Kerry ignored warnings BEFORE the 911 Atrocity
and then helped found the terrorist mosque
that led to the Boston Atrocity.
Posted on 06/08/2014 10:18:03 AM PDT by Resettozero
On Thursday, Senator Marco Rubio (R-FL) stated that he was "not, at this point, calling for impeachment." He continued, "The president has two years left in his term. We hope they pass quickly."
That hope is empty. They will pass slowly. And even should Republicans win back the Senate in 2014, President Obama promises heavy executive action--action that will surely violate the Constitutional delegation of powers.
Which is why, says Breitbart senior editor-at-large Ben Shapiro, impeachment isn't the answer: prosecution is. And in his new book, The People vs. Barack Obama: The Criminal Case Against The Obama Administration, Shapiro lays out the charges.
"A criminal administration can do virtually anything, without any sort of real consequences," Shapiro writes. "Impeachment is rarely used - in the entire history of the United States, there have been just 19 House impeachments, and just eight of those ended with full removal after a Senate trial. No doubt the founders intended impeachment to be utilized far more often than it has been...But in practice, impeachment has been a failure."
Instead, Shapiro proposes, criminal prosecution of the Obama administration under the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations (RICO) Act should be on the table.
That act was created as a response to the mafia--it was designed to undermine mob claims of plausible deniability. It was created to hold command and control structures accountable for activities taking place down the chain. Shapiro writes, "Congress expressly worried in the RICO law itself that organized crime was using its money and power to 'subvert and corrupt our democratic processes.' Those worries were understated. Now the chief threat to the democratic process comes not from the mafia but from within the government itself."
(Excerpt) Read more at breitbart.com ...
Let's call Fast and Furious what it is. State-sponsored terrorism.
On this side of the border it's violations of the RICO Act. In Mexico and Honduras it's state-sponsored terrorism.
What else would you call heavily arming international criminal syndicates within a foreign country wherein that country is in a death struggle with those syndicates?
Especially when it goes beyond thousands of assault rifles to include grenades, RPGs, shoulder fired rockets, anti-aircraft guns, night vision equipment, body armor and special deals to bring their drugs onto our soil with legal impunity?
Not to mention that the rip crew that killed BP Agent Brian Terry was there with DEA and FBI assistance and approval to attack and kill a rival cartel's smuggling crew.
Let's not leave out the DEA laundering millions of dollars for the drug cartels by setting up bank accounts for them that they otherwise couldn't do.
It's organized, it is spread through every Federal LEA and it violates numerous domestic laws and numerous statutes and treaties that deal with foreign nations. Yet none of it has been officially sanctioned. It's the FedGov acting like mafiosa.
DHS Complicit In Drug Cartel Human Trafficking
CONFIRMED: The DEA Struck A Deal With Mexico's Most Notorious Drug Cartel
businessinsider Jan. 13, 2014
0bama, Holder and Hillary Clinton are all deeply involved in this and it is state-sponsored terrorism. These criminal thugs are dragging our country down to the level of Tehran and Pyongyang.
RICO, as a tool of managing an out-of-control elective or appointive board, is much under-utilized. A good many city councils, school boards, and legislative bodies at all levels are not immune to its provisions.
In fact, any consortium that does not reflect the will of, and is not responsive to, the public which it represents, should be subject to a similar curb on power and authority.
RICO, as applied to the entire Current Regime now squatting in the White Hut, would seem to be a fitting action to bring, but with the now corrupted Department of Justice part of the targeted objective, who would have the standing to enforce the provisions? Could a Special Prosecutor be appointed for this singular purpose?
Yeah, really.
:-\
I’ll second that!
Shouldn’t that be counting down to Jan. 20, 2017 (not Nov. 8, 2016)?
Criminal prosecution of those who implement Obama's policies might be easier. If lawsuits were filed against the likes of Susan Rice and Valerie Jarrett (among others) it might make others back away from being part of Obama's "unanimous decisions".
Kerry ignored warnings BEFORE the 911 Atrocity
and then helped found the terrorist mosque
that led to the Boston Atrocity.
In 1996, my student Brian Kalt and I co-authored an article explaining that a sitting President is constitutionally immune from ordinary criminal prosecution-state or federal-but is of course subject to ordinary prosecution the instant he leaves office,' a prospect that can obviously be hastened by impeachment. 2 In this Essay, I shall summarize my reasons for continuing to believe this.
I disagree. I see him as very much a conservative water carrier. Which is a good thing with all the political fires of late.
Perhaps, if I can find a lawyer that dropped out of Harvard or Yale.
Exactly. There is absolutely no authority whatsoever to prosecute a president. He has to be impeached before prosecuted. It may even say that directly in the Constitution.
Not logical. What do we have now. Try thinking for a change. There would no King Obama. No FEDERAL MEDICAL CARE. (Some idiots forgot that Romney referred health care a State issue not Federal) The destruction of our capitalistic economy. Most were too busy not realizing that Romney is a conservative Constitionalist.
Do you agree with Akhil Reed Amar of Yale Law that all U. S. Presidents are immune from criminal prosecution while still in office? Or why do you want us to read what’s at the link?
I also agree with you.
Read my 15 as well.
Keep in mind he has nothing but contempt for Ted Cruz.
And .. a lot of people don’t seem to realize we have another criminal enterprise influencing our government - and the largest donors to all the politicals’ coffers.
TA DA !!!! ...... PUBLIC UNIONS.
These unions have waaaaaay too much control over our government; starting with all local, county, state, and federal. This is why YOU CANNOT FIRE ANYBODY IN A GOVT POSITION; the unions won’t allow it.
IF WE WANT THINGS TO CHANGE IN GOVERNMENT - THE UNIONS HAVE TO BE DRIVEN FROM CONGRESS - ALL FED GOVT DEPTS - ALL SCHOOLS (don’t even get me started on this group), etc. IF THIS IS NOT DONE .. THERE IS NO CHANCE OF EVER RECLAIMING AMERICA FOR THE PEOPLE.
Don’t say it can’t be done .. because the private sector got it done in a lot of places. And .. if you pay attention to what Gov. Walker did in Wisconsin .. you will see it can be done. Let the market place take care of the private business unions .. and we can concentrate on the government unions.
THE PROBLEM IS .. DO WE HAVE THE WILL AND THE SPINE TO ACCOMPLISH IT ..????
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.