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

reply to post by elouina


This brings up a good point.
Where are the "democrat and republican" politicians that should be in an outrage over these infringements on our liberties?

The reason there is no outrage is because it is old news to them.
It is only new to the gullible American citizen that believes either party is out for thier best interest.

reply to post by supremecommander


For those who think both parties are the same:

crooksandliars.com...

I want to add to this debate that a I'm seeing a very disturbing trend here. It started with Manning and is carrying through with Snowden. They are two VERY different cases in almost every way but this one.

People are coming to find relative justification for the violation of even our most important laws to the security of a Nation and ability of a people to defend themselves in a world where every OTHER nation is either on the "doer" or "being done to" side of the exact same things.

Some say Manning was a Hero. I call him one step off a traitor, and that, pretty much only by legal definition which doesn't fit the technical elements of the crimes. Some call Snowden a traitor while I consider him a Hero, so far anyway.

See the problem?? That's just a tiny example but it should show it. The common perception is radically different at times, depending entirely upon who you ask. That's fine for public opinion but if a nation of law is ever to remain or return to being a nation of law, that subjective standard cannot be what determines it's application on criminal action.


Snowden *DID* violate about a dump truck's worth of laws, regulations and guidelines for the field he worked in and the people he worked for. Was he justified by circumstance? I think so...but that's my OPINION. The LAW doesn't function by opinion and the LAW is clear. He broke it.

I think the motivation and good which came from it should play into mitigation of consequence...not the total absence of it in the first place. I don't want to see him killed or rot in a cell. I think he's done a service....but he still broke the law in doing it. To suggest he didn't is to shred from OUR side the very same principles the men he reported on were shredding from THEIR side. It's a totally different motivation, of course ....but in 50 years, who will even care about the technical fine points of how respect for law came to collapse? It will only matter that it did.

We have to acknowledge the law exists.....then see what we can do about using the mechanisms within it which exist to handle a situation where someone violates it for all the right reasons.

Originally posted by Ghost375
Lying is not an impeachable offense.
There is absolutely no law against it, except if someone is under oath. So drop the Obama part. I don't care your ethical viewpoints about it. It's not illegal. End of discussion.

Yes, the people who lied under oath should he prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law. and those are interesting videos you posted there.

you are severely mistaken:
High Crimes - Why Politicians Are NOT Allowed To Lie! by SonOfTheLawOfOne

The word "perjury" is usually defined today as "lying under oath about a material matter", but that is not its original or complete meaning, which is "violation of an oath". We can see this by consulting the original Latin from which the term comes. From An Elementary Latin Dictionary, by Charlton T. Lewis (1895), Note that the letter "j" is the letter "i" in Latin.

periurium, i, n,, a false oath, perjury.
periurus, adj., oath-breaking, false to vows, perjured. iuro, avi, atus, are, to swear, take an oath.
iurator, oris, m., a swearer.
iuratus, adj., sworn under oath, bound by an oath.
ius, iuris, that which is binding, right, justice, duty.
per, ... IV. Of means or manner, through, by, by means of, ... under pretense of, by the pretext of, ....

By Art. II Sec. 1 Cl. 8, the president must swear: "I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will faithfully execute the Office of President of the United States, and will to the best of my Ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States." He is bound by this oath in all matters until he leaves office. No additional oath is needed to bind him to tell the truth in anything he says, as telling the truth is pursuant to all matters except perhaps those relating to national security. Any public statement is perjury if it is a lie, and not necessary to deceive an enemy.

so, has ignorance been denied, or will "sanity" prevail, and ignorance be willfully embraced?

reply to post by HauntWok

So just because they are allowed to lie we should just let them continue and act like it is okay??
It is time for people demand honesty also from politicians. These people are supposed to serve the country and the citizens, but yet they lie them right in the face and clearly have other interests than in the welfare of their own citizens.
If there is no law against this then maybe it is time to demand one?

reply to post by HauntWok

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.

Which shows that you are one of those poor brainwashed who still thinks that everything is about left and right.
How can you not realize that they are both the same and serve the very same elite. There is no real democracy in USA right now there is only a illusion of choice.

And why do you people constantly putting people in camps?? I myself agree with some right wing politics but also agree with some left wing politics. Just because you agree with one thing does not mean you are a right/left wing.

Originally posted by Sankari

Originally posted by elouina
This Proof Can Impeach Obama, Fire 2 NSA Officials, And Possibly Even Clear Snowden

Great. Go tell Congress, the Senate and the Supreme Court. Show them your proof.

Let me know how that works out for you.

ROFL
they'd show the same lackadaisical disinterest you've shown
after all, like the character in your avy, their final argument will be a gun.

you are ignoring the fact that you are guilty of violating some of the millions of laws on the books
and somewhere, somebody has all the dirt they need to get the goods on you...

what makes you [foolishly] "think" you're above being blackmailed by the law and it's managers
[ Note to mods:all caps are the author's ]

Under construction, Canada's new $880 million electronic spy HQ in Ottawa, which will spy on Americans and the whole world.

Assume that all your communications are being monitored and we live in a disguised police state already.

THIS IS EXACTLY THE WAY THIS ARTICLE APPEARED MARCH 24, 2012 . IF YOU UNDERSTAND THE BIG PICTURE, THE PIECES WILL FALL INTO PLACE, AND REVELATIONS LIKE EDWARD SNOWDEN'S WILL NOT SURPRISE YOU.

MANKIND IS BEING ENSLAVED BY THE ILLUMINATI CENTRAL BANKING CARTEL IN ORDER TO PROTECT THEIR MONOPOLY ON CREDIT CREATION. MOST OF OUR POLITICAL, ECONOMIC AND CULTURAL "LEADERS" CONSTITUTE A COLONIAL ELITE THAT SERVES THE BANKERS' SATANIC AGENDA. "TERROR' IS MANUFACTURED AS A PRETEXT TO BUILD THIS POLICE STATE.

THE CHARADE MUST END. SOCIETY IS IN DENIAL, AN ACCOMPLICE TO ITS OWN ENSLAVEMENT. THE TURKEY THINKS HE WILL BE A GUEST AT THE FEAST.
***
CONCLUSION

If we don't care about freedom, how about money? A prelude to taking away our property is taking away our power. The Illuminati do not intend to buy our acquiescence forever. Far too expensive.

These domestic spying measures are designed for a future day after financial collapse, war or martial law.

In the meantime, the sheep continue to graze while the abattoir is built at their expense in plain sight. Accomplices in their own enslavement, they hope their masters will be merciful. It's easier to bury their heads than make their masters accountable. - See more at: henrymakow.com...

This is the way of a totally corrupt government.
This is a broken system which has strayed from its constitutional roots so far, that we may ot see them back again fully.
It seems to me you will have to go downtown or wherever,.....and swear out a warrant, or write a written criminal complaint of the charges you have proof for.
because the police, the FBI, SS, DHS, They will IGNORE your proofs without prodding.
maybe contact the ACLU or some other org which has funds to mount a lawsuit or criminal complaints.
Otherwise..........this will just be a fart in a tornado.

Originally posted by Ghost375
Lying is not an impeachable offense.
There is absolutely no law against it, except if someone is under oath. So drop the Obama part. I don't care your ethical viewpoints about it. It's not illegal. End of discussion.

Yes, the people who lied under oath should he prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law. and those are interesting videos you posted there.

Bill Clinton lied to the American people on national TV and was impeached for it. He wasn't under oath.

Originally posted by Bilk22

Originally posted by Ghost375
Lying is not an impeachable offense.
There is absolutely no law against it, except if someone is under oath. So drop the Obama part. I don't care your ethical viewpoints about it. It's not illegal. End of discussion.

Yes, the people who lied under oath should he prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law. and those are interesting videos you posted there.

Bill Clinton lied to the American people on national TV and was impeached for it. He wasn't under oath.

edit on 15-6-2013 by Bilk22 because: (no reason given)

Exactly!! Star for you.

It's comforting to know that people still stand on principle and know that what's happening is wrong...

I believe most people just don't know what to do about it, and therein lies a huge problem that we need to try and solve.

~Namaste

reply to post by Bilk22


Err.. Not to be a stickler...but your note just hit me in that odd way some things do. Clinton could have said he was a choir boy who retained his virginity and Chelsea was a product of emmaculate conception if he'd wanted to. That wouldn't have gotten him anything but hate from the public. Nothing criminal for that stage of it. He did lie under oath and that's what zapped him. Lying when the truth would serve them better. The hallmark of a career politician.

President Clinton was impeached by the House, but acquitted by vote of the Senate. The House approved two articles of impeachment against the President stemming from the President’s response to a sexual harassment civil lawsuit and to a subsequent grand jury investigation instigated by an Independent Counsel. The first article charged the President with committing perjury in testifying before the grand jury about his sexual relationship with a White House intern and his efforts to cover it up;808 the second article charged the President with obstruction of justice relating both to the civil lawsuit and to the grand jury proceedings.

Source

They can lie like a cheap rug, as long as it's not during an official proceeding as I understand it.

Originally posted by Ghost375
Lying is not an impeachable offense.
There is absolutely no law against it, except if someone is under oath. So drop the Obama part. I don't care your ethical viewpoints about it. It's not illegal. End of discussion.

Yes, the people who lied under oath should he prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law. and those are interesting videos you posted there.

Great job ‘lil Cyber Warrior für Obama, but do try to keep this in mind:

[color=DA3287]"An impeachable offense is whatever a majority of the House of Representatives considers it to be at a given moment in history."

[color=9EFD38] –Gerald R. Ford's Remarks on the Impeachment of Supreme Court Justice William Douglas
April 15, 1970

Defending a shady politician. Tsk tsk tsk.
Go back to your Team Leader and get a retort to the above (and request a preemptive salary raise, because your job is about to get a whole lot harder).

Disregard the above – and LOFL – if the robotic impulse to defend your Black Jesus is merely out of some naïve, misguided sense of racial camaraderie.

Originally posted by beezzer
reply to post by elouina

 

This whole issue carries the stink of rot. Decay of the American soul. Our appointed public servants swore to uphold the Constitution and Rights held within it.

Yes, but what about the buddy system. SUV's, decked out Hummers with DVD players, and golf games.

What's more important? Truth or the buddy system. Obviously living deliciously is more important.

And there is more. Every person in the senate or congress that was aware of the surveillance program, and did nothing to try and protect us, should be removed from office also. Here is their oath:

reply to post by elouina


I have to agree with you completely with that statement. Our representatives are selling us down the river. The majority of them don't even read the bill their voting on. A lot of them don't even show up to vote! They're like the blind leading the blind!

Also critical detail on Clapper is Congressman Gohmert gave him one week notice of exact question...plus again by phone the morning of the hearing...a second notice.
This is known widely now and can't be denied.
Clapper is done...

reply to post by elouina


Rights are not "granted" to you by the Constitution. They are simply enumerated therein. Your rights are inherent, and no one has the authority to take them from you.

reply to post by elouina



It can but it won't.. as it will weaken the governments position as them being good and you the people being bad.

Republicans will not go after it either even if they do rattle the cages.

Snowden will have his character destroyed then discredited if not dead.

reply to post by Rocker2013


Love your post! And I am glad it is on the first page of this thread. Smack... People wake up! You know I read your post multiple times and I still haven't tired of it. The American Asociation of physicians once accused Obama of using mass hypnosis in his speeches. It sounded crazy and outlandish to me, but seems not so out there after all, considering the walking zombies in the US.

reply to post by elouina


Wow, all i do is state the FACT that lying is not an impeachable offense and you respond with that drivel?