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.   

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!