Skip to comments.Anybody know of this?? President Obama Indicted by Federal Court?"
Posted on 01/30/2013 9:41:08 PM PST by OL Hickory
Mr. Lyndon Larouche, a well respected journalist and political activist received word from his sources within the United States government that President Barack Hussein Obama has been indicted by a Federal Court
Lyndon Hermyle LaRouche, Jr. (born September 8, 1922), also known as Lyn Marcus, is a controversial American political activist
The Lyndon LaRouche network, an offshoot of the radical student movement that metamorphosed into a fascist organization in the early 1970s, developed
Dec 16, 2012 Lyndon LaRouche is a very special kind of American political animal, a perennial candidate for President and the ultimate wingnut/moonbat,
January 1974, and Lyndon H. LaRouche Jr., the leader of a left-wing sect, was telling his followers why they had to believe his story that one of them had had been brainwashed by the Soviet secret police. ...
Lyndon Larouche and the New American Fascism: Dennis King ...
www.amazon.com ... Leaders & Notable People Political
A Trotskyist in the 1940s, four-time presidential candidate, head of the National Democratic Policy Committee, right-wing extremist Lyndon LaRouche was ...
Mr. Lyndon Larouche, a well respected journalist and political activist
I am probably wrong, but AFAIK an indictment must come from a grand jury - not a court.
Anyway, Courts don't indict. This story is half-baked dribble, entirely from somebody's imagination.
I'm holding out for seeing it on Debka.
I go to bed every night and dream that this would happen....and then I saw the source.
If you think obammy’s folllowers are a bit rabid, you ain’t seen nothing til you see larouche and his minions
I would beg to differ.
I agree...spit coffee all over keyboard. This idiot gives idiots a bad name.
I stopped reading at Lyndon LaRouche..
That couldn’t happen. Presidents newed to be impeached first. Even if Holder wanted to and was legally able to indict him, Obama could expedite the process, have an immediate trial, plead guilty, and instantly pardon himself.
That couldn’t happen. Presidents need to be impeached first. Even if Holder wanted to and was legally able to indict him, Obama could expedite the process, have an immediate trial, plead guilty, and instantly pardon himself.
Are you sure he didn't mean that the Queen of England had been indicted?
A Larouchie accosted me on the street during one of the presidential campaigns, hoping to convince me to vote for Lyndon.
I told him I planned to write in the Queen of England on my ballot.
I thought his head was going to explode - can’t remember when I’ve had more fun.
Why did you not try to find out some information about Larouche before posting this? You have to be some kind of naive, that’s the only explanation.
Ah...Lyndon Larouche is back. I had lost rack of him over the years.
Lyndon is convinced that Queen Elizabeth was behind the Atlanta child murders in the 70s.
He apparently still has followers who I occasionally run into down at the courhouse and they are bat-sh!t crazy. I mean really out of touch with reality.
I have no idea when he got out of prison and had assumed that he had retired, but alas and alack he is still selling his patent medicine.
you can’t indite a sitting president. He would have to be convicted in a senate impeachment trial first. A president especially this one could commit mass murder and the wieners running the senate would never convict him.
Seems that issue remains unresolved.
Full Text: Is a Sitting President Subject to Compulsory Criminal Process?
Sen. John Ashcroft (R-Mo.) ...
Let me take a moment to summarize my preliminary view at the outset, with the strong qualification that I remain open to persuasion. Based on a review of the Constitution, legal commentary, court ruling, and the written testimony that has been submitted for today's hearing, I enter the hearing with two preliminary thoughts. My first preliminary thought: the president would appear to be subject to the compulsory process of the criminal law. Put simply, the Constitution and our history appear to reflect the fundamental principle that no man is above the law. The president is subject to the law, not above it. If he violates the law, he can be prosecuted.
But there is a second important question, and that is this: Assuming a president can be prosecuted, should he be prosecuted, when impeachment is a viable option? I think not. Prudence dictates that absence extraordinary circumstances, that when impeachment is available to address presidential misconduct, prosecution should await the resolution of the impeachment question by the Congress.
One of the charges was regarding non-recess appointments in violation of the Constitution. There were several other charges. I listened to La Rouche in the middle of the night, last night. He was pretty fired up.
Thanks for the link, Brown Deer. So this is not about La Rouche, altho’ he’s getting all the juice from it.
This is actually the work of a citizen jury headed by Larry Klayman. It’s very interesting reading; hard to argue against it from where I sit. No telling what will, if anything, happen from it, but they did a good job.
One of his supporters was Col. Karen Kwiatkowski, and Air Farce officer who Ted Kennedy was fond of using as an advisor. They were all tied up with the libs in that Plame Name /Niger Yellowcake thing with Ray McGovern of VIPs and Dan Ellesberg, etc. And then the birther thing too.
A Sitting President’s Amenability to Indictment and Criminal Prosecution*
The indictment or criminal prosecution of a sitting President would unconstitutionally undermine the capacity of the executive branch to perform its constitutionally assigned functions.
October 16, 2000
MEMORANDUM FOR THE ATTORNEY GENERAL
In 1973, the Department concluded that the indictment or criminal prosecution of a sitting President would impermissibly undermine the capacity of the executive branch to perform its constitutionally assigned functions. We have been asked to summarize and review the analysis provided in support of that conclusion, and to consider whether any subsequent developments in the law lead us today to reconsider and modify or disavow that determination.1 We believe that the conclusion reached by the Department in 1973 still represents the best interpretation of the Constitution.
The Department’s consideration of this issue in 1973 arose in two distinct legal contexts. First, the Office of Legal Counsel (”OLC”) prepared a comprehensive memorandum in the fall of 1973 that analyzed whether all federal civil officers are immune from indictment or criminal prosecution while in office, and, if not, whether the President and Vice President in particular are immune from indictment or criminal prosecution while in office. See Memorandum from Robert G. Dixon, Jr., Assistant Attorney General, Office of Legal Counsel, Re: Amenability of the President, Vice President and other Civil Officers to Federal Criminal Prosecution while in Office (Sept. 24, 1973) (”OLC Memo”). The OLC memorandum concluded that all federal civil officers except the President are subject to indictment and criminal prosecution while still in office; the President is uniquely immune from such process. Second, the Department addressed the question later that same year in connection with the grand jury investigation of then-Vice President Spiro Agnew. In response to a motion by the Vice President to enjoin grand jury proceedings against him, then-Solicitor General Robert Bork filed a brief arguing that, consistent with the Constitution, the Vice President could be subject to indictment and criminal prosecution. See Memorandum for the United States Concerning the Vice President’s Claim of Constitutional Immunity (filed Oct. 5, 1973), In re Proceedings of the Grand Jury Impaneled December 5, 1972: Application of Spiro T. Agnew, Vice President of the United States (D. Md. 1973) (No. 73-965) (”SG Brief”). In so arguing, however, Solicitor General Bork was careful to explain that the President, unlike the Vice President, could not constitutionally be subject to such criminal process while in office.
In this memorandum, we conclude that the determinations made by the Department in 1973, both in the OLC memorandum and in the Solicitor General’s brief, remain sound and that subsequent developments in the law validate both the analytical framework applied and the conclusions reached at that time. In Part I, we describe in some detail the Department’s 1973 analysis and conclusions. In Part II, we examine more recent Supreme Court case law and conclude that it comports with the Department’s 1973 conclusions
That opinion, from the department under the Executive. Not surprising.