It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

The door to impeachement swings WIDE open! Treasonous acts under investigation!

page: 10
70
<< 7  8  9    11 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Dec, 19 2009 @ 12:20 PM
link   
Let us look shall we?

Obviously the title of this thread is a show of what you want. It is titled:

The door to impeachement swings WIDE open! Treasonous acts under investigation!



So, obviously, bias is intended within the thread headline.

Further enhancing this bias is the titles of the OP sources of information which do not correlate with the OP headline.

Obama advisers split over bribes for the Taliban


Source: www.smh.com.au...

Nothing in this article sources treason charges being investigated against the President.

The next article has the headline of:

Congress Probes Alleged U.S. Bribes to Afghan Warlords


Source: www.foxnews.com...

Again, not an article about treasonous acts on the President's part. Yet, your OP title clearly implies that this is the case.

Third and final link in your OP has the headline of:

Taliban leader rejects U.S. attempts to lure away fighters with money


Source:www.cnn.com...

Again, no charges or investigation against the President on counts of treason mentioned. However somehow, We are to believe that his treasonous acts are under investigation. Hmmm, Do I smell Bias?

In fact out of the links you posted, the only time treason is mentioned is by you yourself.


Originally posted by Libertygal
Has Obama unwittingly, -openly - exposed his agenda and opened the door for impeachment based on treason?



Originally posted by Libertygal
So, if true, the president is now accused of giving aid and comfort to the enemy, the one element needed to meet the definition of treason. Unintentional? I don't *think* so.



Originally posted by Libertygal
Money buys everything, huh? Even a one way ticket to impeachment for a treasonous president?


Not one of these articles cited that the president was being investigated for treason, not even the FOX article. But apparently to you they were.

Post by Libertygal

You lump me in with "many others", then go on to say it is silly to think "every action should result in impeachment".

I challenge you, since you are making this about the poster, to show me where I have pointed to, or supported "every action" in terms of impeachment.

In fact, I challenge you to show me, where in this thread, I have supported *this* action as one for impeachment.


None of the articles that the you the OP had used had the words Impeachment, or Treason in them, yet, somehow you managed to use both in your title. The tone and quotes that I have quoted you as using also suggest your point that Obama is committing Treason.


Then you go on to attack me, labeling me as having a pathological and sickening condition. I thought personal attacks were against T&C on this board? Yet, you get away with this.

Then you go on to label me as delusional.


I did not say Libertygal is pathological and delusional. I said

It's a pathological sickening condition. Some on this board need to wake up from their own personal delusions and see reality for what it is.


But of course:


You are an idiot. You are the delusional one, a koolaid drinker, and boot kisser. You tow the party line regardless of what it does to our nation, and you are a pathetic excuse for an American.

I figured I may as well join this ad hominem party, and call names, too. I will stoop to your level and make this about the poster and not the post, lets see how far I get.


Even though, I didn't say that YOU were delusional, in fact I did not say that YOU personally thought that every action the president takes should result in impeachment. I said some on this board need to wake up from their own personal delusions.

I did lump you together with everyone that thinks that the President is doing wrong in this country, but it's not an ad hominem attack on you personally. After all I did not stoop to the level of calling you an idiot.

But I'm the idiot.

Fact of the matter I was replying to a statement by someone else and not you, the other poster

post by m khan


Whether or not someone can make headway with an impeachment or treason charge, it should be attempted just to bring attention to the nature of this "endless" war. We should not be there. Even if 911 were not an inside job, there would not be enough connection to Afghanistan to justify being there, and Iraq was purely made up. Now they are pushing for sanctions against Iran. They want to nuke Iran? They want to let Israel bomb bomb Iran? This war is stupid. This war is against America! This war is hurting our country because it was designed to hurt, weaken, destroy America. If charging Obama with treason and threatening to impeach him would publicize this monster and wake people up it would be worth it.


This is the post I was replying to, not yours. But apparently you took offence to my reply to the post quoted above.

I was mainly pointing out that an impeachment trial is not a poll. But you seem to have taken it the wrong way and thus, I had to set you straight.


[edit on 12/19/2009 by whatukno]




posted on Dec, 19 2009 @ 02:02 PM
link   
reply to post by whatukno
 


Good post. I usually don't agree with you, but I thought the same thing about the OP's lack of anything "treason" with the exception of the headline.

That's actually a tactic the ever-so-hated MSM uses as well.



posted on Dec, 19 2009 @ 02:20 PM
link   
Ok, so Bush Sr created Osama and the rest is oil history.
In this case it's no longer about oil because the climate changers are eager to weens us away from the Petro Corp teet to focus their efforts on the next money making corporate scheme.
Think about it, if Iraq was for oil, Afghanistan will be for drugs, so it's quite possible Obama is now creating the next Osama.



posted on Dec, 20 2009 @ 09:34 AM
link   

Originally posted by whatukno
Obviously the title of this thread is a show of what you want. It is titled:


The only thing that is obvious is you are making assumptions.



So, obviously, bias is intended within the thread headline.


Presumtion. Nothing was intended in the headline except to bring up the points within the article that I wished to bring forward for discussion.



Further enhancing this bias is the titles of the OP sources of information which do not correlate with the OP headline.


No, they correlate with my thoughts at the time, and the portion of the article I wished to bring up for discussion. These are called supporting articles, to support my argument this was not "unintentional".



Nothing in this article sources treason charges being investigated against the President.


Not against the President per se, but lets take some quotes from said article and my post:

"The door to impeachement swings WIDE open! Treasonous acts under investigation!

Has Obama unwittingly, -openly - exposed his agenda and opened the door for impeachment based on treason?"

These are my words, treasonous acts are in fact, under investigation.

From the article:


Congress is investigating allegations that U.S. tax dollars are being paid to warlords and the Taliban...

(snip)

If the allegations are true, then the U.S. would be unintentionally involved in a protection racket and indirectly financing the enemy,...

(snip)

Dawkins also downplayed the notion that much of the money flows to the Taliban.




The next article has the headline of:
(snip)
Again, not an article about treasonous acts on the President's part. Yet, your OP title clearly implies that this is the case.
(snip)
Third and final link in your OP has the headline of:
(snip)
Again, no charges or investigation against the President on counts of treason mentioned. However somehow, We are to believe that his treasonous acts are under investigation. Hmmm, Do I smell Bias?

"indirectly financing the enemy"


In fact out of the links you posted, the only time treason is mentioned is by you yourself.


That is correct because the above quote is the definition of treason. "indirectly financing the enemy", and the supporting articles were posted to support my *opinion* that I didn't agree with this being "unintentional", as I stated in the OP quite clearly.

Question. Has he? A point, in fact, THE point, I wished to bring forward for discussion. And?


Originally posted by Libertygal
So, if true, the president is now accused of giving aid and comfort to the enemy, the one element needed to meet the definition of treason. Unintentional? I don't *think* so.


And here is why I posted the supporting articles outlining that this was part of a plan. And?



Originally posted by Libertygal
Money buys everything, huh? Even a one way ticket to impeachment for a treasonous president?


Question. And? This is about paying off the Taliban, and giving aid to the enemy, and that this could be construed as giving aid to the enemy. And?



Not one of these articles cited that the president was being investigated for treason, not even the FOX article. But apparently to you they were.


It is actually an AP article, but hey, who's counting. You say that like, "Wow, not even Fox is saying "treason!". Apparently to me, they raised the question, "Is this giving comfort and aid to the enemy?" That is the only apparent thing I see here. There is indeed an investigation, like it or not.



I did not say Libertygal is pathological and delusional. I said

It's a pathological sickening condition. Some on this board need to wake up from their own personal delusions and see reality for what it is.


But of course:


You are an idiot. You are the delusional one, a koolaid drinker, and boot kisser. You tow the party line regardless of what it does to our nation, and you are a pathetic excuse for an American.

I figured I may as well join this ad hominem party, and call names, too. I will stoop to your level and make this about the poster and not the post, lets see how far I get.


Even though, I didn't say that YOU were delusional, in fact I did not say that YOU personally thought that every action the president takes should result in impeachment. I said some on this board need to wake up from their own personal delusions.


Oh BS, this was nothing more than a generalization of the posters of the thread that you perceived as supportitive of impeachment. You used a generalization because that's how people on ATS get away with making personal attacks on people, it is an indirect attack, and you know it.



I did lump you together with everyone that thinks that the President is doing wrong in this country, but it's not an ad hominem attack on you personally. After all I did not stoop to the level of calling you an idiot.

But I'm the idiot.

Fact of the matter I was replying to a statement by someone else and not you, the other poster


Stop playing games, you and I both know you are smarter than this. The calling you an idiot was illustrative of a point and I know you got that point, else you would not have bothered to reply.

You were using a reply to a post by another poster to attack the OP, the original poster. Are you going to attempt now, to pretend that all along you thought OP meant "other poster", as opposed to original poster?

If you were new to this site, I could understand why you are doing this, but we both know that is not the case, don't we?



This is the post I was replying to, not yours. But apparently you took offence to my reply to the post quoted above.

I was mainly pointing out that an impeachment trial is not a poll. But you seem to have taken it the wrong way and thus, I had to set you straight.


Yes, I took offense because you indirectly attacked me, and you know it. You used a reply to another poster to attack the OP. Lets look now, at the real post in question, shall we?



Articles of Impeachment aren't a freaking survey! It is a serious matter to impeach a sitting president. The OP like many others on this board have a problem with Obama politically, and so think that every action this man takes is grounds to have him removed from office. While it's fine to have political differences and to dislike a politician. It's just silly to think that every action should result in Impeachment or in some cases charges of Treason.

It's a pathological sickening condition. Some on this board need to wake up from their own personal delusions and see reality for what it is.


"The OP (original poster) like many others on this board...."

You made this about me, and this is glaringly obvious. This is a ploy used by many people on this board to obfuscate and get by with making personal attacks on posters they disagree with indirectly. If anything is brought up about it, it is denied as the real intent, but the real intent is obvious. I will use your word, obvious.

Now, instead of making assumptions based on ad hominem, how about you ask me directly, "What was your intent with posting this the way you did? What are your thoughts on the matter? But no, instead, you resort to attacks, modus operendi for you when someone posts something you disagree with.

Now, lets take a look at another thread, one I know you are familiar with:
Obama Treason Charges Advance In Tennessee Grand Jury
www.abovetopsecret.com...

www.abovetopsecret.com...
Your post in this thread.

Set me straight?



posted on Dec, 20 2009 @ 10:05 AM
link   
reply to post by Libertygal
 


Well we will just have to leave it at that won't we? Obviously we don't want to go off topic and start bickering back and forth. My evidence stands on it's own merit, take it for what you will. My comments on the other thread I stand behind as well.

Frankly I completely disagree with you that the President has committed any treasonous action with respect to this topic. If it is your opinion that he has, you certainly are entitled to it, I disagree, and I don't feel that your supporting sources do support your argument in the least.

Now as far as the Ad Hominim attack accusation on your part. I don't feel that I have attacked you personally, I disagree with you, and while yes, I do lump you in with others that disagree with the president, that in and of itself is not an ad hominim attack. If you feel that it is, than please, by all means below each and every post is a button called Alert. Complain to the staff and they will take appropriate action.

Throughout the many debates I have often stood on the side of the president because the people that were accusing him of all sorts of idiocy, routinely fail to bring to the table anything concrete and reliable. In my opinion your OP (Original Post), too has failed to bring forth any credible evidence of treason on the part of the president. I feel that it is wishful thinking on your part. Now in reference to the poster I was originally replying to, I feel that an impeachment trial is not the proper way to run a poll. It's outrageous to think that someone would be so incredulous as to think that an impeachment is the proper response to a president that SOME disagree with.



posted on Dec, 20 2009 @ 10:10 AM
link   

Originally posted by EsSeeEye
reply to post by whatukno
 


Good post. I usually don't agree with you, but I thought the same thing about the OP's lack of anything "treason" with the exception of the headline.

That's actually a tactic the ever-so-hated MSM uses as well.


And here we have another reply to someone that indirectly points a finger at the OP, referring to my "tactics". Grand to see that so many of you are psychoanalysts!

I think it is cute the way so may use third party posts to comment on the OP, it is kind of like, well, I am not even here! Speaking of tactics? You two make a wonderful display.

So lets take a look, and see where this goes, hm?


trea⋅son  /ˈtrizən/ Show Spelled Pronunciation [tree-zuhn] Show IPA
Use treason in a Sentence
See web results for treason
See images of treason
–noun 1. the offense of acting to overthrow one's government or to harm or kill its sovereign.
2. a violation of allegiance to one's sovereign or to one's state.
3. the betrayal of a trust or confidence; breach of faith; treachery.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Origin:
1175–1225; ME tre(i)so(u)n < AF; OF traïson < L trāditiōn- (s. of trāditiō) a handing over, betrayal. See tradition


Synonyms:
1. Treason, sedition mean disloyalty or treachery to one's country or its government. Treason is any attempt to overthrow the government or impair the well-being of a state to which one owes allegiance; the crime of giving aid or comfort to the enemies of one's government. Sedition is any act, writing, speech, etc., directed unlawfully against state authority, the government, or constitution, or calculated to bring it into contempt or to incite others to hostility, ill will or disaffection; it does not amount to treason and therefore is not a capital offense. 2. See disloyalty.


dictionary.reference.com...


There. I even made the pertinent part bold, just so you wouldn't miss it.

Now, lets take a look at what I said in the OP:

"The door to impeachement swings WIDE open! Treasonous acts under investigation!"

Treasonous acts. Oh, you mean like the crime of giving aid or comfort to the enemies of one's government.?

Ok, got it. Under incvestigation?


Congress is investigating allegations that U.S. tax dollars are being paid to warlords and the Taliban for security...


Hm. Would seem so, no? An act. Under investigation. That could be treasonous. Wow, right there in black and white.

But wait!

They threw in a word!


unintentionally



So I posted two, count them, two, supporting articles showing it was not only intentional, but part of the $680 billion dollar spending bill.

I call that intentional.

So, if we remove the word unintentional, which I think I proved we can, based on the two supporting articles (oh, and later I even posted a video link), what does that leave us with?

Wait! I know!



financing the enemy



Come on people. Are you really this slow, or what? Did I seriously have to pick my own post apart, word for word, to try to prove the point I was bringing forward for discussion?

Or is it simply put, you have nothing to say, so lets poke the OP with a stick.

Keep it going though, you are displaying what is disgusting the people that are leaving ATS, and why people are sick of trying to have discussions.


Two such perfect examples, and in one thread! And these are the only two I pointed out. Old Codger chimed in right on time, too. But I give deference to him, he is old. I leave old people alone.


Main Entry: def·er·ence
Pronunciation: \ˈde-fə-rən(t)s, ˈdef-rən(t)s\
Function: noun
Date: 1660
: respect and esteem due a superior or an elder; also : affected or ingratiating regard for another's wishes

synonyms see honor

— in deference to : in consideration of



posted on Dec, 20 2009 @ 10:39 AM
link   

Richard Cheney and American Exceptionalism
by Professor Will Huhn on December 10, 2009

in Constitutional Law, Procedural Due Process, Separation of Powers, Wilson Huhn

In a recent interview with Sean Hannity of Fox News, former Vice-President Richard Cheney referred to President Barack Obama as "this guy who doesn't fully understand or share that view of American exceptionalism that I think most of us believe in," and stated that it would give "aid and comfort to the enemy" to try accused terrorists in federal court. As Al Smith used to say, "Let's look at the record."

In charging the President with "giving aid and comfort to the enemy," Cheney was quoting the Constitution – specifically, Article III, Section 3, Clause 1, which states:

Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying War against them, or in adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort.

Cheney is quite literally claiming that President Obama is committing treason by bringing the al-Qaeda prisoners to trial in criminal court to answer for their crimes.
www.ohioverticals.com...

www.thefoxnation.com...

Cheney: Obama Giving 'Aid and Comfort to the Enemy
MCLEAN, Va. — On the eve of the unveiling of the nation’s new Afghanistan policy, former Vice President Dick Cheney slammed President Barack Obama for projecting “weakness” to adversaries and warned that more workaday Afghans will side with the Taliban if they think the United States is heading for the exits.

In a 90-minute interview at his suburban Washington house, Cheney said the president’s “agonizing” about Afghanistan strategy “has consequences for your forces in the field.”

“I begin to get nervous when I see the commander in chief making decisions apparently for what I would describe as small ‘p’ political reasons, where he’s trying to balance off different competing groups in society,” Cheney said.

“Every time he delays, defers, debates, changes his position, it begins to raise questions: Is the commander in chief really behind what they’ve been asked to do?”

Obama administration officials have complained ever since taking office that they face a series of unpalatable — if not impossible — national security decisions in Afghanistan and Pakistan because of the Bush administration’s unwavering insistence on focusing on Iraq.
(snip)
“One of their top people will be given the opportunity — courtesy of the United States government and the Obama administration — to have a platform from which they can espouse this hateful ideology that they adhere to,” he said. “I think it’s likely to give encouragement — aid and comfort — to the enemy.”

Read the full article here:
www.politico.com...



rawstory.com...
Congress to probe ‘US funding of Taliban’


US may be 'unintentionally involved in vast protection racket': Tierney

Troop surge could backfire if it means more cash for insurgents

A House committee has launched an investigation into claims that US military contractors in Afghanistan are paying the Taliban to guarantee the safety of their transportation convoys, an allegation that could mean American taxpayers are indirectly funding the insurgency that has killed more than 900 American soldiers so far.

“Serious allegations have been [made] that private security providers for US transportation contractors in Afghanistan are regularly paying local warlords and the Taliban for security," said Rep. John Tierney (D-MA), chairman of the Subcommittee on National Security and Foreign Affairs. "After a preliminary inquiry, it has been determined these reports warrant a full-scale subcommittee investigation."

Tierney said that if the allegations are proven to be true, "it would mean that the United States is unintentionally engaged in a vast protection racket and, as such, may be indirectly funding the very insurgents we are trying to fight.”
(snip)
Several days after the Nation report, the Financial Times reported that "Taliban fighters have turned NATO's huge logistics chain into a big source of funds by extorting money from hauliers and kidnapping their drivers for ransom, raising hundreds of thousands of dollars a year, the companies say."

The FT said the bribery problem is adding to a growing "war economy" in Afghanistan, and may in fact cause President Obama's Afghan troop surge to backfire because it will give insurgents more targets for extortion:

The militants' ability to prey on supply lines on both sides of the border shows how the Afghan conflict fuels a self-sustaining war economy in which the boundaries between insurgency, organised crime and banditry are blurred.

The House subcommittee has requested documents from the Pentagon and from eight principal contractors involved in the Host Nation Trucking program, a $2.1-billion initiative that coordinates US military supply lines in Afghanistan, allowing for the shipping of everything from food and water to fuel and ammunition.

A number of progressive activists and politicians have pointed to the allegations of bribery as a sign that the war effort in Afghanistan is misguided. Last week, House Rep. Dennis Kucinich described the alleged schemes as a "racket."

“US contractors are paying US tax dollars to the Taliban in order to protect the delivery of US shipments of US goods to US soldiers so that our soldiers can fight the Taliban," Kucinich said, starkly illustrating the implications of the bribery claims.


So what's the difference? Giving aid and comfort to the enemy by bringing the trials here, or by paying the Taliban, thereby giving aid and comfort.

Why is a presumption on one hand alright, but on the other hand the presumtion is all wrong?

The quote stands.

Giving aid and comfort is the same as

If the allegations are true, then the U.S. would be unintentionally involved in a protection racket and indirectly financing the enemy.


Why is it so outlandish that I point out what that professor pointed out? The words are as obvious as the nose on your face.

As I have stated several times in this thread, this is something I feel repubs will use in an attempt to impeach Obama. This has nothing to do with my personal feelings, and everything to do with my perception of what I read.

I would like to bring the topic back online for discussion after an attempt at derailment.

Do I think he will be impeached? No. Again, I find it rather interesting that democrats started this investigation. I do think the repubs will attempt to slow Obama down, or stifle him by beginning impeachment proceedings, however. I think it is a tactic that will be used. Again, this has nothing to do with what I want, but what I see taking place.

I do think repubs are going to jump on this, and are setting the stage for impeachment trials to probably begin after the 2010 election cycle.

I think this will rest plainly on whether or not repubs gain power back of the house and senate.



posted on Dec, 20 2009 @ 10:49 AM
link   
Sorry not buying it. While I feel that it may be improper to pay warlords to protect roads from Al Qaeda & the Taliban it's not treasonous when the money is given to people that aren't necessarily the enemy.

Like I have said before, we aren't at war with everyone in Afghanistan, just Al Qaeda & the Taliban. Now who those warlords give their money to is not our concern. We supported the Mujahadeen when the Soviets invaded Afghanistan, and so we are doing it again. That was not treasonous, neither is this.

Sorry, I still fail to see how this is a treasonous action on the part of the President.



posted on Dec, 20 2009 @ 10:56 AM
link   
reply to post by whatukno
 



Thank you for finally bringing this back to topic.

I posted an indirect comment to the thread with some more supporting evidence, not that I think he has committed treason, as I never espoused that opinion, but evidence that I believe he will be attacked on the premise of treason and these things will be used against him in an attempt to stifle or slow down his progress as president. Hence, the door swinging wide open for impeachment.

As you know, you and I both have read and participated in that other thread, so when I saw this article, it came to the forefront of my mind, hence, why I posted it. We can agree to be on oppposite sides of the fence as far as Obama goes. I do not agree with a majority of his policies.

You see, to truly understand me, the OP, and the reason I posted the thread and titled it the way I did, is to understand that I like to watch things.

I have numerous threads where I have posted articles not necessarily on the content of the article itself, but the reasoning behind the article. I consider myself something of an observer in trends, I stand back and observe the paths that I see trends taking, and enjoy bringing them up for discussion based on that trend.

The article was not posted to question whether or not he has committed treason, although I did point out how I feel the article strayed from directly stating treason by using the word "unintentional". If it had not been for that one simple word, it would have been a direct accusation of treason.

I went on to point out that I did not agree that it was unintentional, and I posted two articles supporting this was in fact, policy. In doing this, I laid out the points of the post, for what it was worth, and brought this to the table for discussion.

If I had wanted to discuss the article itself, I would have posted it in a breaking news section, and used the title of the article, as is most often done.

I have done this with other articles in the past, however, with this article, I chose to bring the point of "intentional or unintentional" to the table.

Now, all this absurdity could have been avoided had you simply asked, instead of other things that were done.

I do apologize for using your other reply as an illustrative attempt to point out the attacks, however, I stand by my thoughts that it was an intentional attack. The part I am apologizing for is calling you an idiot, even though you know I didn't mean it. It was said to make a point.

I know you are not an idiot, and consider you quite an adversary worthy of discussing topics with, and I believe I have even stated so in another thread.

I hope perhaps this helps explain my reasoning behind my post, instead of a lot of invalid assumptions that provoke anger.

I will admit having to outline my reasoning causes me to be resentful. I do not feel I should have to explain myself in this fashion, nor that I should have to defend myself when people take things the wrong way and attack me for it.



posted on Dec, 20 2009 @ 11:03 AM
link   
reply to post by whatukno
 


And this is where I ask, where is the change?

Bush was slammed for his failed policies, yet this administration is mimmicking those very policies, and even in some instances, passing them off as their own.

The two fronts are very different, IMO. Afghanistan is not Iraq, and attempting to use the same policy started under Bush is, as the article states above, going to backfire.

Regardless of what you think, the money is obvisouly going to support the Taliban's war effort, which is affecting our troops directly. This is the point of the investigation.

Wheteher or not this is treason is open to argument, but do not doubt for a moment that this will be used as one of the fronts for that accusation, as I pointed out with the additional articles above.

And if there is, as you seemingly state, no problem with this, then why has a Dem opened an investigation into this?

This is billions of dollars that could be, in the long run, used to kill our troops.

[edit on 20-12-2009 by Libertygal]



posted on Dec, 20 2009 @ 12:20 PM
link   
reply to post by Libertygal
 


This is the only part I am going to comment on because it's the only part of this post that is on topic...


And if there is, as you seemingly state, no problem with this, then why has a Dem opened an investigation into this?


I didn't say that there was absolutely NO problem with it, in fact the problem is that there is no guarantee that when these locals and warlords get this money they won't turn it over to the Taliban or Al Qaeda.


This is billions of dollars that could be, in the long run, used to kill our troops.


Could be, that's why it's being investigated, but it's not being investigated as treason committed by our president which you assume it is.



posted on Dec, 20 2009 @ 07:25 PM
link   
I find it sad that people here can defend the actions of whomever it is that chose to pay off these warlords. Even if Ron Paul made the decision, I would be upset and ask for actions against him.

Today's hired help is tomorrow's terrorist.

Stop repeating history.



posted on Dec, 20 2009 @ 07:57 PM
link   
Is there a way for the citizens to impeach him or is it only through Congressmen? I'm sure we're all equally as upset about the fact that he only won his way to presidency by lies.



posted on Dec, 21 2009 @ 04:16 AM
link   

Originally posted by whatukno
reply to post by Libertygal
 



Could be, that's why it's being investigated, but it's not being investigated as treason committed by our president which you assume it is.


No, I pointed out that an investigation is being made into the bribes, and asked if this opened the door to impeachment based on treason.

I also stated I felt the repubs were going to pounce on this as a reason to go forward with impeachment proceedings in the near future, depending on the 2010 elections.

Why is this concept so difficult to understand? I didn't assume anything, I asked questions.

[edit on 21-12-2009 by Libertygal]



posted on Dec, 21 2009 @ 04:31 AM
link   
reply to post by fruitybooty
 



www.historyplace.com...


The United States Constitution states in Article II, Section 4: "The President, Vice President and all civil Officers of the United States, shall be removed from Office on Impeachment for, and Conviction of, Treason, Bribery, or other high Crimes and Misdemeanors."

Thus far in the history of the United States there been three Presidential impeachment proceedings -- in 1868 against President Andrew Johnson for his removal of Secretary of War Edwin Stanton in violation of the Tenure of Office Act - 1974 against President Richard Richard Nixon for the Watergate coverup (106 years after Johnson) - 1998-99 against President Bill Clinton for concealing an extramarital affair (24 years after Nixon).

Modern Impeachment Procedure:

Impeachment resolutions made by members of the House of Representatives are turned over to the House Judiciary Committee which decides whether the resolution and its allegations of wrongdoing by the President merits a referral to the full House for a vote on launching a formal impeachment inquiry.

The entire House of Representatives votes for or against a formal impeachment inquiry, needing only a simple majority (a single vote) for approval.

If approved, the House Judiciary Committee conducts an investigation to determine (similar to a grand jury) if there is enough evidence to warrant articles of impeachment (indictments) against the President. The Committee then drafts articles of impeachment pertaining to specific charges supported by the evidence. The Committee votes on each article of impeachment, deciding whether to refer each article to the full House for a vote.

If the House Judiciary Committee refers one or more articles of impeachment, the entire House of Representatives votes on whether the article(s) merit a trial in the Senate, needing only a simple majority for approval.

If the full House approves at least one article of impeachment, the President is technically impeached and the matter is referred to the U.S. Senate. The House then appoints members of Congress to act as managers (prosecutors).

The trial of the President is held in the Senate with the Chief Justice of the U.S. Supreme Court presiding. The President can be represented by anyone he chooses. He may appear personally or leave his defense in the hands of his lawyers.

The entire Senate may conduct the trial or it or it may be delegated to a special committee which would report all the evidence to the full Senate.

The actual trial is conducted in a courtroom-like proceeding including examination and cross-examination of witnesses. During questioning, Senators remain silent, directing all questions in writing to the Chief Justice.

After hearing all of the evidence and closing arguments, the Senate deliberates behind closed doors then votes in open session on whether to convict or acquit the President. The vote to convict must be by a two thirds majority, or 67 Senators. If this occurs, the President is removed from office and is succeeded by the Vice President. The Senate's verdict is final and there is no right of appeal.



posted on Dec, 21 2009 @ 04:47 AM
link   

Originally posted by Libertygal

Originally posted by whatukno
reply to post by Libertygal
 



Could be, that's why it's being investigated, but it's not being investigated as treason committed by our president which you assume it is.


No, I pointed out that an investigation is being made into the bribes, and asked if this opened the door to impeachment based on treason.

I also stated I felt the repubs were going to pounce on this as a reason to go forward with impeachment proceedings in the near future, depending on the 2010 elections.

Why is this concept so difficult to understand? I didn't assume anything, I asked questions.

[edit on 21-12-2009 by Libertygal]


People are psychoanalyzing you because you have a track record built upon your activity
Perception is a vital part of reality and I assume people perceive the same thing I do.
You claim not to be PARTISAN yet your activity indicates that you readily post anit Obama sentiment, solicit articles and opinions from sources that are hyper partisan.
You also seem to be very biased in your analysis and spin on things. I suggest you drop the duplicity and not masque your motive, but state it clearly. Also your OP connotes certain things, if you were unaware of that, now you are aware.

You keep getting the same charge thrown your was because your very activity begs for the assumptions you keep stumbling across. I suggest dropping the pretense that does not pair well with the material you are dealing in.

IMO



posted on Dec, 21 2009 @ 05:05 AM
link   
reply to post by Libertygal
 



No, I pointed out that an investigation is being made into the bribes, and asked if this opened the door to impeachment based on treason.

I also stated I felt the repubs were going to pounce on this as a reason to go forward with impeachment proceedings in the near future, depending on the 2010 elections.

Why is this concept so difficult to understand? I didn't assume anything, I asked questions.


Sorry, still not buying the innocent poster routine. Your OP still maintains your stance that you believe that Obama is guilty of Treason, even though your supporting articles don't even allude to any investigation for treason.

I mean, don't get me wrong, it's fine if you believe this way. But don't expect the rest of us to stand idly by while you post slanders about a president when the facts don't come to that same conclusion.



[edit on 12/21/2009 by whatukno]



posted on Dec, 21 2009 @ 05:35 AM
link   
reply to post by Janky Red
 


I would be critical of this action no matter who did it. That is a simple fact, and *I* am not the subject of the OP. When will this sink in? My motives don't matter, my motives are off topic.

Quit discussing me as the topic.



posted on Dec, 21 2009 @ 05:40 AM
link   

Originally posted by whatukno
reply to post by Libertygal
 



No, I pointed out that an investigation is being made into the bribes, and asked if this opened the door to impeachment based on treason.

I also stated I felt the repubs were going to pounce on this as a reason to go forward with impeachment proceedings in the near future, depending on the 2010 elections.

Why is this concept so difficult to understand? I didn't assume anything, I asked questions.


Sorry, still not buying the innocent poster routine. Your OP still maintains your stance that you believe that Obama is guilty of Treason, even though your supporting articles don't even allude to any investigation for treason.

I mean, don't get me wrong, it's fine if you believe this way. But don't expect the rest of us to stand idly by while you post slanders about a president when the facts don't come to that same conclusion.



[edit on 12/21/2009 by whatukno]


The innocent poster routine? What is that? I stated I disagreed with a lot of Obama's policies. I disagree with this one. So where is this routine?

I did not once say I thought he was guilty of treason, you are putting words in my mouth, and I resent you for that. Read the above words again. I asked if this opened the doors to an investigation for treason, which, if true, it should! I never once stated an assumption of guilt or innocence. Further more, I stated I didn't think an impeachment would happen.

I am tired of repeating myself, and having to explain my motives for making a post. My motives are not the topic, and regardless, if my motives were as you and others suggest...

so what?

What is your point?

What is with the continued character assassination after stating you were going to remain on topic?


*I* AM NOT THE TOPIC!



posted on Dec, 21 2009 @ 05:47 AM
link   
Ok lets keep the topic at hand on track,

" The door to impeachement swings WIDE open! Treasonous acts under investigation! "

Any that do not relate to the topic of thread will be removed,

Thanks
Asala.




top topics



 
70
<< 7  8  9    11 >>

log in

join