Keith Olbermann Interviews Constitutional Lawyer on Bush's Impeachment

Keith Olbermann Interviews Constitutional Lawyer on Bush's Impeachment

(visit the link for the full news article)

This is a really good interview. More so than just making the case for why Bush should be impeached, is why are the democratically controlled congress PROTECTING him?!? There is something very, very wrong with our current system...These people are all cohorts in crime, with no one holding the other accountable! Time to reinvoke independent investigation councils, as these people are all dirty and incapable of policing themselves!


(visit the link for the full news article)

Flag and Star, of course.

I love how Keith Olbermann is able to speak out against Bush, and other criminals in charge of defending us, those who supposedly put them in power. I have no idea why this guy has been allowed to continue, and has not yet been removed from the mainstream news.

That said, Kucinich is a hero. Until now he has been silenced. He sees criminal activity going on, and he is the only one standing up for We The People. I do not think even Ron Paul would put himself into such a situation where he is publicly accusing the PRESIDENT of so many crimes.

Kucinich may suffer being silenced, while he is trying to be the only one who wants to protect our constitutional rights and exact justice for the tax payers... Who are also victim to Bush's crimes.

Bush has raped this entire country, it's economy(which is all fake, anyway), the taxpayers, and every other country he's been able to get his hands on.

Kucinich is a true American hero. It's just a shame that American law has changed so drastically that all of his hard work will accomplish nothing. Lawfully trying to get something done can now be considered 100% completely useless, worthless. Work within the law, and be ignored and considered whacko.

Work around the law, apparently, and you can rape it, stomp on it, and mold it to fit your agenda.

This is taxation without representation. Why are we the people being so passive and letting this man do as he wants with no regard to those he is bankrupting and supposed to be working FOR?

reply to post by DimensionalDetective


I wonder if there is anything the people can do about this after he is relieved of his duties. Surely there is some action the people can take to try him for his crimes.

Sorry...A post meant for another thread & mistakenly put here...


However, I have trouble with videos (3 minutes of "loading" per second of actual viewing)...Anywhere I can get a text transcription?

[edit on 12-6-2008 by MidnightDStroyer]

This Moron should be interviewing a Lawyer on Obama's non-Birth Certificate requested by the State Dept., but Obama refuses to disclose the information.

This is in direct violation of the Constitution.

Give me a break.

Originally posted by jetxnet
This Moron should be interviewing a Lawyer on Obama's non-Birth Certificate requested by the State Dept., but Obama refuses to disclose the information.

This is in direct violation of the Constitution.

Give me a break.

Your deflecting, hardcore.

Do you not have anything to refute the evidence to suggest why Bush and his buddies shouldn't be tried?

If you just wanna talk about Obama then go to one of the many other threads about him, your making yourself out to be a fool.

reply to post by AnOldFriend


Look
i dont have an opinion about "trying bush as a war criminal"
don't want to have an opinion because my opinion would say i dont care

But to believe what this Lawyer has to say simply because he's on TV is simply astounding.

Because if media attorneys have taught us anything
it's that even they, themselves can be biased and wrong

Having a title in your name doesnt make you right.

Basic interpretation and manipulation of the law is why some lawyers are paid much more than others.

Originally posted by jetxnet
This Moron should be interviewing a Lawyer on Obama's non-Birth Certificate requested by the State Dept., but Obama refuses to disclose the information.

This is in direct violation of the Constitution.

Hmmm...Let's see...Here it is:

Article 2, Section 1, Clause 5:
No person except a natural born Citizen, or a Citizen of the United States, at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the Office of President; neither shall any Person be eligible to that Office who shall not have attained to the Age of thirty-five Years, and been fourteen Years a Resident within the United States.

Yep...If he can't (or refuses to) prove it, he's not eligible.

Originally posted by Andrew E. Wiggin
Basic interpretation and manipulation of the law is why some lawyers are paid much more than others.

Good point...However, were you aware that lawyers who pass the International BAR are given foreign titles of state, such as Esquire? How many such lawyers go on to "serve" in the US Government?

Source from quoted post: Duke lacrosse prosecutor disbarred:
"We had a prosecutor who was faced with a very unusual situation in which the confluence of his self-interest collided with a very volatile mix of race, sex and class."

How many such government "servants" could be harboring similar "conflicting loyalties" between the nation that bestowed such title & their US government "service?" There is a specific reason why the Founding Forefathers included Article 1,Section 9, Clause 8:

No Title of Nobility shall be granted by the United States: And no Person holding any Office of Profit or Trust under them, shall, without the Consent of the Congress, accept of any present, Emolument, Office, or Title, of any kind whatever, from any King, Prince or foreign State.

Their reason being that no one in any Government Office should be forced to "choose between two masters." The Forefathers had already learned from history that no one is capable of effectively serving any interests if they posses divided loyalties. My point here is that, such divided loyalties existing in US Offices now have been violating Constitutional Law from the moment they took their Oath of Office...Not really "manipulating law," as you put it, but outright violating it.

So the People are better served by Constitutional Lawyers providing answers rather than trust the word of any "politician" in any Office of Trust...Because divided loyalties can never be trusted in Office.

[edit on 12-6-2008 by MidnightDStroyer]

hmm

all i was saying is that you shouldnt believe him just because he's on TV

Its a news program man. You really think they'll allow a lawyer on there who says "this isnt right!!"

it'd go against their entire agenda

Maybe it is right
Maybe it isnt

i dunno


what I AM SAYING IS
dont believe a lawyer just because they're on TV

There arent anymore credible sources of information on television anymore.

reply to post by DimensionalDetective


Absolutely, 100% true. We need to remove the money from government. The scary thing is how? Say I wanted to run for office in order to re-establish this. How would someone like myself, just an average citizen with a good education, compete with the money of the corporately backed politicians?

I don't trust our voting systems so how would we get around that? People will say, "get out and vote. Make your voice heard." Sorry guys, I have seen too much misconduct and issues with these 'electronic' voting booths to fully trust them.

So I say again, how?

Originally posted by jetxnet
This Moron should be interviewing a Lawyer on Obama's non-Birth Certificate requested by the State Dept., but Obama refuses to disclose the information.

This is in direct violation of the Constitution.

Give me a break.

Sorry, but what is in direct violation of the Constitution? Not disclosing his birth certificate? Sorry, but that is not true. However, there should be no problem with doing so. He still does need to show that he is a legitimate candidate for president.

I have seen his certificate on his site but it is lacking a few things for me to fully accept it. I do believe he is an American because his mother is one. That right there makes him one regardless of where he is born. As long as she didn't give up her citizenship. As long as he does NOT have dual citizenship. All should be fine.

Actually....no

You have to be born of American parents on American soil, so you can be born at an army base in Iraq, but the green zone is considered usa soil. This is why Gov. Arnold can't be president.


If 'citizenship' was all that mattered, the terminator would've ran for prez by now.

You have to be born on US soil

Originally posted by dariousg
Absolutely, 100% true. We need to remove the money from government. The scary thing is how?

From the Journals of the Continental Congress, 1:105-113 (passed unanimously in 1774):

If money is wanted by Rulers who have in any manner oppressed the People, they may retain it until their grievances are redressed, and thus peaceably procure relief, without trusting to despised petitions or disturbing the public tranquility.

That's how...But you must first be certain that your name appears on a legitimate form of complaint presented to the government to make use of this legislation (ie: Sign a petition that addresses Constitutional Torts).
This was one of the key points addressed by the "V Protest" that gathered in Washington D.C. "No Answers, No Taxes," was the phrase on a very large banner.

reply to post by Andrew E. Wiggin

But to believe what this Lawyer has to say simply because he's on TV is simply astounding.

I don't care what the lawyer says. He hasn't introduced anything new to me.

what's the point of your response, "old" friend??

That reply wasnt meant for you. This video's credibility is based on the shoulders of a "TV" attorney

im saying thats bunk
dont listen to him just because he's on TV

General statement

sorry, but it wasnt meant for 'just you'

reply to post by Andrew E. Wiggin


Oh well your post was a reply to me so I assumed that is who you were replying to.

Do you have any reason we shouldn't believe this guy?

Sure

here's how i view Bush:

Think of Bill Bellecheck (spelling?)

he 'technically' didnt break any rules, because of his interpretations of said rules

if there are loopholes in the rules, and you allow those loopholes to be explloited, then you are not allowed to 'change those rules' and then punish people who commited the infractions before the changing of the rule

Sure, some of the thigns he's done have been awfully shady, and somewhat dispicable, though i do truely feel he did it in the best interests of the safety of our country from foriegn threats

regardless of his intentions, there has not been one single violation of any constitutional right by the bush admin that cannot be explained through technical lingo that i'll never fully understand.

As for this lawyer
ill give you a 'flipped' example

With the recent decision, 5-4, what if Fox News had on the 4 justices that said "no" to the guantonomo (cant spell it) decision

if they tell you why they said "no" does it make it so?

They had to make a ruling that it was illegal, because current law made it legal through twisted interpretation

now those loopholes have been closed

if it continues, then yes, big time violation

since no violation has happened
can't impeach based on this guys information

atleast...thats how i feel about it.

Again i dont support bush 100%
but i support our congress even less (im about on par with the national polls on both)

But when it comes to foriegn opposition, ill side with my congress and my president any day of the week.