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.

 

Lies,Lies, and Damn lies: Obama blames Benghazi on Congress

page: 18
51
<< 15  16  17    19 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on May, 21 2013 @ 03:59 PM
link   
reply to post by NavyDoc
 


Oh great arrogant one, even though you think you can decieve others now with the deflections of layered defences at Fort Knox, the reality is still that the gold are kept in steel vaults. Dare you deny it, oh great decietful one? But I am sure you dare not answer, and will continue on and on with other deflections.

And was not your theory that explosives, bullets and gasoline can destroy steel vaults, oh mighty expert of military affairs? Dare you deny it? But I am sure you will again twist and turn with your own words.

And now, despite my good intentions to educate you, you chose to call teachers moron? You must have been born all knowing, oh great arrogant one.

And still, no need to thanks me for my time for giving you attention that you must have been starved off. I am a kind person. Cheers.




posted on May, 21 2013 @ 04:08 PM
link   

Originally posted by NavyDoc
Dude, you started out violating the T&C with your rudness and name calling. If you are going to dish it out, be prepared to take it, otherwise quit bitching when someone gives you a tase of your own sauce.

Notice that many people have piled on to you? Perhaps it is because throughout this thread you have been rude and condescending to everyone who disagreed with your stupid thoughts. As a result, everyone has responded in kind and you've been getting piled on. If one person is rude to you, he might be a jerk. However, if EVERYONE is rude to you, the jerk most likely is you.
edit on 21-5-2013 by NavyDoc because: (no reason given)


Ever heard of gang stalking?

Just because you few folks here disagree with my views, so claiming that I had been rude, name calling, violatiing T&C rules, justify your kind's pathetic attempts of far worse T&C violations long before, to silence me now, despite my best attempts to be cordial? And you dare call yourself an american who upholds the freedom of speech and a veteran of wars?

Are your kind so frighten of the realities I speak , of fear of rocking your kind's boat, for the sake of truth, that you are now making all attempts to silence me so that your kind can continue to fool others with your arrogances and ignorances?

Cheers. Good to know where your kind finally stand.



posted on May, 21 2013 @ 04:08 PM
link   

Originally posted by NavyDoc

Originally posted by SeekerofTruth101
reply to post by thesaneone
 


Discrediting is not you alone to say. WHat you post is only exactly what you meant and your intentions clearly.

Movies dont kill, for sure. It never did. Movies don't carry guns or explosives. It only inflames people, and for some, to commit atrocities. And if you deny muslims were cool about that anti-islam movie, what other lies will you accept? No wonder you have so much blind faith in the deflections to the economy by the GOP using this Benghazi affair to waste Congress's time to avoid the taxation issues.

Quit thinking you and your kind can attack me, even if you freely assume you can ignore the T&C. You dont have what it takes to be in that league.


Dude, you started out violating the T&C with your rudness and name calling. If you are going to dish it out, be prepared to take it, otherwise quit bitching when someone gives you a tase of your own sauce.

Notice that many people have piled on to you? Perhaps it is because throughout this thread you have been rude and condescending to everyone who disagreed with your stupid thoughts. As a result, everyone has responded in kind and you've been getting piled on. If one person is rude to you, he might be a jerk. However, if EVERYONE is rude to you, the jerk most likely is you.
edit on 21-5-2013 by NavyDoc because: (no reason given)


Actually most folks have shown great restraint to his dishonest tactics and occasionally out of frustration they lash back at him and he calls them out for it. It is called hypocrisy. In another thread he was praising Obama and encouraging people to get involved in syrian affairs implying Assad was a brutal dictator and that the rebels needed help.

Its beyond pathetic.



posted on May, 21 2013 @ 04:16 PM
link   

Originally posted by SeekerofTruth101
reply to post by NavyDoc
 


Oh great arrogant one, even though you think you can decieve others now with the deflections of layered defences at Fort Knox, the reality is still that the gold are kept in steel vaults. Dare you deny it, oh great decietful one? But I am sure you dare not answer, and will continue on and on with other deflections.

And was not your theory that explosives, bullets and gasoline can destroy steel vaults, oh mighty expert of military affairs? Dare you deny it? But I am sure you will again twist and turn with your own words.

And now, despite my good intentions to educate you, you chose to call teachers moron? You must have been born all knowing, oh great arrogant one.

And still, no need to thanks me for my time for giving you attention that you must have been starved off. I am a kind person. Cheers.


Yes, it is a fact that steel vaults will not stop a determined group of individuals which is exactly why FT Knox and banks have ARMED security in addition. Sorry but you fail again.

Gang stalking? LOL. So not only delusional but paranoid as well.



posted on May, 21 2013 @ 04:17 PM
link   
reply to post by EarthCitizen07
 


So your kind cant defeat my comments and failure in attacking me on this topic, and now drag in other topics as a means to further attack me personally?

Are falsehoods so dear that you cling on to them, and your confort zones of delusions that comfortable over this Benghazi affair that you must shut off someone with an honest view to challenge yours lacking in mental merit and logic?

Are you all so frightened of me, that when your kind no longer have any rationality left proposed by the GOP that restricting others views is the only way in a discussion, a need for only 'yes-men' to your kind's views?

I doubt if there will be any answer forthcomming, and any that do, is but another attempt at decietful deflection.

Cheers.



posted on May, 21 2013 @ 04:39 PM
link   
reply to post by SeekerofTruth101
 


Yeah we all work for the GOP, how cute?


I already told you earlier I support Occupy and share some core beliefs with tea party.

There are many parties in america: swpusa, spusa, cpusa, green, constitution, libertarian, justice, and yes the two BS parties called democrats and republicans.

Get over yourself. This is my last reply to you unless you have something meaningful to say. I don't like feeding the trolls less they think they are important.



posted on May, 21 2013 @ 07:35 PM
link   
Let's move on........




posted on May, 21 2013 @ 09:33 PM
link   

Originally posted by SeekerofTruth101
reply to post by thesaneone
 


No. Please do make it clear, or you would be as dishonest as the others in your attempts to discredit me.

It was what made the muslims enraged and thought murder, and the terrorists who carried it out. Try refuting facts and reality of that situation, of what actually happened, for once, if you foolishly think you can. Reporters and the likes of you may lie, but pics of their demostration and victory signs infront of the compound as well as the ambassador's body being carried don't lie.




Really... We don't need to discredit you. You're doing a fine job of that, all by yourself.

And for the umteenth thousandth time. That video had nothing to do with the Benghazi attack. It's been proven many time over. By actions and events leading up to the day of the attack, to phone calls, to cables and emails, to the Libyan President himself.

You're fond of telling people to go there and ask. Why don't you scoot on over and ask him.



posted on May, 22 2013 @ 12:27 AM
link   

Originally posted by dragonridr
reply to post by Xcathdra
 


Doesnt really matter nothing he has done reaches the level of an impeachable offense .......


Lol really?

Please do some research on what constitutes a high crime or misdemeanor at the Federal level as it pertains to impeachment.

A hint... research Nixon vs. United states before responding.



posted on May, 22 2013 @ 08:23 AM
link   

Originally posted by EarthCitizen07

Yeah we all work for the GOP, how cute?




Now I have heard it all.

As a standing example, I want everyone to witness this.

I agree with EarthCitizen within this thread.

How weird that was to say.



posted on May, 22 2013 @ 03:55 PM
link   

Originally posted by Xcathdra

Originally posted by dragonridr
reply to post by Xcathdra
 


Doesnt really matter nothing he has done reaches the level of an impeachable offense .......


Lol really?

Please do some research on what constitutes a high crime or misdemeanor at the Federal level as it pertains to impeachment.

A hint... research Nixon vs. United states before responding.


A high crime is a felony, not a misdemeanor!

Impeachment refers to the charges against the official for removing them from office. It does not remove them from office at this step. They must be convicted to be removed from office. Just like in a criminal lawsuit.

I don't think any potus or vp has ever been convicted yet. Several have been impeached and one resigned on his own from embarrasement and to save himself from being convicted thus forcefully removed. Most of the time government officials resign rather than get "fired". I want to see people get FIRED for a change, maybe I am "blood thirsty" that way.


A lot of people get fired in life. Government officials should not be above the law!



posted on May, 22 2013 @ 04:13 PM
link   
reply to post by EarthCitizen07
 


Respectfully, you would be wrong.

What constitutes a high crime or misdemeanor with regards to Federal impeachment is set by the Congress, not a law.

I linked to Nixon vs. US specifically to demonstrate the US Supreme Court ruling affirming that Congress sets that criteria, not a law.

It is part of the checks and balances of our FEderal Government.



posted on May, 22 2013 @ 04:22 PM
link   

Originally posted by Xcathdra
reply to post by EarthCitizen07
 


Respectfully, you would be wrong.

What constitutes a high crime or misdemeanor with regards to Federal impeachment is set by the Congress, not a law.

I linked to Nixon vs. US specifically to demonstrate the US Supreme Court ruling affirming that Congress sets that criteria, not a law.

It is part of the checks and balances of our FEderal Government.


Are you saying that federal level politicians ARE IMMUNE from criminal law? If they commit a felony then they cannot be impeached and convicted and then tried in criminal court just like a non-politician? I have heard diplomats having immunity from prosecution and I can remember a drunk russian diplomat in washington killing a person with his car and then facing no charges.

How exactly does criminal justice work with politicians? Didn't blagojevich, the governor of illinois do jail time for rigging the state elections?



posted on May, 22 2013 @ 04:28 PM
link   
reply to post by EarthCitizen07
 


No what I am saying, and people are ignoring, is Congress can determine, with respect to Presidential / Vice Presidential / Executive Officers impeachment, what constitutes a high crime and misdemeanor.

In Presidential Impeachment, it is NOT a court / legal issue. Impeachment resides solely with Congress. The House of Representatives is responsible for filing those charges. If the House passes the articles of impeachment, then its up to the Senate to "prosecute" the case. The Chief Justice of the US Supreme Court acts as the judge.

Congress determines what a high crime or misdemeanor is, not a statute or law. Impeachment is NOT a criminal trial. It is designed solely as a remedy to remove an elected / appointed person from office in order to go for criminal prosecution in the criminal justice system.



posted on May, 22 2013 @ 04:32 PM
link   

Originally posted by EarthCitizen07
How exactly does criminal justice work with politicians? Didn't blagojevich, the governor of illinois do jail time for rigging the state elections?


Rod Blagojevich - wikipedia


The Illinois House and Senate moved quickly thereafter to impeach the governor for abuse of power and corruption. On January 8, the Illinois House voted 114-1 (with three abstentions) to impeach Blagojevich.[97][98] The charges brought by the House emphasized Blagojevich's alleged abuses of power and his alleged attempts to sell gubernatorial appointments and legislative authorizations and/or vetoes. One of the accusations was an alleged attempt to sell the appointment to the United States Senate seat vacated by the resignation of Barack Obama. Blagojevich was frequently reported as having been taped by the FBI saying "I've got this thing, and it's #ing golden. I'm just not giving it up for #ing nothing."[99] He was removed from office and prohibited from ever holding public office in the state of Illinois again, by two separate and unanimous votes of 59–0 by the Illinois Senate on January 29, 2009. Blagojevich's lieutenant governor Patrick Quinn subsequently became governor of Illinois.[100]


Specifically -


Blagojevich's impeachment trial and removal from office did not have any effect or bearing on his federal indictment in the United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois, as impeachment is a political, not a criminal, action.[101]


To clarify - There is a difference between impechment at state and impeachment and federal levels. The State and Federal Governments are separate sovereigns.
edit on 22-5-2013 by Xcathdra because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 22 2013 @ 04:45 PM
link   

Originally posted by Xcathdra

No what I am saying, and people are ignoring, is Congress can determine, with respect to Presidential / Vice Presidential / Executive Officers impeachment, what constitutes a high crime and misdemeanor.


So a "high crime" in the impeachment process is the equivilent of a felony in a criminal case?


In Presidential Impeachment, it is NOT a court / legal issue. Impeachment resides solely with Congress. The House of Representatives is responsible for filing those charges. If the House passes the articles of impeachment, then its up to the Senate to "prosecute" the case. The Chief Justice of the US Supreme Court acts as the judge.


So the senate is the equivilant of the grand jury in a criminal case and the DOJ chief is the equivilant of a court judge?


Congress determines what a high crime or misdemeanor is, not a statute or law. Impeachment is NOT a criminal trial. It is designed solely as a remedy to remove an elected / appointed person from office in order to go for criminal prosecution in the criminal justice system.


Fair enough. This I understand quite well. Basically politicians have immunity from court and must be removed first before standing trial in a criminal court.


Thanks for clarifying. Its a bit confusing at times.



posted on May, 22 2013 @ 04:48 PM
link   

Originally posted by macman

Originally posted by EarthCitizen07

Yeah we all work for the GOP, how cute?




Now I have heard it all.

As a standing example, I want everyone to witness this.

I agree with EarthCitizen within this thread.

How weird that was to say.



Well to be fair most of the opposition is coming from the GOP so seekeroftruth was not wrong. But slowely democrats and third party supporters are starting to see the light of day so to speak and are getting tired of Obama's corruption.
edit on 22/5/13 by EarthCitizen07 because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 22 2013 @ 04:57 PM
link   

Originally posted by EarthCitizen07
So a "high crime" in the impeachment process is the equivilent of a felony in a criminal case?
Im not sure how to answer this. Its like comparing apples to Zebras.

In the Criminal Justice System, a High crime could be a Felony. Some states, like Michigan, have whats called a high court misdemeanor. In general a High crime (felony / high court misdemeanor) results in a person going to prison for 1 year or more (in MI the high court misd allows for 2 years).

In impeachment there is no jail term upon conviction. One convicted, the person is essentially removed from office. That paves the way for criminal prosecution under the criminal justice system.


Originally posted by EarthCitizen07
So the senate is the equivilant of the grand jury in a criminal case and the DOJ chief is the equivilant of a court judge?

Nope..
The House of Rep would be the grand jury, bringing forward the artciles of impeachment.
IThe Senate acts as the Prosecution of those articles.
The Chuief Justice of the Supreme Court acts as Judge and Jury.

Presidential Impechment is solely reserved to Congress under the Constitution. Even FEderal courts dont have authority to review impeachment convictions. It is purely political, not criminal.


Originally posted by EarthCitizen07
Fair enough. This I understand quite well. Basically politicians have immunity from court and must be removed first before standing trial in a criminal court.


Thanks for clarifying. Its a bit confusing at times.

Correct.. The doctrine of Soverign Immunity comes to mind, although it has other names. The mindset behind that privilidge is to prevent elected officals from spending all of their time going to court every time they do something a consituent does not like.

The Doctrine prevents civil court actions.
It does NOT prevent criminal prosecution.

Hence impeachment first, criminal prosecution second.

I agree, this area is all sorts of confusing and convoluted. People have a tendency to think of impeachment as a criminal justice action when its not.

Thanks for the civil debate

edit on 22-5-2013 by Xcathdra because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 22 2013 @ 05:50 PM
link   

Originally posted by Xcathdra

Nope..
The House of Rep would be the grand jury, bringing forward the artciles of impeachment.
IThe Senate acts as the Prosecution of those articles.
The Chuief Justice of the Supreme Court acts as Judge and Jury.


Normally the grand jury gets to vote on the verdict. In the impeachment process it seems that the articles of impeachment are introduced by a house representative and then the senate acts as grand jury casting their individual votes. This is what I thought!

And the chief justice of the supreme court has the only vote that decides all? Is this how federal impeachment differs from state impeachment process? In the blagojevich impeachment case the state senate voted 59-0 to have him impeached per the article you provided.

Thanks for your time.



Bill Clinton, 42nd President of the United States, was impeached by the House of Representatives on two charges, one of perjury and one of obstruction of justice, on December 19, 1998. Two other impeachment articles, a second perjury charge and a charge of abuse of power, failed in the House. The charges arose from the Lewinsky scandal and the Paula Jones lawsuit.

He was acquitted by the Senate on February 12, 1999. Requiring a two-thirds majority for a conviction, only 50 senators (out of 100) voted guilty on the obstruction charge and 45 on the perjury charge. The Senate was 17 votes short of removing Clinton from office.


It seems you are wrong afterall. The senate does vote on the articles of impeachment and the chief justice confirms the result.

edit on 22/5/13 by EarthCitizen07 because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 22 2013 @ 08:10 PM
link   

Originally posted by EarthCitizen07
Normally the grand jury gets to vote on the verdict. In the impeachment process it seems that the articles of impeachment are introduced by a house representative and then the senate acts as grand jury casting their individual votes. This is what I thought!


Incorrect

A grand jury is a group of people who are presented with evidence by the prosecuting attorney who is requesting they review the evidence, review the charges the prosecutor is wanting to bring, and to weigh it all and determine if there is enough information and evidence to support the charges requested.

Bringing charges without using a grand jury process - A person will have an initial hearing to determine, by the judge, if the evidence is present and supports the charges being leveled. Just like a grand jury, a judge can toss out the charges if he feels the evidence doesn't mean the burden of proof required by the state to prosecute.

In Presidential Impeachment (which is different than criminal law), there is no grand jury. A single member can draft articles of impeachment... Those articles are submitted to the entire House to review and then vote on. If a majority vote occurs in favor of passing the articles, then the entire "case" is moved from the House over to the Senate.


Again, since this is not criminal law, there is no option of trial by jury or trial by judge.



Originally posted by EarthCitizen07
And the chief justice of the supreme court has the only vote that decides all? Is this how federal impeachment differs from state impeachment process? In the blagojevich impeachment case the state senate voted 59-0 to have him impeached per the article you provided.

Correct... again, this is not a criminal prosecution, so the rules are very different, as are the standards of evidence and the method of weighing the information provided.

Removal of a President is a huge undertaking and the system is designed to prevent its abuse. Since the President heads the Executive branch, that branch has no part of the process. The Legislative branch drafts the articles and if passed, prosecutes the case. The judicial acts as the checks and balance in this scenario.

Since states are separate sovereigns from the Federal Government, their methods of impeachment will vary. They can and do differ from the methods the US Constitution lays out for Presidential Impeachment.

Thanks for your time.



Bill Clinton, 42nd President of the United States, was impeached by the House of Representatives on two charges, one of perjury and one of obstruction of justice, on December 19, 1998. Two other impeachment articles, a second perjury charge and a charge of abuse of power, failed in the House. The charges arose from the Lewinsky scandal and the Paula Jones lawsuit.

He was acquitted by the Senate on February 12, 1999. Requiring a two-thirds majority for a conviction, only 50 senators (out of 100) voted guilty on the obstruction charge and 45 on the perjury charge. The Senate was 17 votes short of removing Clinton from office.


It seems you are wrong afterall. The senate does vote on the articles of impeachment and the chief justice confirms the result.

edit on 22/5/13 by EarthCitizen07 because: (no reason given)


My bad.. I goofed that last part up. Sorry

Impeachment Process of a US President - PBS.org

To touch back on the high Crimes and misdemeanor topic -




Debate over the meaning of this phrase has existed since the framing of the Constitution. Ultimately, Congress decides what constitutes "high crimes and misdemeanors". In 1970, Rep. Gerald Ford, R-Michigan, succinctly summarized this point when he stated: "An impeachable offense is whatever a majority of the House of Representatives considers it to be at a given moment in history."

edit on 22-5-2013 by Xcathdra because: (no reason given)



new topics

top topics



 
51
<< 15  16  17    19 >>

log in

join