Did Obama commit an impeachable offense today?

Federal law is clear: [from the article linked below] “[N]o person may disclose [a sealed] indictment's existence," and a "knowing violation … may be punished as a contempt of court." Contempt of court carries a maximum sentence of six months in jail.

Mr. Obama clearly disclosed the existence of a sealed Federal indictment today at his press conference.

ABC News

So NOW we get out the pitchforks and torches?

Or....another horse and pony show in congress that wastes a lot of money and nothing happens.

Originally posted by CalibratedZeus
So NOW we get out the pitchforks and torches?

Or....another horse and pony show in congress that wastes a lot of money and nothing happens.

You're right. Federal law is meaningless, especially if you happen to support the one breaking it.

How silly of me...

reply to post by SBMcG


'fraid not
from your source

"The [president], by virtue of his position, can't violate any non-disclosure/confidentiality rule," said Peter Zeidenberg, now in private practice in Washington. "One of the perks of being the head of the executive branch: Nothing he says is technically a leak. If he does it, it is authorized."

so he won't be occupying the cell next to the one reserved for Snowden.

the laws are only for the serfs.

he's looking very "Sane" these days, the emperor.

When caught violating the law, the President has always been held to it in the past. Bill Clinton (whom I voted for twice) leaps to mind...

Well, that's actually a good thing he did. His administration has done a lot of other legitimately bad things that I think could cause him to be impeached. As long as he's doing impeachable things, he might as well be doing positive ones.

reply to post by SBMcG


From the article you cite:

In fact, though, the president is effectively immune from breaking the law when it comes to a sealed indictment, according to a former prosecutor in the Justice Department's Public Integrity Section

"The [president], by virtue of his position, can't violate any non-disclosure/confidentiality rule," said Peter Zeidenberg, now in private practice in Washington. "One of the perks of being the head of the executive branch: Nothing he says is technically a leak. If he does it, it is authorized."

However, Zeidenberg acknowledged "an argument could be made that a sealed matter can only be unsealed by a court."

President Obama's Surprise Revelation of Sealed Benghazi Indictment

So it can be argued either way. That said, Obama has made biased statements implying guilt for Bradley Manning and Edward Snowden, which clearly have made it impossible for these people to get fair trials. That a former Constitutional lawyer does such things shows how what a world-class ignoramus he is OR that he is purely and simply a sleaze bag when it comes to the law.

As to your point about what Obama said today, obviously we have a two- or three-tier justice system that puts presidents above the law. I'm totally for holding him accountable for this, but in the new era of the imperial presidency that started with the Bush II regime, this is just business as usual. The fact that conservatives and Republicans didn't call Bush II and Cheney on their crimes when committed them helped to usher in this new legal paradigm for the unary executive. Which is not to say that "Democrats" and "progressives" who similarly still defend Obama aren't just as culpable.

I would say, however, that Bush II was guilty of far more impeachable offenses than Obama, such as lying to Congress and the American people in order to start the Iraq war, as well as various war crimes, including the torture and killing of prisoners as well as illegal kidnappings. Yet diddly squat was done to him and Cheney.

Yawn.

from 3 days ago.
U.S. Files Charges in Benghazi Attack


I'm still laughing....

After all the hoopla and maneuvering, you would think that the Administration would at least put a little rum in the punch.

They've got drones and the best technology in the world all over the place and yet the best they can do with this is file 'charges' with a DOJ action

I guess Obama is really serious about that 'stand your ground' revision.

Ho Hum. Very exciting.

Rome always did better.

www.abovetopsecret.com...

The real conspiracy here is WHY did ABC News publish an obvious time warp ?

What are they Really diverting ?

Sounds like Cognitive distortion in advanced stages

Originally posted by xuenchen
The real conspiracy here is WHY did ABC News publish an obvious time warp ?

What are they Really diverting ?

Sounds like Cognitive distortion in advanced stages

edit on Aug-09-2013 by xuenchen because:

After researching this for the last 2 hours I have yet to find ANY incidence of the president being immune from or above Federal statute.

The argument that resonates the most is that even the president can't pardon himself.

reply to post by SBMcG


But the cat was already out of the bag.

We knew about the """indictment""" a few days ago.

Originally posted by darkbake
Well, that's actually a good thing he did. His administration has done a lot of other legitimately bad things that I think could cause him to be impeached. As long as he's doing impeachable things, he might as well be doing positive ones.

That depends upon whom it is being indicted for the Benghazi slaughter.

Originally posted by xuenchen
reply to post by SBMcG

 

But the cat was already out of the bag.

We knew about the """indictment""" a few days ago.

How so?

Today was the first I've learned of it.

reply to post by MrInquisitive


I'm no Bush/Cheney fan.

They over-reacted to 9-11 against the American people, and under-reacted against those who murdered our fellow Americans, IMESHO.

Originally posted by SBMcG

Originally posted by xuenchen
reply to post by SBMcG

 

But the cat was already out of the bag.

We knew about the """indictment""" a few days ago.

How so?

Today was the first I've learned of it.

Good God man.

I linked an article and a thread from 3 days ago.

But for the sake of argument, oBama could certainly be 'prosecuted', not probably not in 'court'.

The House would 'impeach', and the Senate would do the 'trial' and impose penalty.

Impeachment: The Unthinkable Process


Impeachment in the United States


Is Obama guilty of any impeachable offenses ?

Probably, but the Senate will never convict. Too many Democrats for now.

Why do ya think they are SOOOO concerned about the 2014 elections ?

If the House and Senate get a substantial majority of Republicans, look out

Originally posted by xuenchen

Originally posted by SBMcG

Originally posted by xuenchen
reply to post by SBMcG

 

But the cat was already out of the bag.

We knew about the """indictment""" a few days ago.

How so?

Today was the first I've learned of it.

Good God man.

I linked an article and a thread from 3 days ago.

But for the sake of argument, oBama could certainly be 'prosecuted', not probably not in 'court'.

The House would 'impeach', and the Senate would do the 'trial' and impose penalty.

Impeachment: The Unthinkable Process


Impeachment in the United States


Is Obama guilty of any impeachable offenses ?

Probably, but the Senate will never convict. Too many Democrats for now.

Why do ya think they are SOOOO concerned about the 2014 elections ?

If the House and Senate get a substantial majority of Republicans, look out

edit on Aug-09-2013 by xuenchen because:

This thread is about the revelation by Mr. Obama today that there is a sealed indictment in the Benghazi terrorist attack, and the question is, did he violate Federal law by disclosing that.

reply to post by SBMcG

This thread is about the revelation by Mr. Obama today that there is a sealed indictment in the Benghazi terrorist attack, and the question is, did he violate Federal law by disclosing that.

It depends on whether anyone can prove he actually 'disclosed' that.

If it was in the news a few days ago, somebody else must have 'disclosed' it.

If he did 'disclose' it, then yes he is guilty.

The legal questions would be who prosecutes the POTUS, and what jurisdiction conducts the trial.

IMO, it's the impeachment process.

But on the other hand, we have seen many politicians at lower levels end up in prison.

So the big question is;

Is the POTUS automatically immune ? Probably not.

Can the us president go to jail?

Originally posted by darkbake
Well, that's actually a good thing he did. His administration has done a lot of other legitimately bad things that I think could cause him to be impeached. As long as he's doing impeachable things, he might as well be doing positive ones.

This sort of mentality got us into Iraq and earned us the Patriot Act. If you allow due process to be skipped for one thing, then the actual due process is irrelevant and can be subverted by putting a good spin on it. This same mentality is what gives Obama the pious attitude that he can kill American "domestic terrorists" without a trial by jury. I know there's a lot of bs going on, but we don't have to use the Constitution to wipe. This makes the fields ripe for false flagging.

reply to post by SBMcG


Did George Washington slaughter thousands of natives?

What a question.

Like the article says, he is the boss, if he decided to "leak" the information, it is, by his virtue, authorized.