Click here: to donate by Credit Card
Or here: to donate by PayPal
Or by mail to: Free Republic, LLC - PO Box 9771 - Fresno, CA 93794
Thank you very much and God bless you.
Posted on 07/28/2025 7:53:13 AM PDT by MtnClimber
|
|
Click here: to donate by Credit Card Or here: to donate by PayPal Or by mail to: Free Republic, LLC - PO Box 9771 - Fresno, CA 93794 Thank you very much and God bless you. |
“If you can arrest a former president named Donald Trump, you can arrest a former president named Barack Obama.” — Peachy Keenan on “X”
I couldn’t agree more!
Obama bought a house within spitting distance of the White House when he left office and used it as headquarters to sabotage Trump.
There is plenty of stuff that he did after he left office to put him away forever. No need to worry about the Presidential immunity thing, because it only applies to crimes committed while in office.
There are two sets of “laws”. One for DemocRATz and associated leftist sewage, and the other for the rest of us. Nothing will happen to the lying Muslim eunuch Communist pretend intellect.
It sounds like guardrails were already in place and the O admin simply overruled them.
Better guardrails are always welcome.
Even if Obama can’t be prosecuted because of Presidential Immunity, I say treat him like Richard Nixon, make him an unindicted co-conspirator at trial for Brennan or Comey, put in the record evidence that Obama created treason and convict him in the court of public opinion.
Yes.
A treasonous coup does not fall within the scope of the functions of the Presidency.
No mea culpa, prosecute them all except Obama. Let the public see him as the coward in charge he was. Let those involved spill the details in courts, over, and over, and over......
President Trump should sue Barack into having to live in the old neighborhood in Chicago.
When it comes to Officers of the United States, the Constitution allows prosecution later after conviction by Congress. (Remember, the Constitution is the Supreme Law of the Land and only those federal laws PURSUANT to the Constitution are valid (US Const., Art. VI, Cl. 2).
The President, Vice President and all civil Officers of the United States, shall be removed from Office on Impeachment for, and Conviction of, Treason, Bribery, or other high Crimes and Misdemeanors.US Const., Art. II, Sec. 4.
Judgment in Cases of Impeachment shall not extend further than to removal from Office, and disqualification to hold and enjoy any Office of honor, Trust or Profit under the United States: but the Party convicted shall nevertheless be liable and subject to Indictment, Trial, Judgment and Punishment, according to Law.US Const., Art. I, Sec. 3, Cl. 6-7.
US Const., Art. I, Sec. 3, Cl. 7 reads that an official who has been congressionally convicted can be prosecuted later for crimes done while in office. The Constitution never says that an official who has not been congressionally convicted can be prosecuted later for what he does in office.
If the Constitution meant that any official could be prosecuted later for what they did in office, why would it specify “the Party convicted”? If the Constitution allowed any official to be prosecuted later, wouldn’t it say something about that along with the limiting “Party convicted” as written?
For example, the Constitution is written so that if it is silent regarding a federal power and the federal power is not specifically enumerated to the feds, then it is not a valid federal power. The Constitution is the ONLY source of delegating powers to the feds by specifying and enumerating them. So, when it comes to the federal gov’t, if it’s not in the Constitution, it’s not a federal power.
So when it comes to the federal gov’t, what constitutionally can be done BY them or TO them should be specified, and prosecution of officials after leaving office who have not been congressionally convicted is not specified in the Constitution.
Also, limited immunity of high gov’t officials is an important factor. Otherwise, they are vulnerable and subject to all kinds of vengeful legal suits, frivolous or not, after they are out of office. That jeopardy could reasonably keep them from faithfully and bravely executing their duties while in office.
Again, if they misbehave while in office, then it is up to Congress to bring charges and convict such.
So the Constitution provides for prosecution of high officials but balances the need for limited prosecution so the officials can be effective while in office and not afraid of politically-motivated legal suits later. If Obama and his officials weren’t congressionally impeached (”impeached” means “formally charged”) and convicted, can they constitutionally get away with crimes while in office? Apparently. We live in an imperfect world and the Constitution is probably the most inspired legal document to create the best nation within that imperfect world. So within our imperfect world, America and the Constitution aren’t perfect, but they are way ahead of whatever’s in second place. Further, I won’t endorse what violates the Constitution. Doing that just empowers the other side to violate the Constitution, which is how we got into this mess in the first place.
It wasn’t a hoax. It was fraud intended to interfere with an election and the constitutional transfer of power. It was denial of rights under color of authority. It was a few other things but it wasn’t a hoax.
EXACTLY, list Obama as an unindicted co-conspirator an see which one of the others decide to give the others (including Obama) up for a lighter sentence.
My response to the headline question is: Absolutely! The jerk Obozo and his ilk have committed treason in the first degree. I just hear that Newsmax hack, Napolitano incorrectly say that Obozo can’t be convicted of treason because treason has to be committed in a time of war. The statute says nothing of the kind. It says that the act of treason has to constitute and consist of war against the U.S. Now, there can be no logical description of the multi-year actions of Obozo and his treasonous cohorts as anything but waging war against this country to destroy America as we know it.
Doesn’t matter if he “can”...we all know that The Magic Negro will never see the inside of a courtroom.
The bass turd should have been in jail a long time ago. I’m still not convinced he was a natural born American citizen and was therefore not qualified to be the POTUS. He needs his *** kicked.
King Obama used Federal Government resources to destroy a incoming freely elected POTUS for political purposes.
If we are going to be ‘No King’ Country we better prosecute Obama to the fullest extent of the law, or the next democrat to take power will be much, much, much worse.
Where is that requirement in the Constitution?
It's a circular argument. If a President commits a crime while in office, he almost certainly is NOT performing his official duties or constitutional "function of the Presidency".
“If all the facts alleged are true, was Obama acting within the scope of his constitutional authority as president? “
No. I don’t know why people insist they can’t figure it out. He was violating his oath of office.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.