Impeach Obama Anyway (or will Larkin sue Obama?)

By rng
April 27, 2011

Obama has released his birth certificate.  If it turns out to be genuine, it makes no difference.  He should be impeached anyway for taking so long to release it.  Why?  A man, Lt. Col. Terry Larkin ruined his army career and went to military prison for demanding to see a document (long form birth certificate) Obama was legally required (see article below from Wikipedia) to provide.  What Obama did was criminal and deserves to be treated as such, and we can only hope Larkin will bring a civil suit for damages against Obama and all his aiders and abettors.  At any rate, Obama should be impeached for the high crime of withholding evidence from a defendant in a criminal case, evidence that would have led Larkin to not commit his so called "crime," of demanding that Obama meet his burden of proof of eligibility, and for the high misdemeanor of leaving the public in doubt over a legitimate constitutional issue.

From Wikipedia

In law, spoliation of evidence is the intentional or negligent withholding, hiding, altering, or destroying of evidence relevant to a legal proceeding.^[1] Spoliation has two consequences: the act is criminal by statute and may result in fines and incarceration for the parties who engaged in the spoliation; also, case law has established that proceedings that might have been altered by the spoliation may be interpreted under a spoliation inference.

The spoliation inference is a negative evidentiary inference that a finder of fact can draw from a party's destruction of a document or thing that is relevant to an ongoing or reasonably foreseeable civil or criminal proceeding: the finder of fact can review all evidence uncovered in as strong a light as possible against the spoliator and in favor of the opposing party.

The theory of the spoliation inference is that when a party destroys evidence, it may be reasonable to infer that the party had "consciousness of guilt" or other motivation to avoid the evidence. Therefore, the factfinder may conclude that the evidence would have been unfavorable to the spoliator. Some jurisdictions have recognized a spoliation tort action, which allows the victim of destruction of evidence to file a separate tort action against a spoliator.^[2]

^{to read complete article}

The following is from CRS Report for Congress.  For the complete article click on the bold face heading.  The point is that "use of deception...to prevent the production of evidence...destruction of concealment of evidence or attempts to do so..." are federal crimes of which Obama is fully guilty.  He should be impeached and then stand trial for the crimes in federal court.  By withholding this evidence, an officer was unjustly ruined, and Obama corrupted the entire U.S. Army court system.  The judge in the trial should also be cashiered for her participation in this illegal hiding of relevant evidence.

Witness Tampering (18 U.S.C. 1512).  Section 1512 applies to the obstruction 

of federal proceedings – judicial, congressional, or executive.  It consists of four 

somewhat overlapping crimes: use of force or the threat of the use of force to prevent the 

production of evidence (18 U.S.C. 1512(a)); use of deception or corruption or 

intimidation to prevent the production of evidence (18 U.S.C. 1512(b)); destruction or 

concealment of evidence or attempts to do so (18 U.S.C. 1512(c)); and witness 

harassment to prevent the production of evidence (18 U.S.C. 1512(d)).