May 25, 2018, 02:19:45 PM
So you're saying Congress shirk its duties?
Congress has a duty to enforce the law, it's why we elect these sum.
Ummmm, no....
We elect Congress to WRITE the law.
The EXECUTIVE branch enforces. Which I would like to see in spades: find every possible infraction against Obama and send him to club fed for a few decades. (To Taxed: that would also pretty much jam up any possibility for the O-tard to either run for some other public office, OR practice law.)
Besides, though we disagree, I still say there is no "duty" to impeach a president that is no longer in office. Far better (and far more possible) to convict him as a citizen.
Quote from: taxed on May 25, 2018, 05:02:44 PM
I'm thinking his crimes will go the military tribunal route.
No it isn't. Impeach him so he can't run for office, and can't pretend he practices law anymore, and give him a big 'ol fat asterisk next to his name in the history books.
Who cares what libs think?
I thought it was meaningless?
It's not meaningless. To be an impeached President has to be embarrassing.
You can only impeach someone who holds a public office at the time. Since Obama no longer holds a public office, he can't be impeached. An impeached President is also not barred from holding public office. Only a President who has been impeached by the House and convicted by the Senate (in other words, removed from office) is barred from holding public office again. Clinton is barred from running for President again because the 22nd Amendment only allows a President to serve two terms, not because he was impeached. If Clinton wanted, he could run for Congress because he is not barred from holding a public office. He would not be the first former President to join Congress, if he did choose to run.
Since the President is a civilian, according to the Supreme Court, they cannot be tried by military tribunal.
Quote from: zewazir on May 25, 2018, 05:34:33 PM
Ummmm, no....
We elect Congress to WRITE the law.
Besides, though we disagree, I still say there is no "duty" to impeach a president that is no longer in office. Far better (and far more possible) to convict him as a citizen.
That is the primary function of Congress. However, the House brings impeachment charges against federal officials as part of its oversight and investigatory responsibilities. (Keyword, (
Responsibilities)
It is the House of Representative's duty to present the charges, and the Senate's duty to try the case. Another Keyword, (
DUTY)
Quote from: |Glitch| on May 25, 2018, 05:37:09 PM
You can only impeach someone who holds a public office at the time.
Say What? Did you not read my earlier post on precedence?
Since Obama no longer holds a public office, he can't be impeached. I repeat, there is precedence!
QuoteAn impeached President is also not barred from holding public office.
That depends on the outcome of the Impeachment. Bill Clinton was barred from ever practicing law.
QuoteOnly a President who has been impeached by the House and convicted by the Senate (in other words, removed from office) is barred from holding public office again. Clinton is barred from running for President again because the 22nd Amendment only allows a President to serve two terms, not because he was impeached. If Clinton wanted, he could run for Congress because he is not barred from holding a public office. He would not be the first former President to join Congress, if he did choose to run.
That would depend completely on the outcome of an Impeachment.
QuoteSince the President is a civilian, according to the Supreme Court, they cannot be tried by military tribunal.
Strawman much? No one ever said such a thing.
Quote from: Solar on May 25, 2018, 06:24:45 PM
That is the primary function of Congress. However, the House brings impeachment charges against federal officials as part of its oversight and investigatory responsibilities. (Keyword, (Responsibilities)
It is the House of Representative's duty to present the charges, and the Senate's duty to try the case. Another Keyword, (DUTY)
You missed the part "...that is no longer in office." No, they do not have a responsibility, nor duty to impeach a president who is no longer in office.
Again, the ONLY purpose of impeachment under our Constitution is to remove an elected official from federal office. It is spelled out VERY clearly, even to the point of mentioning that the DOJ has the duty of actually prosecuting any crime after the impeachment/conviction process has removed the accused from office.
Obama no longer holds office. So impeachment is an empty gesture even if it could be done. Impeachment would be an absolutely ASININE way of going after him for the crimes he committed while in office. Let Session wake up from his hibernation and use the DOJ to prosecute.
It would also serve no practical purpose to go after him for any non-criminal abuses of presidential authority. Especially since conviction by the senate simply would never happen. Leave the bread-and-circuses crap to the progs.
(BTW: Clinton was NOT barred from ever practicing law as an outcome of his impeachment. He was not convicted by the Senate. He WAS, however, barred from practicing law for a period of five years because a CRIMINAL court found him guilty of perjury - AFTER he left office.)
Quote from: CasND on May 24, 2018, 10:34:15 AM
Cool, now I can fudge my log book with no consequences..Keep on Truckin' and Drive on... :thumbsup:
TO GLITCH; still new at this. Obama was under FBI investigation, (SELLING/BUYING SENATOR SEAT) when VOTER FRAUD, was used to get in Obama. SPAIN counted the votes by a co., held partly by SOROS. FRAUD. OBAMA ON CORRUPT LIST SINCE 2006, & EVER YEAR AFTER THAT. FAST & FURIOUS, BENGHAZI, & MORE. GLITCH,,,YOU ARE NOT INFORMED. Obama like CLINTOONS,,,ALSO HAS A KILL LIST.
Quote from: AndyJackson on May 22, 2018, 03:02:49 PM
But......... in the great fantasy in my mind........... the deep state goes overboard and takes a mis-aimed pot shot at somebody in Trump's family..........
Trump loses his mind and just whips out -
-Prosecution of every last democrat / obama hack that he has the goods on
-McCain and RINO pals too
-Blows out the JFK truth
-Goes full bore on Awans, Seth Rich, Sex Slush Fund, Clinton Foundation, Weiner Laptop, F & F, Benghazi, Iran Cash
-Drops the bomb on the false flag business and Arkanside industry
+ 20 other things just like this
A guy can dream .........
I'm dreaming of McCain's DEATH.
Although I'll bet it is PAINFUL to linger, DIE - John - DIE.
Quote from: LegalAmerican on May 25, 2018, 07:57:54 PM
TO GLITCH; still new at this. Obama was under FBI investigation, (SELLING/BUYING SENATOR SEAT) when VOTER FRAUD, was used to get in Obama. SPAIN counted the votes by a co., held partly by SOROS. FRAUD. OBAMA ON CORRUPT LIST SINCE 2006, & EVER YEAR AFTER THAT. FAST & FURIOUS, BENGHAZI, & MORE. GLITCH,,,YOU ARE NOT INFORMED. Obama like CLINTOONS,,,ALSO HAS A KILL LIST.
Actually, it was Governor Rod Blagojevich who was under investigation for selling Obama's Senate seat, and he was impeached, charged, tried, and convicted of federal corruption charges.
With regard to voter fraud, you are talking about Chicago after all. One of the most corrupt cities in the country. Of course there was massive voter fraud. There will always be massive voter fraud when it comes to electing Democrats. It is the only way they can win and keep their stranglehold on their shit-hole cities.
Fast & Furious was AG Holder's fiasco. AG Sessions should be providing all the documentation to Congress about Fast & Furious that AG Holder refused to do, but he isn't. Why is AG Sessions protecting AG Holder and AG Lynch?
Benghazi was Hillary's screw-up, and again AG Sessions does absolutely nothing with regard to the multiple investigations into Hillary.
Sounds to me like your complaint should be with AG Sessions, not me. It is AG Sessions who is protecting Obama, Hillary, Holder, and Lynch, not I.
I am actually very well informed, better than you it would appear. Which is how I know that you cannot impeach someone who is no longer in public office.
Quote from: |Glitch| on May 25, 2018, 08:51:38 PM
Actually, it was Governor Rod Blagojevich who was under investigation for selling Obama's Senate seat, and he was impeached, charged, tried, and convicted of federal corruption charges.
With regard to voter fraud, you are talking about Chicago after all. One of the most corrupt cities in the country. Of course there was massive voter fraud. There will always be massive voter fraud when it comes to electing Democrats. It is the only way they can win and keep their stranglehold on their shit-hole cities.
Fast & Furious was AG Holder's fiasco. AG Sessions should be providing all the documentation to Congress about Fast & Furious that AG Holder refused to do, but he isn't. Why is AG Sessions protecting AG Holder and AG Lynch?
Benghazi was Hillary's screw-up, and again AG Sessions does absolutely nothing with regard to the multiple investigations into Hillary.
Sounds to me like your complaint should be with AG Sessions, not me. It is AG Sessions who is protecting Obama, Hillary, Holder, and Lynch, not I.
I am actually very well informed. Which is how I know that you cannot impeach someone who is no longer in public office.
Wrong!
Quote from: zewazir on May 25, 2018, 07:26:11 PM
You missed the part "...that is no longer in office."
I showed you precedent.
QuoteNo, they do not have a responsibility, nor duty to impeach a president who is no longer in office.
They took an oath to uphold the Constitution.
QuoteAgain, the ONLY purpose of impeachment under our Constitution is to remove an elected official from federal office.
I suggest you read the actual article.
QuoteIt is spelled out VERY clearly, even to the point of mentioning that the DOJ has the duty of actually prosecuting any crime after the impeachment/conviction process has removed the accused from office.
Impeachment in the United States is an enumerated power of the legislature that allows formal charges to be brought against a civil officer of government for crimes alleged to have been committed.
Thank on that for a moment.
QuoteObama no longer holds office. So impeachment is an empty gesture even if it could be done. Impeachment would be an absolutely ASININE way of going after him for the crimes he committed while in office. Let Session wake up from his hibernation and use the DOJ to prosecute.
It would also serve no practical purpose to go after him for any non-criminal abuses of presidential authority. Especially since conviction by the senate simply would never happen. Leave the bread-and-circuses crap to the progs.
How about we leave that decision to Congress?
Quote(BTW: Clinton was NOT barred from ever practicing law as an outcome of his impeachment. He was not convicted by the Senate. He WAS, however, barred from practicing law for a period of five years because a CRIMINAL court found him guilty of perjury - AFTER he left office.)
Wrong, SCOTUS stripped him of practicing law, ever again. All because of his Impeachment.
Know what? This whole discussion is moot. Obama isn't going to be impeached, no matter what some legal theorists claim. Additionally, the chances of Obama being criminally charged in ANY type of legal formality is remote in the extreme.
Point of fact, though: Clinton resigned from the Supreme Court Bar, rather than face censure by the court for his perjury. It was the fact that he faced perjury charges once he left the presidency, NOT the impeachment, that led to that situation. (How could ANY court punish someone for something which they were NOT convicted? Clinton was IMPEACHED, not convicted!) . BUT, post presidency he faced criminal charges for perjury and obstruction of justice, and it was to avoid facing those charges he resigned from the SC Bar.
Also, his last day in office he entered into an agreement with the state of Arkansas to accept a five-year suspension of his license to practice law in that state. Again, the agreement was to avoid criminal charges for perjury once he was no longer president. Those charges were actually on the books of the Arkansas DAs office, waiting for Bush's inauguration. They were, of course, never formally brought due to the agreement.
Ultimately, though, Clinton was NOT disbarred, not even from SCOTUS, and could, conceivably, reapply to practice law if he wanted to. He would undoubtedly be turned down if he reapplied to the Supreme Court Bar, but he is not banned from trying.
Quote from: zewazir on May 25, 2018, 10:01:27 PM
Know what? This whole discussion is moot. Obama isn't going to be impeached, no matter what some legal theorists claim. Additionally, the chances of Obama being criminally charged in ANY type of legal formality is remote in the extreme.
Point of fact, though: Clinton resigned from the Supreme Court Bar, rather than face censure by the court for his perjury. It was the fact that he faced perjury charges once he left the presidency, NOT the impeachment, that led to that situation. (How could ANY court punish someone for something which they were NOT convicted? Clinton was IMPEACHED, not convicted!) . BUT, post presidency he faced criminal charges for perjury and obstruction of justice, and it was to avoid facing those charges he resigned from the SC Bar.
Also, his last day in office he entered into an agreement with the state of Arkansas to accept a five-year suspension of his license to practice law in that state. Again, the agreement was to avoid criminal charges for perjury once he was no longer president. Those charges were actually on the books of the Arkansas DAs office, waiting for Bush's inauguration. They were, of course, never formally brought due to the agreement.
Ultimately, though, Clinton was NOT disbarred, not even from SCOTUS, and could, conceivably, reapply to practice law if he wanted to. He would undoubtedly be turned down if he reapplied to the Supreme Court Bar, but he is not banned from trying.
`
There's a good reason you get challenged on this forum, you have a bad habit of speaking as the final word of authority on any given subject, as if daring challenge as a form of defense in hopes of suppressing debate to claim some form of a win, and it comes off as arrogant.
You've been here long enough to know that when posting, it better be factual, so choose your words wisely or they will be challenged, as I did here.
I'm not going to badger you over semantics, but I suggest you lose that attitude or expect to be challenged on your every post.
It's OK to be wrong, but when you post as authority, your inaccuracies reflect poorly on this forum.
Quote from: Solar on May 26, 2018, 06:35:15 AM
`
There's a good reason you get challenged on this forum, you have a bad habit of speaking as the final word of authority on any given subject, as if daring challenge as a form of defense in hopes of suppressing debate to claim some form of a win, and it comes off as arrogant.
You've been here long enough to know that when posting, it better be factual, so choose your words wisely or they will be challenged, as I did here.
I'm not going to badger you over semantics, but I suggest you lose that attitude or expect to be challenged on your every post.
It's OK to be wrong, but when you post as authority, your inaccuracies reflect poorly on this forum.
And you don't?
Gee, thank you that it's "OK to be wrong" - But I am the one coming across as arrogant? Uh huh.
You ASSUME that I am the one in the wrong, even absolutely declaring it as so. But the only way to prove me wrong is if Obama ends up being impeached. (I won't be holding my breath.)
Meanwhile, on which points have I been "inaccurate" in this discussion?
FACT: the Constitution describes the impeachment process.
FACT: the House of Representatives is assigned the authority to impeach.
FACT: Impeachment is the process of officially declaring charges against a sitting elected official.
FACT: The Senate is assigned the authority to try any impeachment the House brings to them.
FACT: The Senate can only convict on a 2/3 majority vote.
FACT: the Constitution LIMITS the consequence of conviction to removal from office, and a ban from holding future office.
FACT: The Constitution ALSO declares that any additional criminal proceeding are relegated to the regular courts system. (This is an important inclusion, since otherwise removal from office would be the end of the whole thing, no matter the crime for which an elected official was impeached and convicted.)
FACT: Obama is no longer in office. (For which many of us thanks the Lord!!)
FACT: Any conviction resulting from impeachment can only remove Obama an office which HE NO LONGER HOLDS.
FACT: The only person to be impeached when no longer in office (due to resignation) occurred under circumstances in which the articles of impeachment had
already been declared before the resignation.
Logical conclusion: Impeachment against Obama is a moot process since it would only serve to remove him from an office he no longer holds; and that only if he were convicted in the Senate, which we all know would never happen.
As for Clinton's impeachment:
FACT: Clinton was impeached BUT NOT CONVICTED.
FACT: No one can be penalized for a criminal or civil charge of which they have not been convicted.
FACT: Clinton RESIGNED from the SC Bar - he was not banned by the SC.
FACT: Clinton agreed to accept a 5-year suspension of his right to practice law in Arkansas, he was NOT disbarred.
FACT: Both of these were the result of facing perjury charges AFTER he left office.
FACT: Clinton ADMITTED to the perjury; while still in office, but AFTER the Senate vote failed to convict him of the charges brought against him by the impeachment.
Logical conclusion: Leaving the SC Bar, and accepting a 5-year suspension of license to practice were NOT the result of his impeachment, because he was NOT CONVICTED after his impeachment.
Those are the FACTS. Not guesses. Not "arrogant" declarations. but facts which are easily verifiable using any variety of sources.
Quote from: zewazir on May 26, 2018, 11:38:27 AM
And you don't?
Gee, thank you that it's "OK to be wrong" - But I am the one coming across as arrogant? Uh huh.
You ASSUME that I am the one in the wrong, even absolutely declaring it as so. But the only way to prove me wrong is if Obama ends up being impeached. (I won't be holding my breath.)
Meanwhile, on which points have I been "inaccurate" in this discussion?
FACT: the Constitution describes the impeachment process.
FACT: the House of Representatives is assigned the authority to impeach.
FACT: Impeachment is the process of officially declaring charges against a sitting elected official.
FACT: The Senate is assigned the authority to try any impeachment the House brings to them.
FACT: The Senate can only convict on a 2/3 majority vote.
FACT: the Constitution LIMITS the consequence of conviction to removal from office, and a ban from holding future office.
FACT: The Constitution ALSO declares that any additional criminal proceeding are relegated to the regular courts system. (This is an important inclusion, since otherwise removal from office would be the end of the whole thing, no matter the crime for which an elected official was impeached and convicted.)
FACT: Obama is no longer in office. (For which many of us thanks the Lord!!)
FACT: Any conviction resulting from impeachment can only remove Obama an office which HE NO LONGER HOLDS.
FACT: The only person to be impeached when no longer in office (due to resignation) occurred under circumstances in which the articles of impeachment had already been declared before the resignation.
Logical conclusion: Impeachment against Obama is a moot process since it would only serve to remove him from an office he no longer holds; and that only if he were convicted in the Senate, which we all know would never happen.
As for Clinton's impeachment:
FACT: Clinton was impeached BUT NOT CONVICTED.
FACT: No one can be penalized for a criminal or civil charge of which they have not been convicted.
FACT: Clinton RESIGNED from the SC Bar - he was not banned by the SC.
FACT: Clinton agreed to accept a 5-year suspension of his right to practice law in Arkansas, he was NOT disbarred.
FACT: Both of these were the result of facing perjury charges AFTER he left office.
FACT: Clinton ADMITTED to the perjury; while still in office, but AFTER the Senate vote failed to convict him of the charges brought against him by the impeachment.
Logical conclusion: Leaving the SC Bar, and accepting a 5-year suspension of license to practice were NOT the result of his impeachment, because he was NOT CONVICTED after his impeachment.
Those are the FACTS. Not guesses. Not "arrogant" declarations. but facts which are easily verifiable using any variety of sources.
These are the hoops you have to jump through in order to educate the civically illiterate. If we still had something as basic as high school civics this incredibly ignorant thread wouldn't exist.
Quote from: zewazir on May 26, 2018, 11:38:27 AM
And you don't?
Gee, thank you that it's "OK to be wrong" - But I am the one coming across as arrogant? Uh huh.
I have no doubt I'm perceived as such, but I always back up my claims with actual facts.
QuoteYou ASSUME that I am the one in the wrong, even absolutely declaring it as so. But the only way to prove me wrong is if Obama ends up being impeached. (I won't be holding my breath.)
You also claimed he could not be Impeached, which was wrong, yet you continue to state as fact to the contrary, which is why you were called out.
It may seem trivial to you, but our audience is here looking for the truth, and your posting otherwise is beyond misleading, it's outright lying.
Case in point, your own words, and you continue to post ignoring the facts. Impeachment is not necessarily about removing the individual from office, as we've seen with Bill Clinton.
Quote from: zewazir on May 24, 2018, 05:20:03 PM
HOWEVER, since the ONLY POSSIBLE RESULT of impeachment under our Constitution (The Brits have their own system, but it isn't ours, is it?) is removal from office, then there is no purpose, nor any validity, in the impeachment of a former president who is no longer in office.
Therefore, any claim that Obama can still be impeached is, quite simply WRONG.
One more time...
On March 2, 1876, just minutes before the House of Representatives was scheduled to vote on articles of impeachment, Belknap raced to the White House, handed Grant his resignation, and burst into tears.
This failed to stop the House. Later that day, members voted unanimously to send the Senate five articles of impeachment, charging Belknap with "criminally disregarding his duty as Secretary of War and basely prostituting his high office to his lust for private gain."
The Senate convened its trial in early April, with Belknap present, after agreeing that it retained impeachment jurisdiction over former government officials. https://www.senate.gov/artandhistory/history/minute/War_Secretarys_Impeachment_Trial.htm
QuoteFACT: the Constitution describes the impeachment process.
FACT: the House of Representatives is assigned the authority to impeach.
FACT: Impeachment is the process of officially declaring charges against a sitting elected official.
FACT: The Senate is assigned the authority to try any impeachment the House brings to them.
FACT: The Senate can only convict on a 2/3 majority vote.
FACT: the Constitution LIMITS the consequence of conviction to removal from office, and a ban from holding future office.
FACT: The Constitution ALSO declares that any additional criminal proceeding are relegated to the regular courts system. (This is an important inclusion, since otherwise removal from office would be the end of the whole thing, no matter the crime for which an elected official was impeached and convicted.)
FACT: Obama is no longer in office. (For which many of us thanks the Lord!!)
FACT: Any conviction resulting from impeachment can only remove Obama an office which HE NO LONGER HOLDS.
FACT: The only person to be impeached when no longer in office (due to resignation) occurred under circumstances in which the articles of impeachment had already been declared before the resignation.
Logical conclusion: Impeachment against Obama is a moot process since it would only serve to remove him from an office he no longer holds; and that only if he were convicted in the Senate, which we all know would never happen.
As for Clinton's impeachment:
FACT: Clinton was impeached BUT NOT CONVICTED.
FACT: No one can be penalized for a criminal or civil charge of which they have not been convicted.
FACT: Clinton RESIGNED from the SC Bar - he was not banned by the SC.
FACT: Clinton agreed to accept a 5-year suspension of his right to practice law in Arkansas, he was NOT disbarred.
FACT: Both of these were the result of facing perjury charges AFTER he left office.
FACT: Clinton ADMITTED to the perjury; while still in office, but AFTER the Senate vote failed to convict him of the charges brought against him by the impeachment.
No one is arguing against the facts. The argument is your "Logical conclusion", that the process would be moot. How is it moot if he is banned from ever again holding office?
You are not entitled to your own facts, and that is how you present them.
QuoteLogical conclusion: Leaving the SC Bar, and accepting a 5-year suspension of license to practice were NOT the result of his impeachment, because he was NOT CONVICTED after his impeachment.
Those are the FACTS. Not guesses. Not "arrogant" declarations. but facts which are easily verifiable using any variety of sources.
Lawyers for former President Bill Clinton Friday will try to persuade the U.S. Supreme Court not to disbar their client, despite false statements he made about his relationship with Monica Lewinsky.
Nearly a year after leaving office, Clinton is still hounded by his sex scandal with Lewinsky and the statements he made about that relationship while defending himself in the Paula Jones sexual harassment lawsuit.
Now, Clinton faces possible disbarment from the highest court in the land. He was forced to surrender his law license and accept disbarment from Arkansas courts in January as part of a deal brokered through the Independent Counsel investigating the Jones-Lewinsky case.
The Supreme Court decided to seek Clinton's disbarment from the high court on Oct. 1 and gave Clinton's legal defense forty days to argue why he shouldn't be disbarred. The forty-day period ends Friday.
On April 12, 1999, Wright found Clinton in contempt of court for "intentionally false" testimony in Jones v. Clinton, fined him $90,000, and referred the case to the Arkansas Supreme Court's Committee on Professional Conduct, as Clinton still possessed a law license in Arkansas.
The Arkansas Supreme Court suspended Clinton's Arkansas law license in April 2000. On January 19, 2001, Clinton agreed to a five-year suspension and a $25,000 fine in order to avoid disbarment and to end the investigation of Independent Counsel Robert Ray (Starr's successor). On October 1, 2001, Clinton's U.S. Supreme Court law license was suspended, with 40 days to contest his disbarment. On November 9, 2001, the last day for Clinton to contest the disbarment, he opted to resign from the Supreme Court Bar, surrendering his license, rather than facing penalties related to disbarment.
https://www.cnsnews.com/news/article/clinton-faces-disbarment-supreme-court
Quote from: Solar on May 26, 2018, 01:54:53 PM
I have no doubt I'm perceived as such, but I always back up my claims with actual facts.
You also claimed he could not be Impeached, which was wrong, yet you continue to state as fact to the contrary, which is why you were called out.
It may seem trivial to you, but our audience is here looking for the truth, and your posting otherwise is beyond misleading, it's outright lying.
Case in point, your own words, and you continue to post ignoring the facts. Impeachment is not necessarily about removing the individual from office, as we've seen with Bill Clinton.
One more time...
On March 2, 1876, just minutes before the House of Representatives was scheduled to vote on articles of impeachment, Belknap raced to the White House, handed Grant his resignation, and burst into tears.
This failed to stop the House. Later that day, members voted unanimously to send the Senate five articles of impeachment, charging Belknap with "criminally disregarding his duty as Secretary of War and basely prostituting his high office to his lust for private gain."
The Senate convened its trial in early April, with Belknap present, after agreeing that it retained impeachment jurisdiction over former government officials.
https://www.senate.gov/artandhistory/history/minute/War_Secretarys_Impeachment_Trial.htm
No one is arguing against the facts. The argument is your "Logical conclusion", that the process would be moot. How is it moot if he is banned from ever again holding office?
You are not entitled to your own facts, and that is how you present them.
Lawyers for former President Bill Clinton Friday will try to persuade the U.S. Supreme Court not to disbar their client, despite false statements he made about his relationship with Monica Lewinsky.
Nearly a year after leaving office, Clinton is still hounded by his sex scandal with Lewinsky and the statements he made about that relationship while defending himself in the Paula Jones sexual harassment lawsuit.
Now, Clinton faces possible disbarment from the highest court in the land. He was forced to surrender his law license and accept disbarment from Arkansas courts in January as part of a deal brokered through the Independent Counsel investigating the Jones-Lewinsky case.
The Supreme Court decided to seek Clinton's disbarment from the high court on Oct. 1 and gave Clinton's legal defense forty days to argue why he shouldn't be disbarred. The forty-day period ends Friday.
On April 12, 1999, Wright found Clinton in contempt of court for "intentionally false" testimony in Jones v. Clinton, fined him $90,000, and referred the case to the Arkansas Supreme Court's Committee on Professional Conduct, as Clinton still possessed a law license in Arkansas.
The Arkansas Supreme Court suspended Clinton's Arkansas law license in April 2000. On January 19, 2001, Clinton agreed to a five-year suspension and a $25,000 fine in order to avoid disbarment and to end the investigation of Independent Counsel Robert Ray (Starr's successor). On October 1, 2001, Clinton's U.S. Supreme Court law license was suspended, with 40 days to contest his disbarment. On November 9, 2001, the last day for Clinton to contest the disbarment, he opted to resign from the Supreme Court Bar, surrendering his license, rather than facing penalties related to disbarment.
https://www.cnsnews.com/news/article/clinton-faces-disbarment-supreme-court
Fuck you and the piece of shit horse you ride. There was a reason I gave this site a break several months ago - because you are nothing less than an arrogant ass with delusions of perfect godhood.
You are wrong. Period. By your own source, the only individual to be impeached after resigning his office was impeached because they WERE ALREADY AT THE POINT OF VOTING when belknap handed in his resignation. So, they voted anyway, probably to tell Belknap it was too little, too late. How is that "precedence" for impeaching someone whose term in office EXPIRED 16 months ago? Not resigned in anticipation of being kicked out - but EXPIRED. You hang on your own misguided interpretation of history while calling others liars?
Not to mention, your entire source about Clinton backs up everything I said. He resigned from the SC Bar, he accepted suspension of his license for 5 years, all because he was under criminal charges for perjury with regard to his relationship with Lewinsky. Those are criminal charges OUTSIDE of the impeachment process for which Clinton WAS NOT CONVICTED. Those penalties were NOT part of his impeachment, regardless of how you try to spin the facts like the liberal media to fit your view.
Don't bother to send me to time out, asshole. Your shit isn't worth bothering with.
Quote from: zewazir on May 26, 2018, 02:19:29 PM
Fuck you and the piece of shit horse you ride. There was a reason I gave this site a break several months ago - because you are nothing less than an arrogant ass with delusions of perfect godhood.
You are wrong. Period. By your own source, the only individual to be impeached after resigning his office was impeached because they WERE ALREADY AT THE POINT OF VOTING when belknap handed in his resignation. So, they voted anyway, probably to tell Belknap it was too little, too late. How is that "precedence" for impeaching someone whose term in office EXPIRED 16 months ago? Not resigned in anticipation of being kicked out - but EXPIRED. You hang on your own misguided interpretation of history while calling others liars?
Not to mention, your entire source about Clinton backs up everything I said. He resigned from the SC Bar, he accepted suspension of his license for 5 years, all because he was under criminal charges for perjury with regard to his relationship with Lewinsky. Those are criminal charges OUTSIDE of the impeachment process for which Clinton WAS NOT CONVICTED. Those penalties were NOT part of his impeachment, regardless of how you try to spin the facts like the liberal media to fit your view.
Don't bother to send me to time out, asshole. Your shit isn't worth bothering with.
Why didn't the impeachment stop after he resigned? Why did they vote anyway?
Quote from: Solar on May 26, 2018, 06:35:15 AM
`
There's a good reason you get challenged on this forum, you have a bad habit of speaking as the final word of authority on any given subject, as if daring challenge as a form of defense in hopes of suppressing debate to claim some form of a win, and it comes off as arrogant.
You've been here long enough to know that when posting, it better be factual, so choose your words wisely or they will be challenged, as I did here.
I'm not going to badger you over semantics, but I suggest you lose that attitude or expect to be challenged on your every post.
It's OK to be wrong, but when you post as authority, your inaccuracies reflect poorly on this forum.
I believe he is an islamist. Hence support of hussein, attitude, we are the infidel.
Quote from: LegalAmerican on May 26, 2018, 08:01:37 PM
I believe he is an islamist. Hence support of hussein, attitude, we are the infidel.
You have it completely wrong, as usual. It is because you and Solar are civically illiterate and don't know any better. You might want to consider learning some basic grade school civics. Like actually reading the US Constitution.
Quote from: zewazir on May 26, 2018, 02:19:29 PM
Fuck you and the piece of shit horse you ride. There was a reason I gave this site a break several months ago - because you are nothing less than an arrogant ass with delusions of perfect godhood.
You are wrong. Period. By your own source, the only individual to be impeached after resigning his office was impeached because they WERE ALREADY AT THE POINT OF VOTING when belknap handed in his resignation. So, they voted anyway, probably to tell Belknap it was too little, too late. How is that "precedence" for impeaching someone whose term in office EXPIRED 16 months ago? Not resigned in anticipation of being kicked out - but EXPIRED. You hang on your own misguided interpretation of history while calling others liars?
Not to mention, your entire source about Clinton backs up everything I said. He resigned from the SC Bar, he accepted suspension of his license for 5 years, all because he was under criminal charges for perjury with regard to his relationship with Lewinsky. Those are criminal charges OUTSIDE of the impeachment process for which Clinton WAS NOT CONVICTED. Those penalties were NOT part of his impeachment, regardless of how you try to spin the facts like the liberal media to fit your view.
Don't bother to send me to time out, asshole. Your shit isn't worth bothering with.
Well there it is again, you lose a debate and have a meltdown like some lib kid. But I always find it interesting, how you claimed a moral high ground in the past because you're a follower of Jesus or Christianity, then I get these kinds of foul mouthed, ungrounded responses one expects to see from an immature preteen, or someone with some serious personal problems.
I see no reason to address the rest of your nonsense, since you and I both know you haven't the ability to prove your BS, which is why the meltdown in the first place, you knew you bit off more than you were capable of handling, but your impetuous arrogance led ego, just couldn't let it go, so you kept digging and when you realized you didn't bring along enough rope to get out of the hole you were digging, you lashed out.
I get it, you're still grappling with that whole puberty thing and it's a bitch, but hang in there cupcake, you'll soon be out of Moms basement after 30+ years of weening.
Makes me wonder if that was you in the news recently?
Hey, I'm only taunting you for one reason, and one reason only, it's to get you to reflect on the moment. It was only a debate on issues that haven't even come to fruition, so it truth it's irrelevant yet you allowed your emotions to get the better of you and in the process, instantly won the debate through forfeit.
I only point this out so you can work on your short fuse, because if a simple debate over something that may never even come to fruition can set you off like this, you could find yourself up for murder over a road rage incident and your life would be over, because we both know this isn't the first time you've acted like a spoiled kid.
Dude, seek help for that anger issue, it may even be physical and curable.
Quote from: taxed on May 26, 2018, 06:07:59 PM
Why didn't the impeachment stop after he resigned? Why did they vote anyway?
Watch out, he'll hold his breath if we're not careful.
Quote from: LegalAmerican on May 26, 2018, 08:01:37 PM
I believe he is an islamist. Hence support of hussein, attitude, we are the infidel.
Nah, actually Z is a good guy, he just has some serious personal problems to deal with, like growing up. :biggrin:
Quote from: Solar on May 27, 2018, 04:24:05 AM
Watch out, he'll hold his breath if we're not careful.
I'm waiting for them to make the case, but they keep leaving it open.
Quote from: taxed on May 27, 2018, 11:09:58 PM
I'm waiting for them to make the case, but they keep leaving it open.
I'm guessing because they would rather kick the can down the road than actually do their jobs.
They know quite well what the law is and this is a gray area they don't want to address.
Quote from: taxed on May 27, 2018, 11:09:58 PM
I'm waiting for them to make the case, but they keep leaving it open.
The case was made. It only requires a reading of Article I, Section 3, Clause 7 of the US Constitution and the ability to comprehend what it says.
It is a stupid argument. You simply cannot impeach anyone who is not currently holding a public office. So this entire thread is a waste of time and based solely on ignorance of the US Constitution.