A Brave New Dawn

There are now two quite opposite views on the world’s economic future. 

One view assumes that the major developed nations will eventually escape back to every expanding growth allowing the world to finally return to business as usual.  The other assumes that mountains of debt and wasted capital and hot money combined with profound income inequality must bring the entire system crashing down sometime soon, as has happened in similar circumstances many times before.

The difference between the two views can be fairly said to be the difference between accepting Keynesian economic theory or Austrian economic theory.

There is nothing as fun sometimes as mixing facts with fiction.  One of the best ways to do this in an honest manner is to describe some event that occurs in the future.  That makes the fiction part plain to everyone.

If one were to accept Austrian economic theory, take a critical mass of facts known today, assume the global crash had happened, add some crucial detail from future events, and accept that the Keynesian model has corrupted the US soul as well as the economy, one could imagine a court case, one like no other previous case, ocurring in the not too distant future.

Here is how such a case may read.  Editor




DOCKET NO. 15-105


President of the United States of America






Majority Leader, United States Senate




This controversy returns to this Court for review.

Previously, in August of this year upon the appeal of the House of Representatives, the scope of the Executive Privilege of the Office of the President was examined by the Court as well as the need to produce under subpoena by the House certain classified documents held by the NSA. The efforts by the House were to obtain evidence that might support articles of impeachment from office of the President of the United States, possible charges that were already under consideration by three House committees. 

The Court held in the earlier appeal, under principles of the Separation of Powers, the records held by the executive departments and the White House then under subpoena by Congress, including the classified documents held by the NSA, were records belonging to the People of the United States in the person of the Congress ultimately, not the sort of personal working papers on sensitive matters that the doctrine of Executive Privilege may shield from public examination, at least for an extended time.  The subpoenaed documents were ordered to be produced.

On this occasion we examine the sufficiency of the evidence to support the conviction on three impeachment counts of the appellant, The President of the United States of America, the honorable Barack Obama, by a vote of the United States Senate on December 15, 2015. 

The Senate vote was a total of 60-votes affirmative votes for impeachment against 25-votes for acquittal on two counts and a 65-20 vote in favor of impeachment on the remaining count.

The former Senate Majority Leader, named in this suit as a party respondent, acting in his official role, interpreted the import of the vote as to sustain a conviction of impeachment therein issuing the Senate Order of Presidential Impeachment now before the Court. 

This Court granted certiorari and stayed the effect of the Senate conviction on December 17, 2015 invoking its original jurisdiction over this matter.

Having presided over the impeachment trial in the Senate, the Chief Justice of this Court has recused himself from participation in this appeal.
The arguments raised by the President of the United States go to the merits of each of the three articles of impeachment. Many of the arguments made are common to two or more articles. This opinion closely examines only a single article of impeachment, the use of dragnet surveillance NSA files by the White House staff while allegedly under the mindful direction of the President himself, all for political purposes unconnected to any legitimate law enforcement function. 

If sustained, this finding alone supports the impeachment of the President.

The question of whether there were a sufficient number of votes in the United States Senate for conviction will also be addressed.  A two-thirds majority of a Senate vote of all 100-members would require 67 votes for impeachment.

The time in this Court so far for the President’s appeal from his trial in the Senate was compressed to only two weeks in this case of a century, the nation needing a very prompt resolution.   The Court’s decision is unanimous nonetheless on the issues examined today, in this most politically charged case ever possibly before an American court.

The Articles of Impeachment

Count I

The article of impeachment ground that occurred first in time by far became the last count to be actually considered by the House of Representatives.  The allegation is that the President, with guilty knowledge, in September, 2013 wrongfully tried to incite a military conflict with the nation of Syria premised on a chemical weapons attack on civilians living near Damascus.   

 In fact, the attack is alleged by the Congress to have been a false flag operation launched by Saudi Arabia-backed “Syrian rebels”.  The deadly operation was allegedly designed to bring the United States directly into the Syrian civil war on the side of the rebels and, quite possibly, into a much wider Middle Eastern war as well, involving Israel, Lebanon and Iran.

 The evidence against the President on this count relied largely on the investigations and findings of the chemical weapons inspectors and associated institutions that reported to the United Nations Security Council concerning the matter. 

 Given the trajectory of the chemical weapons attack in Ghouta, Syria on August 21, 2013, and also due to the nature of the projectiles launched and chemical agents used in the attack, the international teams of investigators concluded the most likely source of the attack by far was not the Syrian regime of Haffaz Assad as the President’s administration so fervently claimed for several months, then fell virtually silent on since December, 2013. 

 The United Nations found in its report, based on these investigations and studies, it was the Syrian rebels supplied by Saudi Arabia that near certainly launched the chemical weapon attack at Ghouta.  The vote reaching this finding by the UN Security Council was ultimately vetoed by the United States.

 Much evidence on this count came from US intelligence sources and from a trove of White House and State Department records that tended to show the evidence used to justify the attack on Syria, evidence presented to the Congress to authorize an attack, was, in important part, falsified internally, something allegedly known to the President.  

 It is further alleged the presentation of the Syria chemical weapons attack by the President and the White House was crafted to exclude the clear evidence that showed the attack was conducted by Syrian rebels rather than the Syrian regime.  The Syrian regime forces and infrastructure was to be the target of the President’s proposed military attack with waves of cruise missiles and air assaults hitting Syrian targets.   

The motivation for bringing down the Assad regime was alleged to be to allow Saudi Arabia and Qatar to run a natural gas pipeline across Syrian territory to the ports along the Mediterranean Sea and then sailing on to the European markets.  The Assad government is instead working with the nations of Iran, and in an indirect way, Russia and China on a pipeline running from Iranian natural gas fields. 

From the pinnacle of government to the major corporate boardrooms the Syrian affair is thoroughly an East vs. West global struggle, a geopolitical war underway for the world’s economic future

The Secretary of State at the time of the Syrian false flag operation in Ghouta has been directly implicated in the plot to falsify intelligence data to blame the chemical weapons attack on the Assad regime.  He is presently under indictment for treason and is awaiting trial with others, some from within his inner circle of advisors at the State Department. 

No criminal proceedings have been instituted against the President as of now.

The President was implicated by the Senate in the unlawful Syrian scheme. His guilty knowledge was sought to be proven at the Senate trial largely by circumstantial evidence, except for the testimony of the one person from the White House inner circle who became a witness for the Congress.

The House of Representatives approved this article of impeachment by a vote of 360–75, the highest vote margin by far of the three counts passed by that same House proceeding. 

The Senate convicted the President of this article of impeachment by a vote of 65–20 following a four-week trial.

Count II

The second article of impeachment, the one the Court reaches the result today through, alleged the serial use by the White House, without judicial approval, of the private information on US citizens that was formerly collected by the NSA and the CIA in their mass surveillance programs. 

It is alleged this material was used by the White House for reasons that had nothing to do with law-enforcement or any other proper public concern.  Specifically, the personal communications and private documents read by the White House were allegedly used to harm, intimidate, embarrass and harass perceived political opponents of the White House or its policies and to greatly enrich a chosen few patrons and supporters.

The House of Representatives approved this article of impeachment by a vote of 245–190.  The Senate vote for conviction was 60-25.

Count III

In a tough-to-beat neighborhood, Article of Impeachment Count III has the most unbelievable set of events of all.

It seems the activities of the Federal Reserve Board and its chairperson, past and present, went well beyond managing the monetary policy of the United States, to the point of criminality.  The manifestations of this misconduct revealed thus far are many.

The events proven at the Senate trial involve a clandestine financial network channeling trillions of US dollars unlawfully and secretly to private entities of many forms across the globe since 2008.  The bankers of Wall Street, London, Frankfurt and Brussels were the money launderers for the greatest financial crime in history.    The banks’ operators were among the very best rewarded from the corruption.

The money had been digitally created by the Federal Reserve while all along trying to cover any trail of the corruption using a variety of covers.

The President is not alleged to have had a hand in the creation of this financial network now dubbed the “Paradise Network”.   The evidence is the underlying organization was begun long before President Obama took office.  The roots of the corruption date to at least 1996.

What Count III does charge the President with is facilitating through orders to the Treasury Department the endgame for the network.  The most incriminating documents for the President’s defense on this count, thousands of digital pages long, could never be read and understood except by the sharpest of IT/financial experts.

The greatest stock and bond market crash in US history in June, 2014 was followed by historic unemployment, massive wealth destruction and frequent chaos, conditions the nation still endures today.  The national implosion of sorts was the source of much whistleblowing, real and imagined, toward most every federal entity and from within many of the largest companies in the world. 

The biggest shocker of all arrived out of the blue only six month ago, July, 2015, one year after the stock and bond market crash and just two months before the official default of the United States government on its debt and obligations in general. 

For his testimony in the Senate largely supported by the trove of digital files he leaked to the world, the President’s own newly-appointed Secretary of Treasury joined the Digital Deep Throat and Edward Snowden and Daniel Ellsberg among the most impactful whistleblowers in US history. 

The now former secretary’s own trial on other matters is still pending.  His testimony in the Senate was not the product of a plea agreement.

The Secretary’s previous work in the administration in the fall of 2013 also lent key, necessary detail to the allegation under Count I, the wrongful provocation of war.  He placed the President in the room and participating in the discussion of how to best present the Syria strike, including discussion of the falsified eavesdrop on Syrian military commanders where the chemical weapons attack at Ghouta was supposedly ordered.

Specifically, the President is charged under Count III with approving a Treasury Department “bailout” for the Paradise Fund under the Emergency Financial Rescue Act of 2014.   Bailouts under the emergency act were instead to be administered and paid for by the Federal Reserve Bank of New York. 

The bulk of that law was repealed by Congress on May 21, 2015 in the wake of the publication of many thousands of digital documents in March, 2015 that showed many parts of the Federal Reserve system was afflicted by large-scale corruption.  Only those transactions under the Emergency Financial Act that were beyond the point where they can be repudiated under federal regulation were exempted from the effect of the later repeal of the law.

On that same day in Congress a host of other Federal Reserve programs were enjoined legislatively.  By June 15, 2015 the Federal Reserve had limited money creation authority remaining.  Many Federal Reserve officers and employees had resigned en masse with many facing the prospect of criminal charges. 

Yet, the paperwork for paying the Paradise Network under the old act was being pushed through the Federal Reserve, but not yet finished and now impossible to complete under the new laws passed by Congress in May.  There was no longer any Federal Reserve authority to issue a sum of new money worth anywhere near a trillion dollars.

On that date though the Treasury paid, supposedly under the emergency act that had been repealed, a financial network that had nothing to do with the purposes of the act and had not already been processed for payment by the Federal Reserve Bank of New York as alleged by the supporting paperwork submitted by the Paradise Network or its proxy for the scam.

The President in this proceeding does not contend there was any lawful authority to make the Treasurer transfer of 1.2 trillion dollars to, in effect, the Paradise Network.  He does assert no guilty knowledge of the true recipients of the bailout payment and further denies he personally authorized the set of cash transfers from the Treasury Department at all.   The President further asserts the true source of the money was Federal Reserve money creation, something beyond the authority of even the President of the United States.

The House of Representatives approved the Count III article of impeachment by a vote of 231–214.  The Senate vote for conviction was 60-25.

There is no direct past court precedent for this case.  The two previous Presidential impeachments trials in US history, the trial of Andrew Johnson in 1867 and the trial of William Jefferson Clinton in 1997, ended in acquittals with no appeal taken.  For the first time a Presidential impeachment trial is directly before the Court for adjudication.

The Number of Senate Votes Needed

for Presidential Impeachment

The first question before the Court is the interpretation under the Constitution of a single, very common word.  What does the word “present” mean in a particular context?

“When the President of the United States is tried [for impeachment
 from office] …, No Person shall be convicted except with the     
 Concurrence of two-thirds of the [Senate] Members present.” 
US Constitution, Article I, Section 3

For a variety of claimed reasons, fifteen members of the United States Senate failed to enter a vote upon the impeachment trial of the President.  Each of those Senators was elected to office as a member of the Democratic Party, the President’s party. 

Some of those non-voting Senate members were allegedly present in the Capitol at the time of the vote, including allegedly six members who had entered the Senate chamber for a time while the vote on impeachment was underway. None of those members though entered a vote of “Present Only” as Senate rules do allow.

For purposes of today’s decision, the Court accepts the notion that at least six members of the Senate were at some time on the Senate floor though failed to vote.  The Court will also accept the notion for today’s decision that at least five other Senate members were present on Capitol Hill at the time of the impeachment vote though failed to enter the Senate chamber during the vote.

The second category of Senators at the Capitol on the day of the impeachment vote is an easy one to exclude from consideration.  Those Senators just in the general vicinity of the Senate floor were not “present” for the impeachment vote for Constitutional purposes.  The near miss of those Senators is little different from lounging in the park across the street from the study hall where the final exams are being taken.  Being close by simply does not count for anything.

This ruling standing alone answers whether there were sufficient votes to support the conviction on Count I, wrongly attempting to bring the nation into war. There were enough votes for that conviction.

But the same question underlying two of the impeachment votes is not yet answered.  Had the six members of the Senate in the room but not voting been counted by the Senate Majority Leader as “present” nonetheless, then the two-thirds majority was missed by one vote on the 60-25 votes on both Count II and Count III. 

Since the Court’s opinion only goes to the merits of Count II in today’s decision, this question must be addressed today.

          Yet, the action of those six Senators who made it to the Senate chamber but never voted in any form allows the Court to answer that remaining question with easy unanimity as well.

A cogent question here is why would a United States Senator be present in the chamber for the impeachment vote of a US President but never enter a vote?  The answer in a general way is unmistakable.  It is gamesmanship, whether in perceived support of the President or in protecting one’s own political reputation, or, more likely, an attempt at both.  This was creating an illusion to entertain the courts with.  It is a play on words, a devious half-way measure.

Had those six Senators participated in the vote by formally noting their presence only and thereby their failure to decide on the vote on the impeachment of the President, the question before this Court today would have been far more difficult and potentially divisive for the Court and the nation.

As it is, those six Senators in the chamber, under the Constitution, accomplished nothing more than the wayward students who never made it to the final exam.  There is no excuse, no political cover in the end for not having one’s vote registered in some way, even if it is a refusal to vote on the issue.

There were only 85 Senators present for the impeachment vote.  Each of those three votes reached the two-thirds majority needed for conviction.

Posture of the Three Counts

Of the three articles of impeachment, Count II is the one unconnected to the testimony of a single witness in order to cover a necessary element of the offense.  Not one of the White House staff members implicated in this count has contradicted the present account of the President.  No White House insider is saying anything at all on this matter at this point in time, including the President now.

Count II is also the article that does not require a penetrating knowledge and analysis of complex scientific fields.  The seizure and misuse of private information for political attack schemes is recounted in White House emails, the records of journalists cooperative with the White House efforts, the events that affected the President’s perceived enemies, and, most directly, in the President’s Oval Office data-base that he claims as his own.  The unlawful financial scheming from the white House under this count is also clearly documented in the Senate record.

Count I, culpable war provocation, revolves around a keen understanding of physics and chemistry and, in a related context, partially comprehending the national security digital world. 

Count I also involves the powers of the Commander-in-Chief and the foreign policy head under the Constitution, an uncharted area in this context.  

Though the President’s campaign for war on Syria was clear to the world from the beginning, the fact is no hostilities were ever engaged in against Syria due to the Ghouta chemical weapons attack.  In the face of overwhelming Congressional opposition, the President withdrew his legislation seeking authority to attack the Syrian regime, possibly his main defense to the count of impeachment.

 Also, the questions concerning the import of evidence and the standards of proof that apply to that evidence are especially complex under this count.

A trial involving such matters is too large a task to fairly review in a fortnight.

Reviewing the conviction under Count III is a similar monumental task.

Count III involves a keen understanding of the authority of both the Office of President and the Treasury Department along with the powers of the independently established Federal Reserve System.  The evidence in support of the count involved a convoluted digital trail that may take much longer than the length of this court opinion to fairly describe.

 And the Count III conviction also rests invariably, like Count I, on the credibility of the one high administration official who turned against the President’s defense.

For these reasons and for the need for finality in this matter, the Court today addresses only the Count II conviction on the evidentiary merits.

 At a future, possibly distant time the Court will address the merits of the convictions under Counts I and III as well.  That is something quite necessary for the historical record, if for no other necessary reason.

Importantly, this approach to the Court’s decision allows for other courts and juries that may address these charges in a future proceeding against the President or others, to be able to begin their mission with a blanker slate, one not directly affected by our work to this point.

The Quantum of Evidence Supporting
 Impeachment on Count II

Applicable Standard of Proof

A preliminary encompassing question is the standard of proof that applies to the impeachment trial of the President.

The House vote approving the articles of impeachment, if any evidentiary standard applied, was a loose one of probable cause to support the counts.

Could it be that an impeachment trial in the US Senate requires something less in persuasive evidence for a conviction that the usual criminal trial conducted in the United States?

Should an impeachment trial be viewed as more civil than criminal in nature, therefore the standard of proof to apply is which side enjoys the preponderance of evidence, the somewhat better case?

This Court concludes, like the Senate, premised largely on the gravity of the remedy of Presidential impeachment and the nature of the articles of impeachment in this proceeding, the standard of proof to apply under the Constitution to the President’s guilt or innocence of the Count II impeachment article is “proof beyond a reasonable doubt”, the formulation for criminal proceedings.

So, the question becomes whether a reasonable Senator, given the evidence in support of the count, could have found the President guilty beyond all reasonable doubt.

The Merits of the Conviction under Count II

Whose Data is It?

The President argues every critical point of evidence against him on this count has a somewhat innocent possible explanation that excludes the President’s participation.  The President contends the testimony on his behalf at the Senate trial by a number of his appointees was clear and consistent, largely unrebutted by other evidence.  He emphasizes the case against him on this count is circumstantial only in the end, not a basis for Presidential impeachment.          

 The most general Presidential defense raised though is that no private information was seized by anyone in the White House in a legal sense, since the data-base used for the political attacks and financial scams was one belonging exclusively to the President personally.

 This is a quite unsound defense posed by the President.

 This Court finds at the outset the fact the President and his aides characterized the trove of digital information used as somehow being the President’s own data-base exclusively makes little difference.  For purposes of impeachment, the question is never whether or not a count proves a particular constitutional violation by the President, only whether the evidence proves the commission of “a high crime or misdemeanor” by the President deserving of impeachment.  US Constitution, Article II, Section 4

Searching the NSA-supplied private communications of thousands of citizens without their knowledge or implied consent from a secretly assembled data-base trolling for ways to commit intimidation and rumor-mongering against enemies, and also for ways to enrich friends, is the essence of the Presidential conduct under examination on this impeachment count.  If proven to be committed by the President, the count pled is a “high crime” within the meaning of the Constitution, whether or not the acts violated the Fourth Amendment ban on unlawful seizures.

The Court also finds, in this case on this count, that a Fourth Amendment violation was, in fact, committed by the President.  He did his spying largely through means belonging to the public.

The Content of Obama’s Eyes

The White House data-base that has become known in the popular press as “Obama’s Eyes” does call for extensive comment from the Court given its centrality to the entire proceeding.

 At a time beginning with the Obama Presidential campaign started in 2007, the President built a digital data-base that finally ended with real-time access to most of the private communications of American citizens through unique technology that tied the White House to the NSA mass surveillance collections.  

The number of people involved in some way in programming and operating Obama’s Eyes grew to over 100 by 2014.   However, outside the close inner sanctum of the White House no one, by design, had the knowledge to comprehend the scope of the mission and its true purposes.  The digital tie hacking the NSA date-base may or may not have been supplied to Obama’s Eyes by the agency itself.

Though it is true there is no direct testimony from his aides against the President implicating him in spying on every American at will, something being done routinely out of the Obama White House, there is a witness of sorts that likely led not only to Count II of the impeachment articles.

Had it not been for the leak of White House top-secret digital documents from a still unknown source that rocked the world in April, 2015 it is quite doubtful the President would have ever faced this proceeding.  Obama’s “Digital Deep Throat” has been at least as consequential as the Deep Throat that helped end the Presidency of Richard Nixon through a series of clandestine meetings with reporters.

There is no doubt that much, even most, of the digital entries contained in Obama’s Eyes was privately collected information by the President himself writ large. 

But there is equally no doubt that the access to the digital flow of information across the globe within Obama’s Eyes at the White House was a function of the NSA intelligence activities at the time, and therefore a part of the public’s records.

Though the President shall be returned his privately collected information in the data-base sometime later, the contents of Obama’s Eyes is found by this Court to be a public record, subject to continuing secrecy classification.  The full story will be told, at least one day.  It was the President who chose to commingle his private records with public records that has caused the possession of the information now to be with the public.

Reviewing the Facts Found by the Senate

The President’s many pages of detailed arguments rebutting the mountains of evidence produced to the Senate on this count does show an incredible talent for sophistry in just about any context.

 It is though, to the President’s demise in office, the very volume of evidence in support of Count II that leads to a near inescapable conclusion, a conviction under the article of impeachment alleging unlawful spying on the American people by the President of the United States used for self-interested, malicious purposes.

 The content of Obama’s Eyes, standing alone, can prove most aspects of this impeachment count the President now stands convicted of.  Dozens of instances of the White House using the NSA spy capacities as a political weapon can be downloaded according to Senate testimony and exhibits.  The digital trail as the many retaliation schemes were underway was presented at the Senate trial, thereby directly implicating at least five of the President’s closest advisors in unlawful activities.   The data proving the financial scams was there for the Senate to review to see, too.

 If one goes beyond just the use of the NSA spying capacities to the details of the retaliations against perceived White House enemies and then on to the lawless theft, the depth of the dishonesty, greed and tyrannical practices throughout the Obama White House becomes clear.  The gravity of the corruption in some instances was stunning.

For example:

1.     The daily tracking of often hundreds of Americans by the White House spreading information about the target, sometimes true and sometimes invented.   Republican office-holders and candidates and their largest donors were typical targets of close surveillance.  Many targets suffered investigations from the IRS, the EPA and other federal agencies.  Many operations were launched at the behest of New York banks and numerous other large companies.

2.    The operation by the White House ultimately of a vast insider securities-trading network in the New York and London markets.  The system was based on the interception by the NSA of private financial documents and communications that were later funneled for distribution by the White House and then on to the Federal Reserve.

There is no evidence the President or his family received any funds, directly or indirectly, from the insider trading or from the Paradise Network involved in Count III.

The Obama Eyes insider trading corruption followed a looser-knit insider-trading operation run for numerous members of Congress beginning in 1984 as just revealed in late November, 2015. The former Senate Majority Leader, who is a party to this suit in his former official capacity, was forced to resign from the Senate along with a host of members of his caucus and several Democrat Senators as well due to these revelations.

3.    A Florida congressman of Tea Party libertarian bent was coaxed into his own arrest for buying three grams of cocaine after his private communications were spied on by the White House for months.  The congressman had defied an earlier warning to carefully watch his step in criticizing the President.

4.    The top officials of the nation of Turkey, including the three-term Prime Minister, were rocked from power over a period of six months ending in April, 2014 based on digital eavesdropping on Turkish official corruption collected by the NSA secretly and steadily leaked by the White House and State Department to the Turkish opposition and press.  The mass protests that finally brought down the Turkish government were largely orchestrated by the White House while spying on every communication of the Turkish government, a founding member of NATO and a longtime diplomatic ally of the United States. Turkey remains in chaos in the bloody Middle East.

The Turk Prime Minister had had the temerity to not only assist Iran evade the US-led sanctions campaign against the Islamic Republic, but to do so through the so-hated trade in gold as money.

No chief executive can be at the helm of a ship of state that abuses possession of unlawfully seized private information in the ways that are recounted in the Senate record without being fully responsible for the consequences.  No President with all of this lawlessness in the White House occurring could be unaware of what was happening every day.  That is a fact beyond a reasonable doubt.

It seems in part with the issuance of this opinion today a juncture has been reached for the nation.  It seems the historic struggle between individual liberty and overreaching state power in the digital information age is finally being won in the United States, following an awful period of tyranny from both political parties in control of the levers of government.

A Battered Republic

The national trauma arising from the disgraceful events leading to this proceeding are far from over.  The suffering of the citizens from the effects of official corruption, like these revelations, is certain to continue for some time.  The Republic itself has been, and remains, greatly damaged and sorely at risk.

Yet, a new horizon even over a battered landscape is a fresh dawn, with the prospect for renewal and rejuvenation, too.  The truth of a nation’s dark descent must be known before it can be successfully corrected by the People.

Hopefully, some of the recent changes in the nation empowering the People anew will work liberty’s magic as general liberty once so finely performed for our nation for so long. 

This Court’s recent decisions under our Constitution to end all mass surveillance by the government, to end the prospect of being imprisoned without charges or for simply speaking out, and to direct administration officials to perform law-enforcement with a blind eye again hopefully will prove to play its intended role in the painful renaissance of the Republic of the United States just recently underway.


Accordingly, the judgment of conviction of impeachment is sustained against Barack Obama, President of the United States of America.  Mr. Obama is hereby removed from the Office of the Presidency.

Vice-President Joseph Biden of Delaware shall be promptly sworn in to be the 45th President of the United States.  US Constitution, Article II, Section 1 

All of the Justices hearing the case concur in this opinion.

For the Court

SONIA SOTOMAYER, Associate Justice

January 2, 2016