Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Anybody know of this?? President Obama Indicted by Federal Court?"
you tube ^ | 30-jan-2013 | In2thevast1975

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


TOPICS:
KEYWORDS: 19220908; birthcertificate; birthers; certifigate; communism; communists; conspiracy; courts; fascist; federal; indicted; larouche; larouchies; lefties; leftwingnuts; lyndonhlarouche; lyndonlarouche; lynmarcus; marcus; morethorazineplease; naturalborncitizen; nbc; nutcase; obama; obamaindicted; trotskist; trotsky; ttp; vips; whackoliberal
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-5051-80 last
To: OL Hickory

https://www.google.com/search?q=Lyndon+Larouche&oq=Lyndon+Larouche&aqs=chrome.0.57&sourceid=chrome&ie=UTF-8

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lyndon_LaRouche

Lyndon Hermyle LaRouche, Jr. (born September 8, 1922), also known as Lyn Marcus, is a controversial American political activist

www.publiceye.org/larouche/

The Lyndon LaRouche network, an offshoot of the radical student movement that metamorphosed into a fascist organization in the early 1970s, developed

rationalwiki.org/wiki/Lyndon_LaRouche

Dec 16, 2012 – Lyndon LaRouche is a very special kind of American political animal, a perennial candidate for President and the ultimate wingnut/moonbat,

www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/.../cult/larouche/main.htm

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 ...


51 posted on 01/31/2013 2:06:04 AM PST by ApplegateRanch (Love me, love my guns!©)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: OL Hickory

Mr. Lyndon Larouche, a well respected journalist and political activist

52 posted on 01/31/2013 2:49:13 AM PST by Right Wing Assault (Dick Obama is more inexperienced now than he was before he was elected.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: OL Hickory

I am probably wrong, but AFAIK an indictment must come from a grand jury - not a court.


53 posted on 01/31/2013 2:56:53 AM PST by djf (Conservative values help the poor. Liberal values help them STAY poor!!!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: OL Hickory
Heheheh. Larouche.

Anyway, Courts don't indict. This story is half-baked dribble, entirely from somebody's imagination.

54 posted on 01/31/2013 3:02:00 AM PST by Cboldt
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: GraceG
-- I'll believe it when i see it on Drudge! --

I'm holding out for seeing it on Debka.

55 posted on 01/31/2013 3:03:28 AM PST by Cboldt
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 43 | View Replies]

To: Cboldt

I go to bed every night and dream that this would happen....and then I saw the source.


56 posted on 01/31/2013 3:05:52 AM PST by dforest
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 54 | View Replies]

To: OL Hickory

If you think obammy’s folllowers are a bit rabid, you ain’t seen nothing til you see larouche and his minions


57 posted on 01/31/2013 3:13:54 AM PST by Joe Boucher ((FUBO))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: OL Hickory
Mr. Lyndon Larouche, a well respected journalist and political activist...

I would beg to differ.

58 posted on 01/31/2013 3:54:28 AM PST by tbpiper
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: South40

I agree...spit coffee all over keyboard. This idiot gives idiots a bad name.


59 posted on 01/31/2013 4:55:58 AM PST by Portcall24
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: LucyT

I stopped reading at Lyndon LaRouche..


60 posted on 01/31/2013 5:22:57 AM PST by cardinal4 (Constitution? What Constitution?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: krb
Lyndon Larouche is the exception to the broken clock rule.
61 posted on 01/31/2013 5:33:18 AM PST by liberalh8ter (If Barack has a memory like a steel trap, why can't he remember what the Constitution says?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 21 | View Replies]

sfl


62 posted on 01/31/2013 5:34:09 AM PST by phockthis (http://www.supremelaw.org/fedzone11/index.htm ...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 50 | View Replies]

To: P-Marlowe

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.


63 posted on 01/31/2013 5:44:22 AM PST by Tublecane
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: P-Marlowe

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.


64 posted on 01/31/2013 5:44:39 AM PST by Tublecane
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: OL Hickory
...Lyndon Larouche, a well respected.....ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha
65 posted on 01/31/2013 5:54:45 AM PST by mnehring
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: 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.

Are you sure he didn't mean that the Queen of England had been indicted?

66 posted on 01/31/2013 5:56:55 AM PST by DoodleDawg
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: OL Hickory

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.


67 posted on 01/31/2013 6:15:04 AM PST by Stosh
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: OL Hickory

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.


68 posted on 01/31/2013 7:17:07 AM PST by OldPossum
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: OL Hickory

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.


69 posted on 01/31/2013 7:23:00 AM PST by buffaloguy
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Cboldt; LucyT
This story is half-baked dribble, entirely from somebody's imagination.

Could you please summarize for us, the statements he made during the 70 minutes, that you believe are imaginary?
70 posted on 01/31/2013 7:32:13 AM PST by Brown Deer (Pray for 0bama. Psalm 109:8)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 54 | View Replies]

To: OL Hickory

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.


71 posted on 01/31/2013 8:45:37 AM PST by waynesa98
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: waynesa98
"you can’t indite a sitting president. He would have to be convicted in a senate impeachment trial first. "

Seems that issue remains unresolved.

FWIW -

THE PRESIDENT'S TRIAL: THE INDEPENDENT COUNSEL; STARR IS WEIGHING WHETHER TO INDICT SITTING PRESIDENT

And -

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.


72 posted on 01/31/2013 10:53:01 AM PST by rxsid (HOW CAN A NATURAL BORN CITIZEN'S STATUS BE "GOVERNED" BY GREAT BRITAIN? - Leo Donofrio (2009))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 71 | View Replies]

To: wrench

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.


73 posted on 01/31/2013 11:02:10 AM PST by TiaS
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: Brown Deer

http://www.citizensgrandjury.com/pdf/121101-Citizens%20Grand%20Jury%20Indictment.pdf

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.


74 posted on 01/31/2013 8:40:47 PM PST by TexasVoter (No Constitution? No Union!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 50 | View Replies]

To: hinckley buzzard

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.


75 posted on 01/31/2013 8:51:50 PM PST by piasa (Attitude adjustments offered here free of charge)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 22 | View Replies]

To: Nik Naym

LOL


76 posted on 02/01/2013 1:33:58 AM PST by ABrit (awordinyourear.blogspot.co.uk)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 25 | View Replies]

To: Nik Naym

LOL


77 posted on 02/01/2013 1:33:58 AM PST by ABrit (awordinyourear.blogspot.co.uk)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 25 | View Replies]

To: Nik Naym

LOL


78 posted on 02/01/2013 1:33:58 AM PST by ABrit (awordinyourear.blogspot.co.uk)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 25 | View Replies]

To: rxsid

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

see http://www.justice.gov/olc/sitting_president.htm


79 posted on 02/02/2013 7:47:38 PM PST by waynesa98
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 72 | View Replies]

To: waynesa98

That opinion, from the department under the Executive. Not surprising.


80 posted on 02/04/2013 10:57:53 AM PST by rxsid (HOW CAN A NATURAL BORN CITIZEN'S STATUS BE "GOVERNED" BY GREAT BRITAIN? - Leo Donofrio (2009))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 79 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-5051-80 last

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson