Citizenspook.TREASONGATE:NEW CONSTITUTIONAL DISCOVERY

Moderators: Elvis, DrVolin, Jeff

Citizenspook.TREASONGATE:NEW CONSTITUTIONAL DISCOVERY

Postby dbeach » Tue Sep 13, 2005 2:34 pm

Ask you to post comments also at his forum if you have the time. I omittted several paragraphs.<br><br><!--EZCODE AUTOLINK START--><a href="http://citizenspook.blogspot.com/">citizenspook.blogspot.com/</a><!--EZCODE AUTOLINK END--><br>"TREASONGATE: A NEW CONSTITUTIONAL DISCOVERY:Pardons May Be Voided For Criminal Prosecutions Flowing From "Cases of Impeachment" <br><br><br>The Constitution Voids Presidential Pardons For Criminal Convictions Or Indictments Flowing From "Cases of Impeachment" Where The Senate Has Voted To Convict.<br><br>PROLOGUE: Citizen Spook has timed this report to coincide with John Roberts' confirmation hearings for Chief Justice of The Supreme Court. Roberts' most important function, as far as the Bush White House is concerned, will be to ensure that presidential pardons, issued by Bush in relation to Treasongate offenses, will be upheld by the highest court in the land.<br><br>As Chief Justice, Roberts will have the most power to steer the court and to determine which justice will write the court's opinion on controversial topics. While the entire nation focuses on whether Roberts would overturn Roe v. Wade, much more important to the Bush White House is the role Roberts will play in the impending Constitutional crisis over presidential pardons for the Treasongate offenders.<br><br>Many readers of this blog have expressed concern that any indictments returned by Patrick Fitzgerald's grand jury(s) will simply be nullified by presidential pardons. Their concern is certainly justified. Generally, the president's power to pardon is virtually unlimited and not subject to judicial review.<br>Whether "civil Officers of the United States", including the President and Vice President, can be pardoned for criminal convictions (or indictments prior to conviction) which flow from "Cases of Impeachment" where the Senate has voted to convict?<br>Thereafter, according to a fair reading of the Constitution, criminal court indictments, convictions and sentences may not be pardoned when they flow from "Cases of Impeachment" where the Senate had voted to convict.<br>The issue which has never been litigated before is: Whether civil Officers of the United States, removed from office by conviction in "Cases of Impeachment", who are later tried and punished in criminal courts, can thereafter be pardoned by the President? This report concludes that the Constitution bars any such pardon.<br>THE MYSTERY REVEALED: The Constitution Voids Pardons Aimed At Criminal Prosecutions Flowing From "Cases Of Impeachment" where the Senate has voted to convict.<br><br>By now, I'm sure you're wondering why I have consistently emphasized the term, "Cases of Impeachment". I have done this because the meaning those words are given by the Supreme Court in the very near future will determine, for all the world to see, whether our Constitutional Republic is truly protected by checks and balances or if we are a nation ruled by a federal mafia of made thugs."<br> <p></p><i></i>
dbeach
 
Posts: 2650
Joined: Sun Jul 10, 2005 7:40 pm
Blog: View Blog (0)

Re: Citizenspook.TREASONGATE:NEW CONSTITUTIONAL DISCOVERY

Postby antiaristo » Tue Sep 13, 2005 3:25 pm

Thx, dbeach<br>Thought provoking as usual, but difficult to encapsulate.<br><br>The essence seems to be that high ranking "civil Officers of the United States", ie those subject to impeachment, CANNOT be pardoned if judged guilty by the Senate.<br><br>He next identifies a potential loophole, depending on how the Supreme Court reads the Constitution. And that Roberts MUST be tackled on the difference between "cases of impeachment" and "JUDGEMENT in cases of impeachment at his Congressional hearings.<br><br>And finally, he puts on the table just who it is that is the enemy of the people of the United States.<br><br><br><!--EZCODE ITALIC START--><em>EPILOGUE<br><br>Please examine the image at the top of this page carefully. This is a scan of page 8, Section Ten, of The Sunday Star Ledger (a New Jersey newspaper) for July 31, 2005. <br><br><br>Let me draw your attention to the following curiosities:<br><br>The bottom half of the page is a history of various secret societies including The Freemasons, Skull and Bones and Opus Dei. But the first paragraph of the article states:<br><br>"Whether the confirmation hearings for Supreme Court nominee John Roberts will explode into bitter partisanship or fizzle like wet fire-cracker is anyone's guess. The payoff for Roberts if he survives the grueling process, of course, is membership in one of the nation's most rarefied institutions.<br><br><br>When it comes to tradition and secret rituals, however, the Supreme Court has nothing on these groups."<br><br>It then describes the history of the various secret societies.<br><br>Why is the unnamed author of this article comparing the United States Supreme Court to secret societies? The Supreme Court operates in full public view. Its members and powers are determined by Constitutional authority. Its decisions are published for all the world to see. If the only purpose of this article was to portray the Supreme Court as a "secret society", the article's purpose is insane.<br><br>But when we examine the top part of page 8, the cynical message conveyed becomes clear. Have a look at the top headline:<br><br>"A clean slate for ex-cons."<br><br>Now look at the type on the document pictured on the top right side of the page:<br><br>"Clear Your Record!<br>(MAKE A FRESH START)<br>$350<br>EXPUNGEMENT"<br><br>Now look at the signature on the bold face boxed quote in the middle of the top half of the page:<br><br>"MARGARET COLGATE LOVE, former pardon attorney for the United States"<br><br>Taking all of the inferences listed on this page into consideration, it appears that the fix is in.<br><br>A Senator at the confirmation hearings needs to ask Mr. John "I don't recall being an officer of the Federalist Society" Roberts, if he recognizes a Constitutional difference between "Cases of Impeachment" and "Judgment in Cases of Impeachment". The future of our nation may depend on his answer.<br><br>By Citizen Spook</em><!--EZCODE ITALIC END--> <p></p><i></i>
antiaristo
 
Posts: 2555
Joined: Wed May 18, 2005 9:50 am
Blog: View Blog (0)

Re: Citizenspook.TREASONGATE:NEW CONSTITUTIONAL DISCOVERY

Postby dbeach » Tue Sep 13, 2005 3:58 pm

Why oh why is CS tossin out the S.& B. ??<br><br>secret societys runnin the show.look at this mess..<br><br>lootin the treasury in the name of security..and removing Liberty <p></p><i></i>
dbeach
 
Posts: 2650
Joined: Sun Jul 10, 2005 7:40 pm
Blog: View Blog (0)

dbeach and Anti,

Postby Peachtree Pam » Tue Sep 13, 2005 4:41 pm

Do you think that Roberts is supported by GWB to put the fix in? I do not understand how Roberts could do anything if Bush is indicted by Fitzgerald, or listed as unindicted co-conspirator. Wouldn't Bush have to be impeached if named as an unindicted co-conspirator? Or am I being naive?<!--EZCODE EMOTICON START :rolleyes --><img src=http://www.ezboard.com/images/emoticons/eyes.gif ALT=":rolleyes"><!--EZCODE EMOTICON END--> <p></p><i></i>
Peachtree Pam
 
Posts: 950
Joined: Sat Jul 02, 2005 9:46 am
Blog: View Blog (0)

Re: dbeach and Anti,

Postby dbeach » Tue Sep 13, 2005 5:02 pm

Pam please go to CS blog and ask..I have lots of questions.. <p></p><i></i>
dbeach
 
Posts: 2650
Joined: Sun Jul 10, 2005 7:40 pm
Blog: View Blog (0)

STRANGE

Postby dbeach » Tue Sep 13, 2005 5:19 pm

the new article is down and the old one is up<br><br>WHATS UP WITH THAT?? <p></p><i></i>
dbeach
 
Posts: 2650
Joined: Sun Jul 10, 2005 7:40 pm
Blog: View Blog (0)

dbeach,

Postby Peachtree Pam » Tue Sep 13, 2005 5:21 pm

I cannot find your article, just saw your last post. It is not there.<br>Pam <p></p><i></i>
Peachtree Pam
 
Posts: 950
Joined: Sat Jul 02, 2005 9:46 am
Blog: View Blog (0)

Re: dbeach,

Postby dbeach » Tue Sep 13, 2005 5:28 pm

Pam same .article is disappeared<br><br>another coincidence?sponsored by Alqeada ??(All CIA Duh)<br><br>No like being coincidenced to death.. <p></p><i></i>
dbeach
 
Posts: 2650
Joined: Sun Jul 10, 2005 7:40 pm
Blog: View Blog (0)

Re: Citizenspook.TREASONGATE:NEW CONSTITUTIONAL DISCOVERY

Postby antiaristo » Tue Sep 13, 2005 5:29 pm

Pam,<br>Let me give you some early thoughts.<br>First, I doubt if Bush will be indicted AT THIS STAGE. The chances are much higher that the target would be Cheney. It was his chief of Staff who gave out the information, after all. And just cross referincing from memory, the source keeping Judy Miller in gaol is Scooter Libby, is it not?<br><br>Second, it is important to remember this is a two stage process. First, the House votes for impeachment proceedings. Then the Senate tries the case, and may convict. At the first stage the outcome is a Case of Impeachment. At the second stage following conviction the outcome is a JUDGEMENT in Case of Impeachment.<br>These are two different things.<br>And CS is making sure that Roberts cannot slide over the difference by challenging him on this point NOW.<br>Because the Constitution says<br><br>FUCK ME. HIS POST IS GONE!<br>SOMETHING HAS HAPPENED!<br>Can anybody else get the 13 Sept post? Is it just my browser?<br><br>Pam, I'll finish this post. When I get some feedback on this. <p></p><i></i>
antiaristo
 
Posts: 2555
Joined: Wed May 18, 2005 9:50 am
Blog: View Blog (0)

Re: Citizenspook.TREASONGATE:NEW CONSTITUTIONAL DISCOVERY

Postby DrDebugDU » Tue Sep 13, 2005 5:33 pm

The post is gone.<br>Go put on your tin foil hats... <p></p><i></i>
DrDebugDU
 
Posts: 808
Joined: Wed Jul 13, 2005 12:56 pm
Blog: View Blog (0)

Re: Citizenspook.TREASONGATE:NEW CONSTITUTIONAL DISCOVERY

Postby dbeach » Tue Sep 13, 2005 5:33 pm

he does have an email adress if you dig through his blog..I will email him later gotta go soon and well you know where I go...<br><br>WOW did that article disappear next time I wil post the whole thing..Bummer.. <p></p><i></i>
dbeach
 
Posts: 2650
Joined: Sun Jul 10, 2005 7:40 pm
Blog: View Blog (0)

Re: Citizenspook.TREASONGATE:NEW CONSTITUTIONAL DISCOVERY

Postby DrDebugDU » Tue Sep 13, 2005 5:43 pm

Can you check your cache. I know it's pretty difficult but if you use IE and go to c<!--EZCODE EMOTICON START :\ --><img src=http://www.ezboard.com/images/emoticons/ohwell.gif ALT=":\"><!--EZCODE EMOTICON END--> windows\temporary internet files then you have a list of hidden (secret) directories. If you look into the newest directory you'll be able to find it.<br><br>I can't do it, since I don't use IE and haven't been to his blog prior. <p></p><i></i>
DrDebugDU
 
Posts: 808
Joined: Wed Jul 13, 2005 12:56 pm
Blog: View Blog (0)

Re: Citizenspook.TREASONGATE:NEW CONSTITUTIONAL DISCOVERY

Postby dbeach » Tue Sep 13, 2005 5:52 pm

sorry drdebug..did post it at Du but with less info,..better luck next time.. <p></p><i></i>
dbeach
 
Posts: 2650
Joined: Sun Jul 10, 2005 7:40 pm
Blog: View Blog (0)

At least we know the essential parts

Postby DrDebugDU » Tue Sep 13, 2005 5:54 pm

It's probably going to drop like a stone on DU since they are on level 3 right now... <p></p><i></i>
DrDebugDU
 
Posts: 808
Joined: Wed Jul 13, 2005 12:56 pm
Blog: View Blog (0)

Early thoughts

Postby rapt » Tue Sep 13, 2005 5:57 pm

Antiaristo, when you get back to finishing your post I'd suggest you try and stretch your legal explanations to include what govt goons can do under the radar, like blasting the Spook's painful postings f'rinstance. And murder etc; these guys are playing for keeps and you'd better not forget that. <p></p><i></i>
rapt
 
Posts: 132
Joined: Sun Aug 07, 2005 2:31 pm
Blog: View Blog (0)

Next

Return to Plame Investigation

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 3 guests