JUDICIAL WATCH: 'OBAMA CAN STILL BE IMPEACHED'

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

Previous topic - Next topic

taxed

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.
#PureBlood #TrumpWon

walkstall

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

Always remember "Feelings Aren't Facts."

zewazir

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.

Solar

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.
Official Trump Cult Member

#WWG1WGA

Q PATRIOT!!!

taxed

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?
#PureBlood #TrumpWon

zewazir

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.

walkstall

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. 
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: 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.
Official Trump Cult Member

#WWG1WGA

Q PATRIOT!!!

taxed

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.
#PureBlood #TrumpWon

zewazir

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.

|Glitch|

#55
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.

Solar

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)
Official Trump Cult Member

#WWG1WGA

Q PATRIOT!!!

Solar

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.
Official Trump Cult Member

#WWG1WGA

Q PATRIOT!!!

zewazir

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.)

LegalAmerican

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.