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

Obama, holder, clinton belong in jail for providing weapons to the enemy. What is that called? Aiding the enemy or is it racketering or is obstruction of justice, what exactly? Impeachment for lying sounds lame to me and reminds me of clintons sex scandal.

Lets talk about real hardcore crimes if you can stomach it. Lets talk fort leavenworth with key flushed down the toilet. Lets embarrass these two filfth parties and give other parties the positive limelight they deserve.

reply to post by Rocker2013


I agree with you in that those who represent us should be held to at minimum, the same standards you or I are held to.

Under oath....what does this even mean anymore? Unless a devoutly religious person I don't think taking this Oath means much anymore. Perjury - that's just for us - not them. If I said, "oh....what I meant was"....I am not convinced a judge would give it the time of day - I'd be slapped with perjury charges. If I impede an investigation because I lie (not even under oath) I could be in trouble; even if that lie was to insure the safety of someone. Has never happened to me but that's my understanding.

Even if lying is not cause for impeachment it should be. It's bad character to be a liar. It brings up low morals and ethics. It tells you what kind of person you are dealing with. Of course we the people let it slide and justify it time and time again. That's why the lying is so out in the open now. Isn't there a law somewhere that says if something happens long enough without consequence (is acceptable by the masses) it them becomes legal?

reply to post by aceamoeba

sorry, but that is a STATUTE. statutes are legislative law, and one cannot abrogate a right secured under common law through rule making or legislation.

one must have reasonable suspicion for a warrant to get the information that is being taken.

Originally posted by Bob Sholtz
reply to post by aceamoeba

 

sorry, but that is a STATUTE. statutes are legislative law, and one cannot abrogate a right secured under common law through rule making or legislation.

one must have reasonable suspicion for a warrant to get the information that is being taken.

Yet the patriot act did exactly that

I think some or many times statute law contradicts common law, yet statute law is given priority.

reply to post by EarthCitizen07

Yet the patriot act did exactly that I think some or many times statute law contradicts common law, yet statute law is given priority.

there are MANY rulings that affirm constitutional rights over any legislation. the patriot act is highly illegal.

Constitutional law is the law in the U.S. Constitution and state constitutions. It includes such fundamental rights as freedom of speech, freedom of religion, freedom of expression etc. The U.S. Constitution is the supreme law of the United States. No law can be enacted that contravenes the provisions of the U.S. Constitution.

www.meldonlaw.com...

never ever EVER let anyone tell you that any legislative or rule making body can convert rights into privileges, or abrogate common law. the constitution has provisions that allow certain bodies a limited ability to legislate statutes, but these statutes can be ignored if they violate constitutional rights or court precedents.

Okay, so I've only read the OP and the first page of comments, and what I find most amusing of all is that the Obama supporters aren't even denying the fact that he's a liar, they're defending his right to do so.

Originally posted by Bone75
Okay, so I've only read the OP and the first page of comments, and what I find most amusing of all is that the Obama supporters aren't even denying the fact that he's a liar, they're defending his right to do so.

What an epiphany! You are absolutely correct!

Considering these people are public servants - is it possible for the public to petition they stand down?

I like that people take the time to write these threads on ATS for us to read but they don't really do anything do they. They get read for a week and then go into a massive black hole on the ATS servers for the occasional drifter to read a few years down the line.

Would it not best suit your interests to actually ACT upon your findings? I don't know how you might do that but with important information like this it should be spread, viraly!

I know the likes of Obama are "powerful" but surely the law is the law and even a president couldn't be above it... I think that's the most naive thing I've ever said - who am I kidding.


~ CrzayFool

Originally posted by elouina
reply to post by esteay812

 

I wouldn't say that too fast.... I work in many different parts of my city, and am exposed to many many people on a daily basis. Anymore previous Obamanites (a religion I have coined) either bow their head down in shame or flat out curse Obama when I mention the scandals. And my city has a very high African American Populaion. So I say give these folks credit where it is due. They are not blind, or stupid, their messiah has just let them down, and they are very angry. In fact, I have not heard a single fond word of Obama anywhere but here on ATS. This says a lot right there! The times are changing and I am beginning to think we need a new scandal on the polls.

What is refreshing for me to see, is that African Americans are looking beyond the color of the first black president. Bravo!

But you know, I am kind of sad for them right now. A lifelong dream is finally realized, and they got Obama instead. This is so unair.

edit on 15-6-2013 by elouina because: (no reason given)

I apologize, I did not mean to sound as if I was referring to the Af/Am race of Obama supporters, though I am sure there are those who would remain absolutely loyal to him, based on nothing more than skin color. I think that can be found in every scenario, as there would be some women who would support a female president without question.

For whatever reason, there are people of all races, religions, and social backgrounds who blindly support Obama - they would not change their minds if he were to personally hand deliver a nuclear weapon to an enemy country on live television, then help them set up the coordinates to target their home-town.

reply to post by Ghost375


So you don't care if your leaders lie to you? Are you kidding me? Even if it's not, it should be a crime . . you cannot have elected officials, especially the president (small p by the way because he doesn't deserve a capitalization), lie to the people who elected him and then turn around and do whatever he wants.

For the first time ever, 3 whistleblowers gathered together, and on USA Today. Thomas Drake, William Binney and J. Kirk Wiebe, are the 3 heros that tried to set things straight with the unconstitutional surveillance programs. And they failed! Why? Because they did things, "the right way". All 3 of them feel that Snowden is actually the one who did it the only way that it can be truely effective.

Video and story:
3 NSA veterans speak out on whistle-blower: We told you so

Originally posted by Bob Sholtz
reply to post by EarthCitizen07

 

Yet the patriot act did exactly that I think some or many times statute law contradicts common law, yet statute law is given priority.

there are MANY rulings that affirm constitutional rights over any legislation. the patriot act is highly illegal.

Constitutional law is the law in the U.S. Constitution and state constitutions. It includes such fundamental rights as freedom of speech, freedom of religion, freedom of expression etc. The U.S. Constitution is the supreme law of the United States. No law can be enacted that contravenes the provisions of the U.S. Constitution.

www.meldonlaw.com...

never ever EVER let anyone tell you that any legislative or rule making body can convert rights into privileges, or abrogate common law. the constitution has provisions that allow certain bodies a limited ability to legislate statutes, but these statutes can be ignored if they violate constitutional rights or court precedents.

Statutes don't really get ignored that easy. Intimidation alone does marvels for the ptb via fines, threat of jail, threat of assasination, the media propaganda, etc. Statutes are not that limited either, in fact just looking at interstate commerce laws will make anyone dizzey.

I support what you say in theory, but practice paints a grim picture so far. As for the patriot act it was based on the false flag done on 9-11-2001 that no one has the intestinal fortitude to look into, much less admit. I have done both and get mocked for my beliefs constantly.

reply to post by EarthCitizen07

Statutes don't really get ignored that easy. Intimidation alone does marvels for the ptb via fines, threat of jail, threat of assasination, the media propaganda, etc. Statutes are not that limited either, in fact just looking at interstate commerce laws will make anyone dizzey. I support what you say in theory, but practice paints a grim picture so far. As for the patriot act it was based on the false flag done on 9-11-2001 that no one has the intestinal fortitude to look into, much less admit. I have done both and get mocked for my beliefs constantly.

intimidation does do marvels, but how many times have you seen someone in court introduce common law that contradicts a statute, and also includes rulings that show common law supersedes statutes?

interstate commerce is slightly different, because commerce can be regulated. that is an example of a statute operating mostly within the boundaries of common law.

i eventually was able to convince my family of 9/11, and now all of them question everything. it went from them not believing that three towers collapsed, to them coming up with ideas on their own about why certain things are done.

reply to post by PtolemyII


Those ain't Transformers, Shia! They're drones. And they're about to turn your Bev Hills home into a crater! I mean.... it was a sinkhole. Yeah. A sinkhole. THATS THE TICKET!

Originally posted by elouina
William Binney in 2012.

First off this guy is the real deal, wicked brilliant...

He was found to have strong aptitudes for math, analysis, and code-breaking,[2] and served four years from 1965–1969 at the Army Security Agency before going to the NSA in 1970. Binney was a Russia specialist and worked in the operations side of intelligence, starting as an analyst and ending as Technical Director then becoming a geopolitical world Technical Director. In the 1990s, he co-founded a unit on automating signals intelligence with NSA research chief Dr. John Taggart.[3] Binney's NSA career culminated as Technical Leader for intelligence in 2001. Having expertise in intelligence analysis, traffic analysis, systems analysis, knowledge management, and mathematics (including set theory, number theory, and probability),[4] Binney has been described as one of the best analysts and code breakers in the NSA's history.[5]

en.wikipedia.org...(U.S._intelligence_official)

Swing and miss below

Originally posted by elouina
3. Obama - Now these two videos also prove that Obama lied to the American people since he stated:

with regard to NSA's maintenance of a database of telephonic metadata, "every member of Congress has been briefed" on those programs

The congressman that asked the question of Director Clapper in a public hearing, knew the answer already and knew that the man answering would be forced to lie about it or violate national security. It was a particularly cruel punch thrown in a public hearing.

Yes..congress was briefed repeatedly...something like 30 plus briefings, many of them "open" to all members, not just the intelligence committee...These are documented, like all congressional meetings.

Congressman that are claiming they were never briefed....are lieing...or they suck at thier job and opted to go golfing or get ddrunk rather than attend any of the 30+ meetings that the CIA/NSA sponsored.

I agree with everything in your post absent the above.

reply to post by Indigo5


You don't really have to lie about anything. Sometimes they say "that is classified sir" and change topic.

They say this all the time in relation to ufos and fema infrastructure.

Originally posted by Bob Sholtz

intimidation does do marvels, but how many times have you seen someone in court introduce common law that contradicts a statute, and also includes rulings that show common law supersedes statutes?

Yeah. Heard it happens sometimes, but how many people even try? Folks get traffic tickets all the time and just pay them. They don't want the hassle and government "needs" the money.

Originally posted by EarthCitizen07
reply to post by Indigo5

 

You don't really have to lie about anything. Sometimes they say "that is classified sir" and change topic.

Sure...he could of, but that would have just lit the fire. The question was worded in such a way to leave very little wiggle room IMO. Rep. Wyden who asked the question was looking to publicly flay Clapper. Clapper's job as chief spook is to lie about such things in public. Just my opinion, but I saw that as a bit of a show...Wyden had been briefed in previous meetings on the program, he knew the answer already, knew that Clapper was forbidden from acknowledging or even hinting at the existence of the program...and tossed him that question in a public hearing just so he could crucify Clapper some day when the program went public.

Not endorsing either Wyden or Clapper or saying it is right or wrong, just expressing my opinion on what really happened.

"Does the NSA collect any type of data at all on millions or hundreds of millions of Americans?" Oregon Republican Sen. Ron Wyden asked Clapper at the March 12 hearing.

"No, sir," Clapper responded.

"It does not?" Wyden pressed.

Clapper recanted and said: "Not wittingly. There are cases where they could, inadvertently perhaps, collect -- but not wittingly."

www.foxnews.com...

Wyden, who was already well briefed on PRISM and other intelligence operations, already knew the answer to the question when he asked it. But he also knew that it would have been inappropriate, if not illegal, for Clapper to answer the question honestly since doing so would have required him to publicly reveal highly classified information that ought not to be made available to America’s enemies. Wyden’s purpose wasn’t to shed light but to merely embarrass Clapper and the administration.

www.commentarymagazine.com...

reply to post by elouina
This is a great thread about a great story, thank you. That said i know how to make it dissappear as most threads I have commented on have - mention Bush/Cheney. [Blame Bush - Blame Bush - it's easy to do and kind of fun too - blame Bush, while it was really Chain-eez fault, butt do not make HIM angry]
ahem- see the 2005 "Telecom Immunity Act" and the recently upheld part "anyone who does anything illegal at the request of the government has complete retroactive immunity from prosecution" [We are asking that Dec. 30, in 2011 it was the date a High Court upheld this most unconstitutional of ALL possible acts, be made C.R.I.P. Day - Ultimate Holiday gifts for al bad boys and girls... who work for the "Right Agenda".]

Seriously could we retroactively Impeach Bush/Cheney/Rove/Rumpsfelt as a classic "Gang of Four"? ha, this thread and whole site will probably self destruct in 10, 9, 8,,,

IF it does not - keep digging - and you might find MY story - link it to the recent deaths of the "American Sniper" and the man who "Wrote the Book on Terror Decade" - hint - "They" needed the best to shoot me thru a closed window shade - even in bed at dawn I am hard to get.... then they needed to silence all who knew about THIS sanctioned killing gone wrong. 'This time - It is Biblical!' verily.

such a catchy tune - everyone in D.C. is humming it!
'Complete Retroactive Immunity from Prosecution' with a salsa beat, look it up!!!!

Well folks, just to update everyone here... It looks like the GOP wrote a letter to Obama requesting a change in leadership for the Justice Department. They have found that Holder purposely misled congress. Take that you dirty rotten phony scandals.

The report said: "We believe that Mr. Holder's simple and direct statement had the intended effect -- to leave the members of the Committee with the impression that not only had the potential prosecution of a reporter never been contemplated during Mr. Holder's tenure, but that nothing comparable to the Rosen search warrant had ever been executed by this administration. ... On the basis of Mr. Holder's testimony, there was little doubt in the Members' minds that the legal machinery for such an undertaking had never been started."

Republican report concludes Holder misled Congress on reporter targeting