Legal expert wonders if Yingluck, former ministers will avoid impeachment

[Lite Beer]

Legal expert wonders if Yingluck, former ministers will avoid impeachment
The Nation

BANGKOK: -- A Democrat legal expert yesterday voiced concern that former prime minister Yingluck Shinawatra and other ousted parliamentarians might escape impeachment charges in relation to moves to amend the charter.

Rames Ratanachaweng called on the National Council for Peace and Order (NCPO) to look into this quickly, as the provisional constitution does not say anything about the ongoing impeachment process or investigation into cases continuing.

He said the impeachment cases against Yingluck, former Parliament president Somsak Kiatsuranont and former Senate Speaker Nikom Wairatpanij, as well as other parliamentarians might end up being voided for this reason. This is despite the fact that they face indictment by the National Anti-Corruption Commission (NACC) on their attempt to amend the Constitution - a move that was considered illegal by the Constitutional Court.

Source: http://www.nationmultimedia.com/politics/Legal-expert-wonders-if-Yingluck-former-ministers--30239528.html

-- The Nation 2014-07-26

[tominbkk]

Does a bear shit in the woods?

[Mango Bob]

And what good will impeaching her do? Another stupid move and waste of time by the Democrats.

[WitawatWatawit]

Do not under-estimate the importance, even though YL is no longer in office. For one thing, a successful impeachment secures the notion of unlawful intent (and for critics overseas, it would remove some of the doubt as to her guilt). Second, it offers the chance to present compelling evidence - under parliamentary immunity, that evidence can be questioned in ways that are difficult in a courtroom. Not sure if criminal charges can derive directly from an impeachment procedure. While Clinton was impeached, he wasn't forced from office, but it was a telling blow to him.

[Mango Bob]

<script type='text/javascript'>window.mod_pagespeed_start = Number(new Date());</script>

Do not under-estimate the importance, even though YL is no longer in office. For one thing, a successful impeachment secures the notion of unlawful intent (and for critics overseas, it would remove some of the doubt as to her guilt). Second, it offers the chance to present compelling evidence - under parliamentary immunity, that evidence can be questioned in ways that are difficult in a courtroom. Not sure if criminal charges can derive directly from an impeachment procedure. While Clinton was impeached, he wasn't forced from office, but it was a telling blow to him.

So who could impeach her? Those who were not even members of the parliament or senate at the time.

[Tatsujin]

And what good will impeaching her do? Another stupid move and waste of time by the Democrats.

I do love the way you post without thinking, you need to remove the "mango" part of your name and just stick with the latter part, much more accurate for your posting history . . . "bob".

What good will impeachment do? Simple . . . it lets people know that crime and corruption is not acceptable in Thai society and it forces her to accept the responsibility (and hopefully consequences) for the mess this rice scam, amnesty bill, etc etc created.

I know, I know, it's all biased and politically motivated (in your eyes) . . . but to everyone else, it was blatant, arrogant, way over the top, "&lt;deleted&gt; you" thievery and corruption on all counts hidden under the guise of "democracy" (a word which needs to be explained in great depth to those that attempt to use it to excuse their misdeeds).

[Acharn]

And what good will impeaching her do? Another stupid move and waste of time by the Democrats.

Just what I was thinking. They've all been removed from office already. Some of them, Yingluck at least, are facing criminal prosecution on a number of charges that I feel are trumped up. What more would impeachment do? Besides that, what body could legally pursue impeachment?

[billsmart]

And what good will impeaching her do? Another stupid move and waste of time by the Democrats.

I do love the way you post without thinking, you need to remove the "mango" part of your name and just stick with the latter part, much more accurate for your posting history . . . "bob".

What good will impeachment do? Simple . . . it lets people know that crime and corruption is not acceptable in Thai society and it forces her to accept the responsibility (and hopefully consequences) for the mess this rice scam, amnesty bill, etc etc created.

I know, I know, it's all biased and politically motivated (in your eyes) . . . but to everyone else, it was blatant, arrogant, way over the top, "<deleted> you" thievery and corruption on all counts hidden under the guise of "democracy" (a word which needs to be explained in great depth to those that attempt to use it to excuse their misdeeds).

I agree with Mango Bob and think his comments are ripe and sweet. I hope the NCPO will continue with this omission in the provisional constitution. To me impeaching anyone in the Yingluck administration for trying to amend the constitution by parties who ignored, violated and then discarded that very constitution is the epitome of hypocrisy.

[Acharn]

Do not under-estimate the importance, even though YL is no longer in office. For one thing, a successful impeachment secures the notion of unlawful intent (and for critics overseas, it would remove some of the doubt as to her guilt). Second, it offers the chance to present compelling evidence - under parliamentary immunity, that evidence can be questioned in ways that are difficult in a courtroom. Not sure if criminal charges can derive directly from an impeachment procedure. While Clinton was impeached, he wasn't forced from office, but it was a telling blow to him.

Well, while Clinton was impeached he wasn't convicted. I don't think it was much of a blow to him, while the impeachment process has proved a telling blow against politics in America. Clinton succeeded in getting a number of Republican policies passed.

I don't think impeachment "secures the notion of unlawful intent." I don't think "intent" is considered an element, but who knows? It's a political process, not a legal process. I'm pretty sure it's never yet been done in Thailand.

I personally don't believe that successful impeachment would "remove some of the doubt as to her guilt" from the minds of overseas observers. They can see better than people in Thailand what is going on. Just as the impeachment of Bill Clinton did not remove doubt of guilt in his case (nor did his acquittal remove certainty of guilt among those who hated him).

[Mango Bob]

<script type='text/javascript'>window.mod_pagespeed_start = Number(new Date());</script>

And what good will impeaching her do? Another stupid move and waste of time by the Democrats.

I do love the way you post without thinking, you need to remove the "mango" part of your name and just stick with the latter part, much more accurate for your posting history . . . "bob".

What good will impeachment do? Simple . . . it lets people know that crime and corruption is not acceptable in Thai society and it forces her to accept the responsibility (and hopefully consequences) for the mess this rice scam, amnesty bill, etc etc created.

I know, I know, it's all biased and politically motivated (in your eyes) . . . but to everyone else, it was blatant, arrogant, way over the top, "<deleted> you" thievery and corruption on all counts hidden under the guise of "democracy" (a word which needs to be explained in great depth to those that attempt to use it to excuse their misdeeds).

Only people with no brains would waste time and money to impeach someone who is already out of office. Who will impeach her? Her friends from Thaivisa like you, or the democratic? There is no doubt about it, it is politically motivated and biased no only to my eyes to but the eyes of the rest of the world.

[Tatsujin]

<script type='text/javascript'>window.mod_pagespeed_start = Number(new Date());</script>

And what good will impeaching her do? Another stupid move and waste of time by the Democrats.

I do love the way you post without thinking, you need to remove the "mango" part of your name and just stick with the latter part, much more accurate for your posting history . . . "bob".

What good will impeachment do? Simple . . . it lets people know that crime and corruption is not acceptable in Thai society and it forces her to accept the responsibility (and hopefully consequences) for the mess this rice scam, amnesty bill, etc etc created.

I know, I know, it's all biased and politically motivated (in your eyes) . . . but to everyone else, it was blatant, arrogant, way over the top, "<deleted> you" thievery and corruption on all counts hidden under the guise of "democracy" (a word which needs to be explained in great depth to those that attempt to use it to excuse their misdeeds).

Only people with no brains would waste time and money to impeach someone who is already out of office. Who will impeach her? Her friends from Thaivisa like you, or the democratic? There is no doubt about it, it is politically motivated and biased no only to my eyes to but the eyes of the rest of the world.

OK, let me try to explain it to you in words of less than one syllable . . .

"Impeachment is a formal process in which an official is accused of unlawful activity, the outcome of which, depending on the country, may include the removal of that official from office as well as criminal or civil punishment."

Regardless of the fact that she is in or out of office at the moment, if Yingluck has done something unlawful, illegal, corrupt, she should still be liable for criminal or civil punishment.

By your reasoning, what you are saying is that if I am a PM and I do something illegal or "wrong", if I then resign I shouldn't be prosecuted because I'm no longer in power? I can do whatever I want, resign, get forced out or whatever, then I'm good to go and shouldn't be charged or held accountable for any of my actions? Really? Are you sure you want to go back down that road Mango Bob? Sounds just like something Thaksin would expect . . .

And it's the Senate that would impeach her by the way. They are the ones empowered to impeach Members of Parliament.

[Mango Bob]

<script type='text/javascript'>window.mod_pagespeed_start = Number(new Date());</script>

<script type='text/javascript'>window.mod_pagespeed_start = Number(new Date());</script>

And what good will impeaching her do? Another stupid move and waste of time by the Democrats.

I do love the way you post without thinking, you need to remove the "mango" part of your name and just stick with the latter part, much more accurate for your posting history . . . "bob".

What good will impeachment do? Simple . . . it lets people know that crime and corruption is not acceptable in Thai society and it forces her to accept the responsibility (and hopefully consequences) for the mess this rice scam, amnesty bill, etc etc created.

I know, I know, it's all biased and politically motivated (in your eyes) . . . but to everyone else, it was blatant, arrogant, way over the top, "<deleted> you" thievery and corruption on all counts hidden under the guise of "democracy" (a word which needs to be explained in great depth to those that attempt to use it to excuse their misdeeds).

Only people with no brains would waste time and money to impeach someone who is already out of office. Who will impeach her? Her friends from Thaivisa like you, or the democratic? There is no doubt about it, it is politically motivated and biased no only to my eyes to but the eyes of the rest of the world.

OK, let me try to explain it to you in words of less than one syllable . . .

"Impeachment is a formal process in which an official is accused of unlawful activity, the outcome of which, depending on the country, may include the removal of that official from office as well as criminal or civil punishment."

Regardless of the fact that she is in or out of office at the moment, if Yingluck has done something unlawful, illegal, corrupt, she should still be liable for criminal or civil punishment.

By your reasoning, what you are saying is that if I am a PM and I do something illegal or "wrong", if I then resign I shouldn't be prosecuted because I'm no longer in power? I can do whatever I want, resign, get forced out or whatever, then I'm good to go and shouldn't be charged or held accountable for any of my actions? Really? Are you sure you want to go back down that road Mango Bob? Sounds just like something Thaksin would expect . . .

And it's the Senate that would impeach her by the way. They are the ones empowered to impeach Members of Parliament.

Let me put this in simple words. There is no Senate. So what excuse are you going to use now. Or do we just have the junta impeach her in a way that it does not look politically motivated and biased to the rest of the world. Simple put you have a Yellow Skirt mentality.

Edited July 26, 2014 by Mango Bob

[trd]

And what good will impeaching her do? Another stupid move and waste of time by the Democrats.

I do love the way you post without thinking, you need to remove the "mango" part of your name and just stick with the latter part, much more accurate for your posting history . . . "bob".

What good will impeachment do? Simple . . . it lets people know that crime and corruption is not acceptable in Thai society and it forces her to accept the responsibility (and hopefully consequences) for the mess this rice scam, amnesty bill, etc etc created.

I know, I know, it's all biased and politically motivated (in your eyes) . . . but to everyone else, it was blatant, arrogant, way over the top, " you" thievery and corruption on all counts hidden under the guise of "democracy" (a word which needs to be explained in great depth to those that attempt to use it to excuse their misdeeds).

Only people with no brains would waste time and money to impeach someone who is already out of office. Who will impeach her? Her friends from Thaivisa like you, or the democratic? There is no doubt about it, it is politically motivated and biased no only to my eyes to but the eyes of the rest of the world.

OK, let me try to explain it to you in words of less than one syllable . . .

"Impeachment is a formal process in which an official is accused of unlawful activity, the outcome of which, depending on the country, may include the removal of that official from office as well as criminal or civil punishment."

Regardless of the fact that she is in or out of office at the moment, if Yingluck has done something unlawful, illegal, corrupt, she should still be liable for criminal or civil punishment.

By your reasoning, what you are saying is that if I am a PM and I do something illegal or "wrong", if I then resign I shouldn't be prosecuted because I'm no longer in power? I can do whatever I want, resign, get forced out or whatever, then I'm good to go and shouldn't be charged or held accountable for any of my actions? Really? Are you sure you want to go back down that road Mango Bob? Sounds just like something Thaksin would expect . . .

And it's the Senate that would impeach her by the way. They are the ones empowered to impeach Members of Parliament.

Actually Tatsujin, most of those words you quoted have more than one syllable, so I immediately doubt anything you say. So we know you can read newspapers and we know you can speculate and blabber along with all the other blabberers. We know the rice pledging scheme was ill conceived by Thaksin and was taken over by YL and we can be fairly sure the scheme attracted some corrupt activities. But has YL been convicted of a crime? No she has not at this point in time. But we do know how things work here don't we? We know that it is possible to be impeached for the serious crime of being paid to appear in a cookery show for instance. And are we naive to assume that the NACC cannot be influenced or leaned on or be used as a political tool to punish those who are deemed by others with absolute power to be guilty. So by all means continue your blabbering if it amuses you, but don't do so as if you words had some kind of authority behind them. Edited July 26, 2014 by trd

[northernjohn]

<script type='text/javascript'>window.mod_pagespeed_start = Number(new Date());</script>

Do not under-estimate the importance, even though YL is no longer in office. For one thing, a successful impeachment secures the notion of unlawful intent (and for critics overseas, it would remove some of the doubt as to her guilt). Second, it offers the chance to present compelling evidence - under parliamentary immunity, that evidence can be questioned in ways that are difficult in a courtroom. Not sure if criminal charges can derive directly from an impeachment procedure. While Clinton was impeached, he wasn't forced from office, but it was a telling blow to him.

So who could impeach her? Those who were not even members of the parliament or senate at the time.

Your last post said the Democrats were now you are not sure.

Bottom line your precious PTP are toast suck it up and live with it. There will always be corrupt politician's around no matter where in the world you go. Find one and attach your wagon to them.

I can assure you that you will not be alone. There are several other posters here bemoaning the loss of their favorite corrupt politicians.

[lostsoul49]

<script type='text/javascript'>window.mod_pagespeed_start = Number(new Date());</script>

<script type='text/javascript'>window.mod_pagespeed_start = Number(new Date());</script>

I do love the way you post without thinking, you need to remove the "mango" part of your name and just stick with the latter part, much more accurate for your posting history . . . "bob".

What good will impeachment do? Simple . . . it lets people know that crime and corruption is not acceptable in Thai society and it forces her to accept the responsibility (and hopefully consequences) for the mess this rice scam, amnesty bill, etc etc created.

I know, I know, it's all biased and politically motivated (in your eyes) . . . but to everyone else, it was blatant, arrogant, way over the top, "<deleted> you" thievery and corruption on all counts hidden under the guise of "democracy" (a word which needs to be explained in great depth to those that attempt to use it to excuse their misdeeds).

Only people with no brains would waste time and money to impeach someone who is already out of office. Who will impeach her? Her friends from Thaivisa like you, or the democratic? There is no doubt about it, it is politically motivated and biased no only to my eyes to but the eyes of the rest of the world.

OK, let me try to explain it to you in words of less than one syllable . . .

"Impeachment is a formal process in which an official is accused of unlawful activity, the outcome of which, depending on the country, may include the removal of that official from office as well as criminal or civil punishment."

Regardless of the fact that she is in or out of office at the moment, if Yingluck has done something unlawful, illegal, corrupt, she should still be liable for criminal or civil punishment.

By your reasoning, what you are saying is that if I am a PM and I do something illegal or "wrong", if I then resign I shouldn't be prosecuted because I'm no longer in power? I can do whatever I want, resign, get forced out or whatever, then I'm good to go and shouldn't be charged or held accountable for any of my actions? Really? Are you sure you want to go back down that road Mango Bob? Sounds just like something Thaksin would expect . . .

And it's the Senate that would impeach her by the way. They are the ones empowered to impeach Members of Parliament.

Let me put this in simple words. There is no Senate. So what excuse are you going to use now. Or do we just have the junta impeach her in a way that it does not look politically motivated and biased to the rest of the world. Simple put you have a Yellow Skirt mentality.

And you have a red shirt mentality, so I shouldn't point fingers too much.

But the best thing is.... These charges can wait till there IS a senate.

The world will see their crimes for what they are... no need for political motivation... you know that already, take your blindfold off now.

[Tatsujin]

<script type='text/javascript'>window.mod_pagespeed_start = Number(new Date());</script>

Only people with no brains would waste time and money to impeach someone who is already out of office. Who will impeach her? Her friends from Thaivisa like you, or the democratic? There is no doubt about it, it is politically motivated and biased no only to my eyes to but the eyes of the rest of the world.

OK, let me try to explain it to you in words of less than one syllable . . .

"Impeachment is a formal process in which an official is accused of unlawful activity, the outcome of which, depending on the country, may include the removal of that official from office as well as criminal or civil punishment."

Regardless of the fact that she is in or out of office at the moment, if Yingluck has done something unlawful, illegal, corrupt, she should still be liable for criminal or civil punishment.

By your reasoning, what you are saying is that if I am a PM and I do something illegal or "wrong", if I then resign I shouldn't be prosecuted because I'm no longer in power? I can do whatever I want, resign, get forced out or whatever, then I'm good to go and shouldn't be charged or held accountable for any of my actions? Really? Are you sure you want to go back down that road Mango Bob? Sounds just like something Thaksin would expect . . .

And it's the Senate that would impeach her by the way. They are the ones empowered to impeach Members of Parliament.

Let me put this in simple words. There is no Senate. So what excuse are you going to use now. Or do we just have the junta impeach her in a way that it does not look politically motivated and biased to the rest of the world. Simple put you have a Yellow Skirt mentality.

Well, here's a thought . . . as the Junta has (with the Monarchy's approval) taken over ALL powers, they could decide to do it themselves . . . or alternatively, they could simply wait until there IS a Senate and impeach her then.

And if charging or convicting someone of something illegal that they have actually done is "politically motivated" or "biased", then I will happily admit to being "biased".

[Gunna]

And what good will impeaching her do? Another stupid move and waste of time by the Democrats.

A lot of good, both in the eyes of the unbrainwashed Thai people and most farangs. Pus hopefully stop her and most of the corrupt PTP politicians every standing for public office again. If you can't obey a countries law you shouldn't be in a position of power.

[trd]

I do love the way you post without thinking, you need to remove the "mango" part of your name and just stick with the latter part, much more accurate for your posting history . . . "bob".

What good will impeachment do? Simple . . . it lets people know that crime and corruption is not acceptable in Thai society and it forces her to accept the responsibility (and hopefully consequences) for the mess this rice scam, amnesty bill, etc etc created.

I know, I know, it's all biased and politically motivated (in your eyes) . . . but to everyone else, it was blatant, arrogant, way over the top, " you" thievery and corruption on all counts hidden under the guise of "democracy" (a word which needs to be explained in great depth to those that attempt to use it to excuse their misdeeds).

Only people with no brains would waste time and money to impeach someone who is already out of office. Who will impeach her? Her friends from Thaivisa like you, or the democratic? There is no doubt about it, it is politically motivated and biased no only to my eyes to but the eyes of the rest of the world.

OK, let me try to explain it to you in words of less than one syllable . . .

"Impeachment is a formal process in which an official is accused of unlawful activity, the outcome of which, depending on the country, may include the removal of that official from office as well as criminal or civil punishment."

Regardless of the fact that she is in or out of office at the moment, if Yingluck has done something unlawful, illegal, corrupt, she should still be liable for criminal or civil punishment.

By your reasoning, what you are saying is that if I am a PM and I do something illegal or "wrong", if I then resign I shouldn't be prosecuted because I'm no longer in power? I can do whatever I want, resign, get forced out or whatever, then I'm good to go and shouldn't be charged or held accountable for any of my actions? Really? Are you sure you want to go back down that road Mango Bob? Sounds just like something Thaksin would expect . . .

And it's the Senate that would impeach her by the way. They are the ones empowered to impeach Members of Parliament.

Let me put this in simple words. There is no Senate. So what excuse are you going to use now. Or do we just have the junta impeach her in a way that it does not look politically motivated and biased to the rest of the world. Simple put you have a Yellow Skirt mentality.

And you have a red shirt mentality, so I shouldn't point fingers too much.

But the best thing is.... These charges can wait till there IS a senate.

The world will see their crimes for what they are... no need for political motivation... you know that already, take your blindfold off now.

Thank God you are small and powerless otherwise you would be dangerous. Red shirt mentality? Is that the simple way you see how things work here? You have a no mentality mentality, devoid of any shirt, pants or socks.

[Tatsujin]

Only people with no brains would waste time and money to impeach someone who is already out of office. Who will impeach her? Her friends from Thaivisa like you, or the democratic? There is no doubt about it, it is politically motivated and biased no only to my eyes to but the eyes of the rest of the world.

OK, let me try to explain it to you in words of less than one syllable . . .

"Impeachment is a formal process in which an official is accused of unlawful activity, the outcome of which, depending on the country, may include the removal of that official from office as well as criminal or civil punishment."

Regardless of the fact that she is in or out of office at the moment, if Yingluck has done something unlawful, illegal, corrupt, she should still be liable for criminal or civil punishment.

By your reasoning, what you are saying is that if I am a PM and I do something illegal or "wrong", if I then resign I shouldn't be prosecuted because I'm no longer in power? I can do whatever I want, resign, get forced out or whatever, then I'm good to go and shouldn't be charged or held accountable for any of my actions? Really? Are you sure you want to go back down that road Mango Bob? Sounds just like something Thaksin would expect . . .

And it's the Senate that would impeach her by the way. They are the ones empowered to impeach Members of Parliament.

Actually Tatsujin, most of those words you quoted have more than one syllable, so I immediately doubt anything you say. So we know you can read newspapers and we know you can speculate and blabber along with all the other blabberers. We know the rice pledging scheme was ill conceived by Thaksin and was taken over by YL and we can be fairly sure the scheme attracted some corrupt activities. But has YL been convicted of a crime? No she has not at this point in time. But we do know how things work here don't we? We know that it is possible to be impeached for the serious crime of being paid to appear in a cookery show for instance. And are we naive to assume that the NACC cannot be influenced or leaned on or be used as a political tool to punish those who are deemed by others with absolute power to be guilty. So by all means continue your blabbering if it amuses you, but don't do so as if you words had some kind of authority behind them.

Yup, I failed in using words of less than one syllable . . . sorry about that.

With the rest of what you said, you are admitting that the rice scam (and I would assume other policies) were conceived by Thaksin himself and Yingluck took it over and claimed it as her own? So Thaksin is formulating and implementing policy for PT/Yingluck whilst living overseas, whilst not being a member of PT or Parliament, and whilst also being a convict on the run from authorities? Amazing. I'm pretty sure that's got to be illegal somewhere along the lines.

And no, Yingluck has NOT been convicted of anything as yet . . . that's what part of the impeachment process is!

And thanks for the permission, I'll continue to blabber on

[ginjag]

And what good will impeaching her do? Another stupid move and waste of time by the Democrats.

What good will it do impeaching her ?? leave her alone to come up for election again ?? give her freedom of the city ??? Get the lot and string them up, YES any one that has flouted the law.

Suppose you would be in favour of impeaching the Dems leaders??

[trd]

Only people with no brains would waste time and money to impeach someone who is already out of office. Who will impeach her? Her friends from Thaivisa like you, or the democratic? There is no doubt about it, it is politically motivated and biased no only to my eyes to but the eyes of the rest of the world.

OK, let me try to explain it to you in words of less than one syllable . . .

"Impeachment is a formal process in which an official is accused of unlawful activity, the outcome of which, depending on the country, may include the removal of that official from office as well as criminal or civil punishment."

Regardless of the fact that she is in or out of office at the moment, if Yingluck has done something unlawful, illegal, corrupt, she should still be liable for criminal or civil punishment.

By your reasoning, what you are saying is that if I am a PM and I do something illegal or "wrong", if I then resign I shouldn't be prosecuted because I'm no longer in power? I can do whatever I want, resign, get forced out or whatever, then I'm good to go and shouldn't be charged or held accountable for any of my actions? Really? Are you sure you want to go back down that road Mango Bob? Sounds just like something Thaksin would expect . . .

And it's the Senate that would impeach her by the way. They are the ones empowered to impeach Members of Parliament.

Actually Tatsujin, most of those words you quoted have more than one syllable, so I immediately doubt anything you say. So we know you can read newspapers and we know you can speculate and blabber along with all the other blabberers. We know the rice pledging scheme was ill conceived by Thaksin and was taken over by YL and we can be fairly sure the scheme attracted some corrupt activities. But has YL been convicted of a crime? No she has not at this point in time. But we do know how things work here don't we? We know that it is possible to be impeached for the serious crime of being paid to appear in a cookery show for instance. And are we naive to assume that the NACC cannot be influenced or leaned on or be used as a political tool to punish those who are deemed by others with absolute power to be guilty. So by all means continue your blabbering if it amuses you, but don't do so as if you words had some kind of authority behind them.

Yup, I failed in using words of less than one syllable . . . sorry about that.

With the rest of what you said, you are admitting that the rice scam (and I would assume other policies) were conceived by Thaksin himself and Yingluck took it over and claimed it as her own? So Thaksin is formulating and implementing policy for PT/Yingluck whilst living overseas, whilst not being a member of PT or Parliament, and whilst also being a convict on the run from authorities? Amazing. I'm pretty sure that's got to be illegal somewhere along the lines.

And no, Yingluck has NOT been convicted of anything as yet . . . that's what part of the impeachment process is!

And thanks for the permission, I'll continue to blabber on

I said rice pledging scheme, not scam. They are your words. Of course I am admitting that the scheme was devised by Thaksin. It is no secret. It was an attempt to influence the world price for rice by limiting supply. At that time Thailand was the world's largest producer. The plan was to wait for prices to rise as a result of shortages and then sell back into the market. But it backfired because Thaksin underestimated how well the world market would respond by switching suppliers. It also had the advantage of getting more votes from farmers to keep him in power.

Hello! This is called politics and every government in the world plays this game to get and maintain power. What about the powerful Washington lobbying system in US politics. Is that a scam? To say that YL has committed a crime is jumping the gun. It seems that many TVF members just love to get on the bandwagon and have a go without being in possession of the facts and all based on mere speculation and press gossip.

Edited July 26, 2014 by trd

[ramrod711]

And what good will impeaching her do? Another stupid move and waste of time by the Democrats.

I do love the way you post without thinking, you need to remove the "mango" part of your name and just stick with the latter part, much more accurate for your posting history . . . "bob".

What good will impeachment do? Simple . . . it lets people know that crime and corruption is not acceptable in Thai society and it forces her to accept the responsibility (and hopefully consequences) for the mess this rice scam, amnesty bill, etc etc created.

I know, I know, it's all biased and politically motivated (in your eyes) . . . but to everyone else, it was blatant, arrogant, way over the top, "<deleted> you" thievery and corruption on all counts hidden under the guise of "democracy" (a word which needs to be explained in great depth to those that attempt to use it to excuse their misdeeds).

I agree with Mango Bob and think his comments are ripe and sweet. I hope the NCPO will continue with this omission in the provisional constitution. To me impeaching anyone in the Yingluck administration for trying to amend the constitution by parties who ignored, violated and then discarded that very constitution is the epitome of hypocrisy.

Welcome back Bill, for once we are in some agreement. I too believe that Mango Bob's comments were ripe, possibly putrid. As for the parties who ignored and violated the constitution, that would be PTP, who lied in Parliament, saying that the opposition should go home, the vote on the second reading of the amnesty bill would take place the next day. PTP went on to amend the bill, which is unconstitutional, it's against the rules, Bill, not that you would be concerned about that. Every politician that voted for the bill should be removed from office and banned. I wish that even one of them had possessed the integrity to stand up and say "this isn't right and I won't have any part in it" but no, they all fell into line and followed their master, like the black sheep they are.

[SABloke]

<script type='text/javascript'>window.mod_pagespeed_start = Number(new Date());</script>

Let me put this in simple words. There is no Senate. So what excuse are you going to use now. Or do we just have the junta impeach her in a way that it does not look politically motivated and biased to the rest of the world. Simple put you have a Yellow Skirt mentality.

Hahaha "Yellow Skirt"...good one!!!

[Tatsujin]

Only people with no brains would waste time and money to impeach someone who is already out of office. Who will impeach her? Her friends from Thaivisa like you, or the democratic? There is no doubt about it, it is politically motivated and biased no only to my eyes to but the eyes of the rest of the world.

OK, let me try to explain it to you in words of less than one syllable . . .

"Impeachment is a formal process in which an official is accused of unlawful activity, the outcome of which, depending on the country, may include the removal of that official from office as well as criminal or civil punishment."

Regardless of the fact that she is in or out of office at the moment, if Yingluck has done something unlawful, illegal, corrupt, she should still be liable for criminal or civil punishment.

By your reasoning, what you are saying is that if I am a PM and I do something illegal or "wrong", if I then resign I shouldn't be prosecuted because I'm no longer in power? I can do whatever I want, resign, get forced out or whatever, then I'm good to go and shouldn't be charged or held accountable for any of my actions? Really? Are you sure you want to go back down that road Mango Bob? Sounds just like something Thaksin would expect . . .

And it's the Senate that would impeach her by the way. They are the ones empowered to impeach Members of Parliament.

Actually Tatsujin, most of those words you quoted have more than one syllable, so I immediately doubt anything you say. So we know you can read newspapers and we know you can speculate and blabber along with all the other blabberers. We know the rice pledging scheme was ill conceived by Thaksin and was taken over by YL and we can be fairly sure the scheme attracted some corrupt activities. But has YL been convicted of a crime? No she has not at this point in time. But we do know how things work here don't we? We know that it is possible to be impeached for the serious crime of being paid to appear in a cookery show for instance. And are we naive to assume that the NACC cannot be influenced or leaned on or be used as a political tool to punish those who are deemed by others with absolute power to be guilty. So by all means continue your blabbering if it amuses you, but don't do so as if you words had some kind of authority behind them.

Yup, I failed in using words of less than one syllable . . . sorry about that.

With the rest of what you said, you are admitting that the rice scam (and I would assume other policies) were conceived by Thaksin himself and Yingluck took it over and claimed it as her own? So Thaksin is formulating and implementing policy for PT/Yingluck whilst living overseas, whilst not being a member of PT or Parliament, and whilst also being a convict on the run from authorities? Amazing. I'm pretty sure that's got to be illegal somewhere along the lines.

And no, Yingluck has NOT been convicted of anything as yet . . . that's what part of the impeachment process is!

And thanks for the permission, I'll continue to blabber on

I said rice pledging scheme, not scam. They are your words. Of course I am admitting that the scheme was devised by Thaksin. It is no secret. It was an attempt to influence the world price for rice by limiting supply. At that time Thailand was the world's largest producer. The plan was to wait for prices to rise as a result of shortages and then sell back into the market. But it backfired because Thaksin underestimated how well the world market would respond by switching suppliers. It also had the advantage of getting more votes from farmers to keep him in power.

Hello! This is called politics and every government in the world plays this game to get and maintain power. What about the powerful Washington lobbying system in US politics. Is that a scam? To say that YL has committed a crime is jumping the gun. It seems that many TVF members just love to get on the bandwagon and have a go without being in possession of the facts and all based on mere speculation and press gossip.

Ah, so you're saying Yingluck is innocent of all that she is accused of?

It's great in that case that they are actually investigating things currently and will then press charges where necessary, rather than simply going on your "she's innocent, leave her alone" legal argument.

It's also interesting to note just what HAS been found in the last few months, none of which would have come to light if Thaksin had had his way.

[Old Man River]

And what good will impeaching her do? Another stupid move and waste of time by the Democrats.

I agree. Under the new constitution, no person can be a member of the National Legislative Assembly "being or having been a person holding any position in a political party within 3 years prior to the date of appointment as a member of the National Legislative Assembly."

So why waste time and money on impeachment?

Sent from my iPad using Thaivisa Connect Thailand

[Mango Bob]

<script type='text/javascript'>window.mod_pagespeed_start = Number(new Date());</script>

And what good will impeaching her do? Another stupid move and waste of time by the Democrats.

What good will it do impeaching her ?? leave her alone to come up for election again ?? give her freedom of the city ??? Get the lot and string them up, YES any one that has flouted the law.

Suppose you would be in favour of impeaching the Dems leaders??

Only Abhisit for being a weak leader.

[Zeegator]

OK, let me try to explain it to you in words of less than one syllable . . .

"Impeachment is a formal process in which an official is accused of unlawful activity, the outcome of which, depending on the country, may include the removal of that official from office as well as criminal or civil punishment."

Regardless of the fact that she is in or out of office at the moment, if Yingluck has done something unlawful, illegal, corrupt, she should still be liable for criminal or civil punishment.

By your reasoning, what you are saying is that if I am a PM and I do something illegal or "wrong", if I then resign I shouldn't be prosecuted because I'm no longer in power? I can do whatever I want, resign, get forced out or whatever, then I'm good to go and shouldn't be charged or held accountable for any of my actions? Really? Are you sure you want to go back down that road Mango Bob? Sounds just like something Thaksin would expect . . .

And it's the Senate that would impeach her by the way. They are the ones empowered to impeach Members of Parliament.

You really need to understand what a syllable is. Your helpful explanation to Mango Bob using words of just one syllable, as you intended, reads as follows:-

"is a in which an is of, the of which, on the, may the of that from as well as or."

Of the fact that she is in or out of at the, if Yingluck has done, she should still be for or.

By your, what you are is that if I am a and I do or "wrong", if I then I shouldn't be I'm no in? I can do I want, get out or, then I'm good to go and be or held for any of my? Really? Are you sure you want to go back down that road Mango Bob? Just like would . . .

And it's the that would her by the way. They are the ones to of.

There, thats much clearer.

[trd]

Only people with no brains would waste time and money to impeach someone who is already out of office. Who will impeach her? Her friends from Thaivisa like you, or the democratic? There is no doubt about it, it is politically motivated and biased no only to my eyes to but the eyes of the rest of the world.

OK, let me try to explain it to you in words of less than one syllable . . .

"Impeachment is a formal process in which an official is accused of unlawful activity, the outcome of which, depending on the country, may include the removal of that official from office as well as criminal or civil punishment."

Regardless of the fact that she is in or out of office at the moment, if Yingluck has done something unlawful, illegal, corrupt, she should still be liable for criminal or civil punishment.

By your reasoning, what you are saying is that if I am a PM and I do something illegal or "wrong", if I then resign I shouldn't be prosecuted because I'm no longer in power? I can do whatever I want, resign, get forced out or whatever, then I'm good to go and shouldn't be charged or held accountable for any of my actions? Really? Are you sure you want to go back down that road Mango Bob? Sounds just like something Thaksin would expect . . .

And it's the Senate that would impeach her by the way. They are the ones empowered to impeach Members of Parliament.

Actually Tatsujin, most of those words you quoted have more than one syllable, so I immediately doubt anything you say. So we know you can read newspapers and we know you can speculate and blabber along with all the other blabberers. We know the rice pledging scheme was ill conceived by Thaksin and was taken over by YL and we can be fairly sure the scheme attracted some corrupt activities. But has YL been convicted of a crime? No she has not at this point in time. But we do know how things work here don't we? We know that it is possible to be impeached for the serious crime of being paid to appear in a cookery show for instance. And are we naive to assume that the NACC cannot be influenced or leaned on or be used as a political tool to punish those who are deemed by others with absolute power to be guilty. So by all means continue your blabbering if it amuses you, but don't do so as if you words had some kind of authority behind them.

Yup, I failed in using words of less than one syllable . . . sorry about that.

With the rest of what you said, you are admitting that the rice scam (and I would assume other policies) were conceived by Thaksin himself and Yingluck took it over and claimed it as her own? So Thaksin is formulating and implementing policy for PT/Yingluck whilst living overseas, whilst not being a member of PT or Parliament, and whilst also being a convict on the run from authorities? Amazing. I'm pretty sure that's got to be illegal somewhere along the lines.

And no, Yingluck has NOT been convicted of anything as yet . . . that's what part of the impeachment process is!

And thanks for the permission, I'll continue to blabber on

I said rice pledging scheme, not scam. They are your words. Of course I am admitting that the scheme was devised by Thaksin. It is no secret. It was an attempt to influence the world price for rice by limiting supply. At that time Thailand was the world's largest producer. The plan was to wait for prices to rise as a result of shortages and then sell back into the market. But it backfired because Thaksin underestimated how well the world market would respond by switching suppliers. It also had the advantage of getting more votes from farmers to keep him in power.

Hello! This is called politics and every government in the world plays this game to get and maintain power. What about the powerful Washington lobbying system in US politics. Is that a scam? To say that YL has committed a crime is jumping the gun. It seems that many TVF members just love to get on the bandwagon and have a go without being in possession of the facts and all based on mere speculation and press gossip.

Ah, so you're saying Yingluck is innocent of all that she is accused of?

It's great in that case that they are actually investigating things currently and will then press charges where necessary, rather than simply going on your "she's innocent, leave her alone" legal argument.

It's also interesting to note just what HAS been found in the last few months, none of which would have come to light if Thaksin had had his way.

Can you read? Did I say she was innocent. By saying that, you are presuming guilt. If accusations are made, there has to be due process under the law. Is that not how it works where you come from? I see that the water management charges have been dropped against here. A couple of weeks ago she was being accused of corruption in that.

[Tatsujin]

OK, let me try to explain it to you in words of less than one syllable . . .

"Impeachment is a formal process in which an official is accused of unlawful activity, the outcome of which, depending on the country, may include the removal of that official from office as well as criminal or civil punishment."

Regardless of the fact that she is in or out of office at the moment, if Yingluck has done something unlawful, illegal, corrupt, she should still be liable for criminal or civil punishment.

By your reasoning, what you are saying is that if I am a PM and I do something illegal or "wrong", if I then resign I shouldn't be prosecuted because I'm no longer in power? I can do whatever I want, resign, get forced out or whatever, then I'm good to go and shouldn't be charged or held accountable for any of my actions? Really? Are you sure you want to go back down that road Mango Bob? Sounds just like something Thaksin would expect . . .

And it's the Senate that would impeach her by the way. They are the ones empowered to impeach Members of Parliament.

You really need to understand what a syllable is. Your helpful explanation to Mango Bob using words of just one syllable, as you intended, reads as follows:-

"is a in which an is of, the of which, on the, may the of that from as well as or."

Of the fact that she is in or out of at the, if Yingluck has done, she should still be for or.

By your, what you are is that if I am a and I do or "wrong", if I then I shouldn't be I'm no in? I can do I want, get out or, then I'm good to go and be or held for any of my? Really? Are you sure you want to go back down that road Mango Bob? Just like would . . .

And it's the that would her by the way. They are the ones to of.

There, thats much clearer.

Thanks, but you also included a few that shouldn't be there. Hard isn't it? lol

[rickirs]

<script type='text/javascript'>window.mod_pagespeed_start = Number(new Date());</script>

Do not under-estimate the importance, even though YL is no longer in office. For one thing, a successful impeachment secures the notion of unlawful intent (and for critics overseas, it would remove some of the doubt as to her guilt). Second, it offers the chance to present compelling evidence - under parliamentary immunity, that evidence can be questioned in ways that are difficult in a courtroom. Not sure if criminal charges can derive directly from an impeachment procedure. While Clinton was impeached, he wasn't forced from office, but it was a telling blow to him.

Clinton was only impeached by the House largely along partisan party membership. He was subsequently ACQUITTED by the Senate so he remained in office in accordance to the US Constitution.