High Crimes and Misdemeanors: Obama Should Be Impeached.

  • WrestlerBoy

    Posts: 1903

    Aug 16, 2013 4:59 PM GMT
    http://www.washingtonpost.com/world/national-security/nsa-broke-privacy-rules-thousands-of-times-per-year-audit-finds/2013/08/15/3310e554-05ca-11e3-a07f-49ddc7417125_story_1.html

    1) "Most of the infractions involve unauthorized surveillance of Americans or foreign intelligence targets in the United States, both of which are restricted by statute and executive order."

    That represents a Federal Crime.

    2) "The documents, provided earlier this summer to The Washington Post by former NSA contractor Edward Snowden, include a level of detail and analysis that is not routinely shared with Congress or the special court that oversees surveillance. In one of the documents, agency personnel are instructed to remove details and substitute more generic language in reports to the Justice Department and the Office of the Director of National Intelligence."

    And that represents a Federal Crime.

    3) "In another case, the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court, which has authority over some NSA operations, did not learn about a new collection method until it had been in operation for many months. The court ruled it unconstitutional."

    And so does that.

    4) "In June, after promising to explain the NSA’s record in “as transparent a way as we possibly can,” Deputy Attorney General James Cole described extensive safeguards and oversight that keep the agency in check. “Every now and then, there may be a mistake,” Cole said in congressional testimony."

    Two counts of lying to Congress; under oath. That's TWO Federal Crimes.

    5) "The NSA audit obtained by The Post, dated May 2012, counted 2,776 incidents in the preceding 12 months of unauthorized collection..."

    See above: "Every now and then...." ????

    6) "The most serious incidents included a violation of a court order and unauthorized use of data about more than 3,000 Americans and green-card holders."

    A Federal Crime.

    7) "But the more serious lapses include unauthorized access to intercepted communications, the distribution of protected content and the use of automated systems without built-in safeguards to prevent unlawful surveillance."

    As is that.

    icon_cool.gif "In what appears to be one of the most serious violations, the NSA diverted large volumes of international data passing through fiber-optic cables in the United States into a repository where the material could be stored temporarily for processing and selection."

    And that's a Federal Crime.

    10) "In October 2011, months after the program got underway, the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court ruled that the collection effort was unconstitutional." Yet it continued....

    And that's a Federal Crime.

    11) "James R. Clapper Jr., the director of national intelligence, has acknowledged that the court found the NSA in breach of the Fourth Amendment, which prohibits unreasonable searches and seizures, but the Obama administration has fought a Freedom of Information lawsuit that seeks the opinion."

    Can any of us get away with "acknowledging" we broke Federal Law....keep our jobs....and have the President of the United States try to prevent anyone from finding out more about how much we knew when we broke the law?

    12) "But a single “incident” in February 2012 involved the unlawful retention of 3,032 files that the surveillance court had ordered the NSA to destroy, according to the May 2012 audit."

    Another Federal Crime.

    13) "One of the documents sheds new light on a statement by NSA Director Keith B. Alexander last year that “we don’t hold data on U.S. citizens.” "

    Lying to Congress under Oath....yet another Federal Crime.

    Now, follow this next bit carefully:

    14a) "Some Obama administration officials, speaking on the condition of anonymity, have defended Alexander with assertions that the agency’s internal definition of “data” does not cover “metadata” such as the trillions of American call records that the NSA is now known to have collected and stored since 2006."

    14b) "The NSA’s authoritative def­inition of data includes those call records. “Signals Intelligence Management Directive 421,” which is quoted in secret oversight and auditing guidelines, states that “raw SIGINT DATA . . . INCLUDES, but is not limited to, unevaluated and/or unminimized transcripts, gists, facsimiles, telex, voice, and some forms of computer-generated data, such as call event records and other Digital Network Intelligence (DNI) metadata as well as DNI message text.”

    14a + 14b = According to THEIR OWN internal definition, they have lied repeatedly and KNEW they were lying.

    And Obama (for whom I voted....twice) has repeatedly lied to the Congress and the People in this regard.

    If these are not "High Crimes and Misdemeanors", I do not know what are.

    Step 1: EVERY member of the House and Senate Intelligence "Oversight" Committees should resign; and now.

    They should resign if they DID know about this...and they should resign if they did NOT know about this.

    How much more do we have to find out from Snowden..... before it's too late for us to do anything about it?
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Aug 16, 2013 5:02 PM GMT
    Are you insisting that a President should be impeached for many white collar crimes? Do you even know what's happening behind the scenes of every candidacy? I'm sure you're prudent enough to know Obama probably hasn't had the worst of such crimes... but of course, per your usual anti-Obama ranting self... you want to see the "socialist" out of office. Calm down and suffer a couple more years like the rest of society.
  • WrestlerBoy

    Posts: 1903

    Aug 16, 2013 5:08 PM GMT
    1) I AM a Socialist;

    2) Find me an "anti-Obama" rant...written by me?
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Aug 16, 2013 5:10 PM GMT
    No one has time for your rant, no one wishes to read such things because we all know it was worse when Bush was in office. So for you to create this thread in such an outrage is just trite because no one saw you saying anything previously. I can copy and paste things I find on the internet too, but that doesn't make them true.
  • WrestlerBoy

    Posts: 1903

    Aug 16, 2013 5:10 PM GMT
    hookerliningandsinking saidexcuse me, who did you vote for in the 2000 and 2004 presidential elections?


    Nobody. I couldn't find a real SOCIALIST on the ballot.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Aug 16, 2013 5:24 PM GMT
    That would be rich. Then we could impeach the next president too, and the president after that, and the president after that. (It isn't going to change.)


    There ought to be away to impeach him for refusing to label the Egyptian Military's coup a coup.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Aug 16, 2013 5:25 PM GMT
    Philibuster saidThat would be rich. Then we could impeach the next president too, and the president after that, and the president after that. (It isn't going to change.)


    There ought to be away to impeach him for refusing to label the Egyptian Military's coup a coup.

    Accuse them of crimes? Oh you youngin's with your crazy notions.
  • MikeW

    Posts: 6061

    Aug 16, 2013 6:00 PM GMT
    2051328_o.gif
  • BillandChuck

    Posts: 2024

    Aug 16, 2013 10:24 PM GMT
    Arguing that we shouldn't take a corrupt president on because they're all corrupt is to accept that we always want our politicians corrupt. This is preposterous, hopefully. We are entitled to honest representation in government, and this administration now is the one that's here, breaking the law, and should be taken to account. And if the next one does the same, it should suffer the same fate. Until such time as the politicians from the top down are examples of honesty and the enforcement maintains them as such.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Aug 16, 2013 10:38 PM GMT
    BillandChuck saidArguing that we shouldn't take a corrupt president on because they're all corrupt is to accept that we always want our politicians corrupt. This is preposterous, hopefully. We are entitled to honest representation in government, and

    If anyone wrote that they are all corrupt, I missed it. But I would agree - nearly all politicians and most presidents have been corrupt. Presidents generally don't act completely lawfully. And it's only fools who think that the guys they elected are going to act the way they promised before election. But impeach Obama? Not practical, and not possible (although Biden would serve us all a lot better). And if you and Wrestler think Obama is bad news, just wait until we have Hillary.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Aug 16, 2013 11:25 PM GMT
    GR8_ASLAN saidIt's funny how some people think they are powerful in the REAL world just because they have 1000 posts on a site that's most likely not going to stick around. icon_lol.gif

    You really think I read that LONG boring post!? You really think Obama is going to be impeached? icon_lol.gif

    No more than Bush was, for some very real crimes, that resulted in the deaths of hundreds of thousands of innocent civilians, making him the first US war criminal in history to occupy the White House. And crimes that also included the worst assaults against the US Constitution in our history.
  • BillandChuck

    Posts: 2024

    Aug 17, 2013 12:43 AM GMT
    Puppenjunge said
    BillandChuck saidArguing that we shouldn't take a corrupt president on because they're all corrupt is to accept that we always want our politicians corrupt. This is preposterous, hopefully. We are entitled to honest representation in government, and

    If anyone wrote that they are all corrupt, I missed it. But I would agree - nearly all politicians and most presidents have been corrupt. Presidents generally don't act completely lawfully. And it's only fools who think that the guys they elected are going to act the way they promised before election. But impeach Obama? Not practical, and not possible (although Biden would serve us all a lot better). And if you and Wrestler think Obama is bad news, just wait until we have Hillary.

    Still, the argument that it's always that way, always has been that way, isn't practical to address it, always will be that way ensures that such will be the case. de Toqueville had it right when he said we deserve the government we have. If we don't take action to effect change, change won't occur. And by the way, we agree on Hillary, though not sure about Biden.
  • Webster666

    Posts: 9217

    Aug 17, 2013 4:23 AM GMT
    Blah, blah, blah.
    He was black when he took the oath of office.
    And, he'll still be black when he leaves office, on January 20, 2017.

    The heavily Republican House of Representatives has the responsibility of impeachment. You can be sure, if there was one iota of evidence, that our President had done something illegal, those Republicans would break a leg to impeach him.

    So, you'll just have to get over it.


    mcyixc.jpg

  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Aug 17, 2013 4:35 AM GMT
    tldr_zps648e7714.gif

    Cry Conservapussie® cry! jajaja!
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Aug 17, 2013 4:37 AM GMT
    Webster666 said
    The heavily Republican House of Representatives has the responsibility of impeachment. You can be sure, if there was one iota of evidence, that our President had done something illegal, those Republicans would break a leg to impeach him.

    mcyixc.jpg

    Absolutely, and liberals in your country would do no less; no one likes being taken to the cleaners.

    ...and Bingo.
  • kuroshiro

    Posts: 786

    Aug 17, 2013 4:53 AM GMT
    WrestlerBoy said-snip-


    Yup, because ONE MAN is responsible for EVERYTHING that goes on/wrong in this country... none of the other people who are in charge are ever faulted. Yup. icon_rolleyes.gif
  • WrestlerBoy

    Posts: 1903

    Aug 17, 2013 11:26 AM GMT
    TheGuyNextDoor saidDoesn't this type of dreck belong in the News & Politics Forum?


    And I thought "consistency is the hobgoblin of small minds" was just, you know...a saying icon_smile.gif
  • WrestlerBoy

    Posts: 1903

    Aug 17, 2013 11:30 AM GMT
    kuroshiro said
    WrestlerBoy said-snip-


    Yup, because ONE MAN is responsible for EVERYTHING that goes on/wrong in this country... none of the other people who are in charge are ever faulted. Yup. icon_rolleyes.gif


    Well, no. But surely he's responsible for his "direct reports", as it were, i.e., those officers who report to him (Clapper)..and lie to Congress. If the President can't fire him... who can?

    But as B&C were so right in citing Tocqueville, we get the government we deserve. Or, those who might care actually also get the government...of those who don't.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Aug 17, 2013 1:02 PM GMT
    If we can't be bothered to impeach a war criminal, doubtful we could stomach the impeachment of the current president for anything less than a video taped murder of a homeless woman.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Aug 17, 2013 2:37 PM GMT
    I wouldn't mind if he was impeached, just not convicted by the Senate.

    Why is this topic in All Things Gay????
  • WrestlerBoy

    Posts: 1903

    Aug 17, 2013 3:39 PM GMT
    GoNYMets2012 saidI wouldn't mind if he was impeached, just not convicted by the Senate.

    Why is this topic in All Things Gay????


    Well, isn't Obama... damn! Now I see where I went wrong!
  • BillandChuck

    Posts: 2024

    Aug 17, 2013 7:26 PM GMT
    WrestlerBoy said
    GoNYMets2012 saidI wouldn't mind if he was impeached, just not convicted by the Senate.

    Why is this topic in All Things Gay????


    Well, isn't Obama... damn! Now I see where I went wrong!

    Things would be so much better if he was. icon_lol.gif