This Proof Can Impeach Obama, Fire 2 NSA Officials, And Possibly Even Clear Snowden

page: 2
111
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join

posted on Jun, 15 2013 @ 05:55 AM
link   

Originally posted by elouina
reply to post by Terminal1
 

So what gives you the idea that TESTIFYING in the house has no perjury repercussions?


When the questioning congress members use questions that allow wiggle room for untruths in answers the whole circus is a lie. How often do we hear "I do not recall" when the person uttering the statement is in the position that they should have known? Isn't that a lie by omission? Are there repercussions for these statements? I'd wager it is rare...

From banking CEOs to Pat Tillman and a crapload inbetween. I rarely see any "repercussions" to any lie or omission of truth. Only the small fries tend to get "repercussioned".




posted on Jun, 15 2013 @ 06:02 AM
link   

Originally posted by Terminal1

Originally posted by elouina
reply to post by Terminal1
 

So what gives you the idea that TESTIFYING in the house has no perjury repercussions?


When the questioning congress members use questions that allow wiggle room for untruths in answers the whole circus is a lie. How often do we hear "I do not recall" when the person uttering the statement is in the position that they should have known? Isn't that a lie by omission? Are there repercussions for these statements? I'd wager it is rare...

From banking CEOs to Pat Tillman and a crapload inbetween. I rarely see any "repercussions" to any lie or omission of truth. Only the small fries tend to get "repercussioned".


Well, I don't see any wiggle room in the questions presented to Alexander and Clapper. Does anyone here? Especially Alexanders questioning.... Did you even watch that video?



posted on Jun, 15 2013 @ 06:06 AM
link   
reply to post by elouina
 


Just a proof that illustrates exactly what I am saying. When he is repercussioned for his lies (which should include most of congressional members as well) then get back to me and I will bow and admit that 1 in a line of many has been repercussioned.

The circus must go on...



posted on Jun, 15 2013 @ 06:17 AM
link   

Originally posted by elouina
My first contention is that Snowden can't be guilty of treason since he just repeated info that was already whistleblown the proper way by William Binney in 2012. But nothing ever came of it. Why? Because NSA Director, Alexander, perjured himself to the house. So all that Snowden exposed was the perjury!


That is like saying someone can't be guilty of assault because someone else beat the crap out of you before. One has nothing to do with the other. They do not even have to use the domestic spying program, at this point to get Snowden on treason. He has added a few legitimate nails in that coffin all on his own.

Oh and by the way, since you are so keen on the whole lying aspect of this Snowden is himself a liar. He signed non-disclosure agreements. Whether or not you agree with what he did, he did in fact lie.
edit on 15-6-2013 by KeliOnyx because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 15 2013 @ 06:18 AM
link   

Originally posted by Terminal1
reply to post by elouina
 


Just a proof that illustrates exactly what I am saying. When he is repercussioned for his lies (which should include most of congressional members as well) then get back to me and I will bow and admit that 1 in a line of many has been repercussioned.

The circus must go on...


No that is not what you said, on the first page, for the world to see. Here is your quote... So can you please explain why you stated this? I am very curious why you made such a definate and false statement.


Originally posted by Terminal1
The question should be is why are a lot of people not put under oath as they testify before congress?



posted on Jun, 15 2013 @ 06:24 AM
link   

Originally posted by elouina

Originally posted by Terminal1
reply to post by elouina
 


Just a proof that illustrates exactly what I am saying. When he is repercussioned for his lies (which should include most of congressional members as well) then get back to me and I will bow and admit that 1 in a line of many has been repercussioned.

The circus must go on...


No that is not what you said, on the first page, for the world to see. Here is your quote... So can you please explain why you stated this? I am very curious why you made such a definate and false statement.




Originally posted by Terminal1
The question should be is why are a lot of people not put under oath as they testify before congress?


Are you attempting to derail your own thread?

Tell me... Was Jamie Dimon put under oath as he testified by Senator Baucus?
edit on 15-6-2013 by Terminal1 because: Typo



posted on Jun, 15 2013 @ 06:27 AM
link   

Originally posted by KeliOnyx
Oh and by the way, since you are so keen on the whole lying aspect of this Snowden is himself a liar. He signed non-disclosure agreements. Whether or not you agree with what he did, he did in fact lie.
edit on 15-6-2013 by KeliOnyx because: (no reason given)


Oh, but now you're getting into very muddy territory.

Did he not also sign a document swearing to uphold the constitution? I'm betting any agreement he signed also included that as a prerequisite. And in which case, which rule outweighs the other?

If there is a direct conflict, he would have to abide by the overarching rule of upholding the constitution, because the following law breaches that constitution.

If you sign a document to swear secrecy, and then you're ordered to massacre a village, is it still breaking the law to make that breach of Human rights public? It's a breach of international law to murder in cold blood in such a way, so which law should he follow?

However you look at this, any law that breaches the basic Human rights of the people (and in this case breaches the constitution, which he should prioritize over and above all other laws) the question of whether he did break the law is far more complicated.



posted on Jun, 15 2013 @ 06:28 AM
link   

Originally posted by KeliOnyx

Originally posted by elouina
My first contention is that Snowden can't be guilty of treason since he just repeated info that was already whistleblown the proper way by William Binney in 2012. But nothing ever came of it. Why? Because NSA Director, Alexander, perjured himself to the house. So all that Snowden exposed was the perjury!


That is like saying someone can't be guilty of assault because someone else beat the crap out of you before. One has nothing to do with the other. They do not even have to use the domestic spying program, at this point to get Snowden on treason. He has added a few legitimate nails in that coffin all on his own.


You can attempt to rationalize this all you like. But there is absolutely no comparison between what I have presented and some fictional assault. I can't even begin to think of a way to associate them together. Major fail!


Still trying... Knowledge... Assault... Knowledge... Assault... OMG what are you thinking?



posted on Jun, 15 2013 @ 06:33 AM
link   
reply to post by Rocker2013
 


Generally you want someone that would go with their conscience. I want to be very clear here, I do not have an issue with his disclosing the domestic spying programs. I don't particularly care for how he did it, but I did appreciate the care put into it. However that isn't the only thing he has leaked. And those other things he leaked are more than enough to convict him on treason. I was merely pointing out the fact if you are going to go on the warpath pointing fingers about who is lying or not no one is clean in this situation. It is a bit hypocritical.


+4 more 
posted on Jun, 15 2013 @ 06:43 AM
link   
reply to post by KeliOnyx
 


Treason is in the eye of the beholder, I suppose.

Just look at the rationalization and justification being posted by supporters of this administration!

Is it treason because he saw a violation of the 4th Amendment? Is it treason if he shows proof that the US is/was violating international law?

Every future whistle-blower should pay close attention to all of this.

While the politicians in DC should be facing charges of obstruction, they are actually playing the victim card.

And the whistle-blower? Facing charges of treason when the American public is the actual victim here.



posted on Jun, 15 2013 @ 06:44 AM
link   

Originally posted by HauntWok
reply to post by beezzer
 


I'm not providing any excuse, it's just the facts. Politicians lie. I was under no delusion when I voted for Obama. I am still under no delusion about him. He is a politician, he lies for a living. I don't believe half of what any of them say.

This thread is completely childish, and shows exactly the mentality of the right. They can't make their case using better legislation, or better leadership, so they go after democrats and try and make them look worse.

Obama hasn't committed a high crime or misdemeanor, (at least not in this case) so there is no reason to start impeachment proceedings.

Face it guys, he's gonna be in office till January 20, 2017 And then we are going to get the next liar in office. Your petty attempts at trying to remove him from office based on non existent "evidence" or guilt by association just aren't going to work.
edit on 15-6-2013 by HauntWok because: (no reason given)


The only thing childish is the fact that you attempt to spew divisive rhetoric with your "shows exactly the mentality of the right".

These are your countrymen, airing valid complaints. Respect them as such. Enough of this right/left nonsense, it is counterproductive to all discussion.

And if you do not believe that Obama's violation of our 4th amendment rights, via the bogus powers granted to him through Bush's Patriot Act, is a crime, we are in disagreement as well. The President is a traitor, and so are the members of Congress and The Supreme Court.



posted on Jun, 15 2013 @ 06:49 AM
link   

Originally posted by beezzer
reply to post by KeliOnyx
 


Treason is in the eye of the beholder, I suppose.

Just look at the rationalization and justification being posted by supporters of this administration!

Is it treason because he saw a violation of the 4th Amendment? Is it treason if he shows proof that the US is/was violating international law?

Every future whistle-blower should pay close attention to all of this.

While the politicians in DC should be facing charges of obstruction, they are actually playing the victim card.




And the whistle-blower? Facing charges of treason when the American public is the actual victim here.


Star...

Exactly what is happening. It is why I am very jaded about the whole thing. I get the feeling that nothing will change no matter what the outcry is. Well.. the wording may change but the practice will continue. Business as usual. Too much money has been spent...



posted on Jun, 15 2013 @ 06:53 AM
link   

Originally posted by Terminal1

Originally posted by beezzer
reply to post by KeliOnyx
 


Treason is in the eye of the beholder, I suppose.

Just look at the rationalization and justification being posted by supporters of this administration!

Is it treason because he saw a violation of the 4th Amendment? Is it treason if he shows proof that the US is/was violating international law?

Every future whistle-blower should pay close attention to all of this.

While the politicians in DC should be facing charges of obstruction, they are actually playing the victim card.




And the whistle-blower? Facing charges of treason when the American public is the actual victim here.


Star...

Exactly what is happening. It is why I am very jaded about the whole thing. I get the feeling that nothing will change no matter what the outcry is. Well.. the wording may change but the practice will continue. Business as usual. Too much money has been spent...


Change will come, but it will be uncomfortable, and at times gruesome. The endgame that this country is heading towards leaves little wiggle room for that.



posted on Jun, 15 2013 @ 06:54 AM
link   
reply to post by Terminal1
 


Ok so that was a rare and unusual case and it was argued about extensively on the floor. But government employees are not offered such an unusual luxury. That rare and unusual case did not necessitate derailing an entire thread unless you can offer me proof that they were not sworn in as is protocol.



posted on Jun, 15 2013 @ 06:56 AM
link   
Let's see, impeach a president for backing a government program put in place before he came into office? Of coarse he and every government official out there will downplay their existence - as a SPY program they aren't effective if everyone knows everything about them. Don't read that as a defense of PRISM, just as a reality of how government officials will dance around admitting their existence or how deep they go.

The real impeachable offense should have been levied at the creators of the PRISM program back in 2007 when it was created, and the 'war on terror' lies told to get it into place. The right-wing media hacks knew this all too well, when they began the Republican PR campaigns to guilt legislators into accepting them; Back then, they were screaming how these NSA programs were absolutely critical for America to survive, now they're screaming how they are impeachable offenses.

Case in point:




posted on Jun, 15 2013 @ 07:10 AM
link   
reply to post by Blackmarketeer
 


As an outspoken conservative, and an often opponent of much of what we discuss, I'd actually have to agree and star you for that post.

I want to point out hypocrisy where ever it may occur.

Hannity, Huckabee, many conservative pundits are actually standing side-by-side with liberal pundits in defense of this sick government practice. This violation of the Constitution that many of us swore an oath to uphold and defend!



posted on Jun, 15 2013 @ 07:10 AM
link   
reply to post by beezzer
 


I am not justifying anything. I simply refuse to ignore the fact he didn't stop with just the domestic program. Just because he did the right thing here, and then turned around and released information we are hacking China you can't simply ignore the parts he is doing wrong. We did not nor did the world need to know that. I don't care how vague he was about it. Unless you have been living on a polar ice cap you already suspected/knew we were doing it. The only thing he did was confirm for China, Iran and North Korea we do. The difference between knowing and suspecting is quite large and makes international relations worse.
edit on 15-6-2013 by KeliOnyx because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 15 2013 @ 07:11 AM
link   
reply to post by Terminal1
 


I hope something will come of this.

Shining the light of exposure should open this disgusting government intrusion.



posted on Jun, 15 2013 @ 07:13 AM
link   

Originally posted by Blackmarketeer
Let's see, impeach a president for backing a government program put in place before he came into office? Of coarse he and every government official out there will downplay their existence - as a SPY program they aren't effective if everyone knows everything about them. Don't read that as a defense of PRISM, just as a reality of how government officials will dance around admitting their existence or how deep they go.

The real impeachable offense should have been levied at the creators of the PRISM program back in 2007 when it was created, and the 'war on terror' lies told to get it into place. The right-wing media hacks knew this all too well, when they began the Republican PR campaigns to guilt legislators into accepting them; Back then, they were screaming how these NSA programs were absolutely critical for America to survive, now they're screaming how they are impeachable offense


Ah... I see... Obama is not responsable for anything that happens under his administration for the last 5 years. Makes total sense...


Prism was started in 2007 and it wasn't until Obama took office that it was expanded to the point of violating the 4th amendment. And even if Bush would have started this full force, it is a bit late to impeach someone who isn't president anymore. Instead, I would impeach the president who condoned this program for the last 5 years!

US surveillance has 'expanded' under Obama, says Bush's NSA director


The former director of the US National Security Agency has indicated that surveillance programs have "expanded" under Barack Obama's time in office and said the spy agency has more powers now than when he was in command.



posted on Jun, 15 2013 @ 07:13 AM
link   

Originally posted by elouina
reply to post by Terminal1
 


Ok so that was a rare and unusual case and it was argued about extensively on the floor. But government employees are not offered such an unusual luxury. That rare and unusual case did not necessitate derailing an entire thread unless you can offer me proof that they were not sworn in as is protocol.


It happens more often than you realize is the only way I can rationalise your thinking. Even General Petraeus was not under oath when he testified about Benghazi. It happens and like I have said before, if you are in a position of power then chances are you will have wiggle room. Not being under oath is one of those "unusual" perks that allows wiggle room.

I think you also misunderstand me. My stance is that very little will be done about all this NSA skullduggery and the ways that will be "allowed" to let it continue on. Do I want to see Clapper and Alexander and even the POTUS take heat over this whole debacle? You bet I do but I am not going to hold my breath waiting for accountability. We have all seen this script play out many times, even in my own (pushing) 50 years.

There has just been too much money spent and too many layers of "plausible deniability" for this to go anywhere far. Will there be a few changes? Well.. let us hope but I would be willing to wager that not much will actually change. Like Blackwater changing its name to Xe... the practices will continue just under a different name.





new topics
top topics
 
111
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join