[Rushtalk] Don't impeach Obama!!

Steven Laib stevenlaib at sbcglobal.net
Wed Mar 27 18:53:53 MDT 2013

I've had run ins with Devy Kidd as well.  She is terribly uninformed on just about everything.  Especially tax law.  


Sent from my iPad

On Mar 27, 2013, at 3:27 PM, "John A. Quayle" <blueoval57 at verizon.net> wrote:

>          It'd certainly be nice if Ms. Kidd knew the law before bloviating. Unfortunately, she couldn't be more wrong. I've already told her this and she ignores me. Here's what a retired Constitutional Attorney wrote:
> It is not true.
> Here are The Ways to get rid of sitting presidents:
> 1. Impeach them (Art. II, Sec. 4)
> 2. Remove them for mental reasons (25th Amendment, Sec. 4)
> 3. Get him to resign.
> 4. Defeat them when they run again.
> 5. A natural death  
> Americans do love their silly sensational gimmicks, don't they? Can the mere TRUTH compete with a silly gimmick?
> It is impossible to criminally prosecute a sitting president b/c the prosecutors all work for him.  The President can fire the Atty General and the U.S. Attorneys with the stroke of a pen.  
> So Presidents can be criminally prosecuted only AFTER they are removed from office. See, e.g., Federalist Paper No. 69 (4th para).
> Can you imagine being criminally prosecuted for a crime and having the power to fire the prosecutor and everyone on his staff?
> About undoing all - ALL - of zero's acts: Congress made the laws which zero signed. The Senate approved zero's judicial nominations. Congress goes along with zero's dismantling of the military. Congress goes along with the buildup of the SWAT teams in the federal executive agencies.  zero's lawless executive orders could be ignored in some cases; in other cases, Congress could negate them by dismantling and defunding anything zero set up in the executive orders. 
> Zero isn't the problem: The American people are - those who elect the U.S. Senators and Representatives who go along with what zero does.
> This silly notion that zero is not "really" president b/c he is not eligible, is like saying that the 16th Amendment is not binding b/c it wasn't properly ratified. Well, try making that argument in court if you are prosecuted for not paying taxes. IT DOESN'T MATTER WHETHER THE 16TH AMENDMENT WAS PROPERLY RATIFIED OR NOT, b/c the federal government prosecutes people all the time for not obeying their tax laws, the juries  - yes, juries - convict the defendants, and the judges smile all the way thru the trials. The judges will NOT PERMIT defense counsel to make the argument to the Jury that the 16th Amendment was not properly ratified. 
> WE need to deal with reality instead of silly theories.
> Feel free to copy and re-post this. 
> Publius Huldah
> At 03:16 AM 3/27/2013, Paf Dvorak wrote:
>> http://www.newswithviews.com/Devvy/kidd580.htm
>> Paf Dvorak
>> notmyname at thatswaytoomuch.info 
>> _______________________________________________
>> Rushtalk mailing list
>> Rushtalk at csdco.com
>> http://kalos.csdco.com/mailman/listinfo/rushtalk
> _______________________________________________
> Rushtalk mailing list
> Rushtalk at csdco.com
> http://kalos.csdco.com/mailman/listinfo/rushtalk
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://kalos.csdco.com/pipermail/rushtalk/attachments/20130327/a47b6013/attachment.html 

More information about the Rushtalk mailing list