Replies

You’ve been posting on these threads since 2008. So when did you take on this viewpoint future zot? I’ve got an idea when you did so to give yourself a thin veneer of cover.

Why would I need “a thin veneer of cover?” Aren’t my positions crystal clear in every post I put on the board?

Yes OBot, we know you’re just a twit spouting nonsense. There is plenty of evidence against Obama to start an investigation.

And yet no investigations.

Who runs grand juries these days? That would be government prosecutors. Some one once said, “If it is not a runaway Grand Jury it’s not a real Grand Jury.”

District Attorneys, state Attorney Generals offices and US Attorneys plus Special Counsels run Grand Juries every day.

There are thousands of Grand Juries that aren’t “runaway” Grand Juries. Just because you watched a Hollywood movie by that title once doesn’t mean that average citizens aren’t sitting on Grand Juries every day of the week and investigating whether or not there is evidence of criminal activity.

Nice that you recognize this fact OBot, and just as I said, they don’t have the intestinal fortitude, and therefore, you take this BS position to fool people that ‘you care’.

OK, fair enough. If there is no one in the nation with the intestinal fortitude to pursue this issue, why are you still raving on about it?
As for me caring, if Barack Hussein Obama II was to be indicted, impeached, tried, convicted and removed from office tomorrow, so be it.
If he is exonerated and finishes out his term, so be it.
I care ONLY about resolving the issue one way or the other.
In my personal opinion a Grand Jury investigation with subpoena power is the best way to accomplish that.

How about you? What do you think is the best way to resolution given all of the obstacles that you point out.

There are thousands of Grand Juries that aren’t “runaway” Grand Juries. Just because you watched a Hollywood movie by that title once doesn’t mean that average citizens aren’t sitting on Grand Juries every day of the week and investigating whether or not there is evidence of criminal activity.

Hollywood movies huh? Before 1946, Obama would have been indicted by a grand jury under the avalanche of evidence against him. Grand juries are no longer independent OBot. And for your information BOt, the word "runaway" grand jury is a BS term that was created by a federal rule change. See below:

"A presentment is generally drafted from the knowledge and findings of the jurors themselves, rather than a prosecutor, and signed individually by each juror who agrees with it. A presentment at common law stood public with or without approval of a prosecutor or court. In the early days of the Republic, the Attorney General hinted that a federal prosecutor was obliged to indict upon the presentment by the grand jury.[96] Thus, Rule 6 represented a monumental — and deliberate — change of grand jury practice.[97] Orfield's peculiar use of the term "runaway" grand jury in the committee notes may mark both the advent of this term into the legal lexicon[98] and the loss to history of true grand jury independence.[99]"

http://www.constitution.org/lrev/roots/runaway.htm

As for me caring, if Barack Hussein Obama II was to be indicted, impeached, tried, convicted and removed from office tomorrow, so be it. If he is exonerated and finishes out his term, so be it. I care ONLY about resolving the issue one way or the other. In my personal opinion a Grand Jury investigation with subpoena power is the best way to accomplish that.

BS. After literally thousand of postings over the years in defense of Obama troll-BOT, I highly doubt you have changed your spots. You just take a position you think covers up the rest of your BS. You'll be back to protecting your Obama and getting paid by Soros.

If your boyfriend, Mr. Obama, was even half a man, he would release his own records to the press and quell the controversy—as many other politicians have done.