JUDICIAL WATCH: 'OBAMA CAN STILL BE IMPEACHED'

Started by Solar, May 22, 2018, 10:15:30 AM

Previous topic - Next topic

AndyJackson

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.

taxed

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.
#PureBlood #TrumpWon

|Glitch|

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.

|Glitch|

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.

walkstall

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.
A politician thinks of the next election. A statesman, of the next generation.- James Freeman Clarke

Always remember "Feelings Aren't Facts."

Solar

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?
Official Trump Cult Member

#WWG1WGA

Q PATRIOT!!!

Solar

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.

Official Trump Cult Member

#WWG1WGA

Q PATRIOT!!!

|Glitch|

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.


AndyJackson

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.

|Glitch|

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:

CasND

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:

Solar

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?

Official Trump Cult Member

#WWG1WGA

Q PATRIOT!!!

Solar

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!
Official Trump Cult Member

#WWG1WGA

Q PATRIOT!!!

Possum

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

zewazir

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.)