Eric Holder Needs To Go, Special Prosecutor Needed

May 16, 2013 Leave a comment

President Obama is just as outraged at the IRS abuses as the American people. See, he’s one of us! Except he’s the President and he alleges he found out about a scandal within his own executive branch at the same time the rest of us found out. He told the country last night he forced the resignation of acting IRS chief Steven Miller. Miller claims in an email to IRS employees he was leaving in June because that’s when his assignment was scheduled to end. Which version is correct? That’s anyone’s guess. We can bet that President Passive isn’t going to get to the bottom of it.

The White House released a bunch of Benghazi emails that they seem to think vindicates their position. It does no such thing. The emails prove Jay Carney was wrong in suggesting the White House had a limited role in creating the Benghazi talking points. The CIA wanted to scrap the talking points and the video didn’t become the focus of them until the very end. Of course Attorney General Eric Holder won’t be appointing a special prosecutor to investigate the deaths of four Americans, including an ambassador. If there was ever a case where a special prosecutor could actually help a President it’s this one. Unless the administration is afraid of a special prosecutor finding out what really happened in Benghazi.

At the center of all of these problems is Eric Holder. Holder claims that in the AP phone monitoring scandal he recused himself from the investigation of the original leak. There is no written evidence that Holder recused himself and he has no idea when he actually recused himself. He passed the matter off to one of his deputies in the Justice Department and if you were paying attention Holder suggested Congress couldn’t subpoena the deputy. If so, isn’t it convenient for Holder. Does anyone really believe that Holder wasn’t involved in the AP subpoenas? Doesn’t anyone believe that he didn’t at least know about them?

At yesterday’s Congressional hearing Eric Holder called Rep. Darrell Issa ”unacceptable and shameful.” This is a classic administration tactic. Rather than answering questions, tough though they may be, Holder is shifting focus away from himself and onto Issa. As though it’s outrageous that Issa is questioning the administration. Isolate and demonize, it’s straight out of the Saul Alinsky playbook.  Hillary Clinton did the same thing during her Benghazi testimony in January. What’s unacceptable and shameful is how little Holder seems to know about the Federal agency that he runs. Just like Obama, he seems to know nothing. Do we have a government managed by a President and his cabinet or is our government run by a cabal of bureaucrats who do whatever they please?

Eric Holder needs to be fired. Obama can easily make Holder the fall guy for all of his problems. One big head rolling is likely to calm most of these storms. Firing the temporary IRS chief isn’t good enough. If Obama wants to stop the bleeding, he takes out Holder. He won’t do it of course, Holder is to good at using the Justice Department in illegal ways while deflecting criticism with a torrent of “I don’t know’s.” Like Obama, Holder knows nothing about anything. Fast and Furious, AP phone tapping, denying a homeschool family asylum. Holder knows nothing and as such he’s valuable to Obama.

Beyond Holder, a special prosecutor needs to be appointed for all of these scandals. There are enough links between the Obama campaign and secret tax information of conservatives and their organizations that a special prosecutor should investigate. We should have an independent review of the AP phone subpoena. Benghazi needs a fresh set of eyes, free of the political eyes both sides of the aisle have on the matter. The American people have a right to know what’s going on within their government. A special prosecutor is the best way to find out. We shouldn’t count on it though. Obama and Holder have either too much to hide or don’t like the idea of outsiders snooping around.

Filed under corruption Tagged with , , , , , , , ,

Is Obama Just A Figurehead?

May 15, 2013 4 Comments

Left-wing news outlet ProPublica acknowledges that it received secret tax information from IRS informants about conservatives. An Obama re-election co-chair used leaked IRS documents to attack Romney last year. The IRS spent most of the last three years asking conservative groups about speeches members made, offices members or their family have run for or may run for in the future, to say nothing of demands for Facebook and Twitter accounts. All while progressive groups were approved without scrutiny. Media members and other assorted troublemakers who have questioned the President in, public or otherwise embarrassing ways, have been subjected to IRS audits. We’re told Obama and the White House knew nothing about all of this.

Eric Holder’s Justice Department hacked the phone lines of 20 AP reporters after a security leak. Holder claims the leak was one of the top three most important, crucial leaks he’s seen since 1973. Holder has no idea how many journalists have been targeted over the last four years but we should trust him because it was an important leak that threatened national security. It makes one wonder why, if this was such an important leak, Obama knew nothing about the targeting of journalists. Did no one at the Justice Department bother to ask the President what his opinion was of wiretapping journalists? Are we to believe that Obama never asked anyone at the Justice Department “hey what’s going on with the investigation of that really important national security leak”?

Benghazi is much the same. Obama claimed to be friends with Ambassador Stevens. Yet on the night the consulate was under attack Obama went to bed without knowing what happened. Leon Panetta testified that he never spoke with anyone at the White House on the night of the attack nor for a couple days after. Did Obama really say “that’s a shame” then go to sleep when he found out about the attack? Why did he do nothing to save the ambassador? The coverup afterward is bad enough but there are legitimate questions regarding Obama’s whereabouts on the evening of the Benghazi attack. There are even more questions as to why Obama appears to be disinterested in the attack as it happened.

The White House response seems to be that the President is completely out of the loop when it comes to all the details of the Federal government. David Axlerod suggested the Federal government is so big that it’s impossible for the President to keep up with it all. Sort of a rich argument coming from the party and President of ever expansive government don’t you think? It seems almost unfathomable that the President wouldn’t know about the wiretapping of journalists after such an allegedly big security leak. It seems impossible to believe Obama didn’t have any idea that conservative groups were being targeted by the IRS. Especially so when there were media reports about it for years and his own campaign used leaked information. Did Obama really care so little about the Benghazi attack that he went to bed rather than orchestrate a response?

Maybe Obama will blame the IRS scandal on Senate Democrats who demanded Tea Party investigations for years. Maybe Obama will finally hang Hillary out to dry once and for all. Maybe he’ll blame the press phone tapping on career Justice Department lawyers. At the end of the day though Obama is the President of the United States. He’s the chief executive, the CEO if you will of the Federal government. He’s ultimately responsible for all of these problems, the buck stops in the Oval Office. Yet for Obama it’s always someone elses responsibility, he knows nothing. Is he so intellectually uncurious that he doesn’t bother to look into anything within his administration? The way the White House has responded to all of these scandals one might be led to think that Obama is nothing but a figurehead.

Filed under corruption Tagged with , , , , , , , ,

Has Obama Committed An Impeachable Offense?

May 14, 2013 4 Comments

The President is currently mired in three major scandals. We all know about Benghazi and the IRS Scandal. The third involves the Justice Department secretly obtaining the phone records of journalists at the Associated Press, allegedly for the purposes of discovering a whistleblower. The White House of course has directed the media to the Justice Department, who will no doubt either refuse to comment or send the press back to the White House. This is an issue that won’t go away, largely because the press has a vested interest in protecting their sources. How can we have a free press when the government spies on members of the media?

The IRS Scandal is completely blowing up on Obama. At yesterday’s press conference Obama claimed he learned about it when the media reported it. How can it be that the chief executive of the government not know about this scandal? Especially so when there were press reports about it over two years ago and the American Center for Law and Justice served upon Obama’s Chief of Staff an official complaint three weeks ago? Jay Carney acknowledges the White House found out three weeks ago. How is it Obama didn’t find out until last Friday? He’s either lying or a completely incompetent manager. Perhaps Valerie Jarrett is protecting the President from bad news but it’s on him to get rid of someone like Jarrett if she’s doing that. The scandal also extends beyond Cincinnati. The targeting was agency wide.

Yesterday Obama claimed that he called Benghazi a terrorist attack the very next day after it happened. No one is buying it, not even the liberal Washington Post. There is video out there of the President as late as September 26th claiming the video caused a riot which led to four American deaths. Drudge is reporting that a fourth bombshell is about to hit, perhaps from the CIA. It’s the CIA that Obama is currently blaming for the revisions to the administration talking points. One suspects that the CIA doesn’t think very much of being hung out to dry and as such they may be planning their revenge. Whether they release information about gun or missile running to Syria or if they release more information about the revisions remains to be seen. If there is one arm of the Federal government a President would be wise not to toy with it’s the CIA.

The question here is whether any of this reaches the level of an impeachable offense. As it stands today, there is not an impeachable offense. There is complete and utter incompetence within the Obama administration. Obama appears to be completely incapable of managing the executive branch. Right now his best argument is his own incompetence, his own mistakes. If he must blame someone, he can blame other people’s mistakes. As it stands today, there is no direct link between the IRS and the White House and no direct evidence that information was exchanged. In Benghazi there is evidence of extreme incompetence from Obama and the State Department. However until a weapon running scheme can be identified with hard evidence there isn’t an impeachable offense. As it stands on May 14th, 2013 we don’t yet have evidence that Obama engaged in high crimes and misdemeanors.

We have two choices with Obama, neither of them very good. We either believe he’s grossly incompetent or grossly evil. Today the conclusion reached must be grossly incompetent and thus he must not be impeached. As time goes on, that analysis may change as we don’t know what will be released in the coming days, weeks and months. We may discover a widespread scheme to threaten and harass whistleblowers, which could rise to the level of impeachable offense. We have to let the investigations play out. What sad position this country is in. It’s one thing to disagree with the President politically, it’s one thing to question his political moves. It’s another thing entirely when we are presented with a choice between our President being profoundly incompetent at managing the executive branch or profoundly evil in how he wields his power.

UPDATE: There appears to be anti-conservative bias throughout the Obama administration. At the EPA 92% of liberal groups FOIA requests saw their FOIA fees waived while 92% of conservative groups saw their requests for fee waivers rejected. The same thing appears to be happening at the FCC, where it rejects conservative FIOA requests and grants liberal FOIA requests. How far this bias goes is unknown at this point. It makes the IRS scandal less surprising and more business as usual for the Obama administration.

Filed under corruption Tagged with , , , , , , , ,

Sen. Paul’s Drone Victory Largely Hollow

March 11, 2013 Leave a comment

The big news event of last week was Sen. Rand Paul’s filibuster wherein he demanded the administration acknowledge that they don’t have a Constitutional right to attack US citizens on American soil with drones. Sen. Paul seemingly won this battle as Attorney General Eric Holder issued a one paragraph statement stating that the government doesn’t have the right to attack American citizens who aren’t engaged in combat against the United States. At first look it appears Sen. Paul won this battle, especially so since he acknowledged winning. No doubt he won the PR battle. He took on the administration which appears to have caved. Or did they?

What exactly is an American engaged in combat? Most of us probably think of someone in a military uniform or perhaps someone who has taken up arms against the United States. However as an Op-ed in the New York Times points out both the Bush 43 and Obama administrations believe financing terrorism is combat. If financing terrorism is combat, then any American citizen who is financing terrorism is subject to drone attack according to Eric Holder’s letter to Sen. Paul. No doubt such activity is a crime that should be prosecuted. We have a Constitutional method for charging and trying people for crimes. It does not include drone attack.

Since the last two administration’s have taken an expansive view of the term combat, we ought to think about where that expansive view might take us. Make no mistake, lawyers are paid to expand definitions and force facts into existing law whether they fit or not. A century of progressive jurisprudence ought to make it obvious to us that anything is possible. With that in mind could it not be argued that opposing political parties are engaged in “combat” with the existing government of the United States? After all, such people are actively engaged in overthrowing those currently in power. Sure, they make seek to unseat the current government via legal elections. But they’re engaged in combat nonetheless. Plus they’re financed which would subject all of their donors to drone attack.

You laugh but this is what lawyers are paid to do and if you think lawyers in Eric Holder’s Department of Justice aren’t coming up with these wild, expansive readings of the law you’re fooling yourself. Let’s get slightly less crazy. The progressive left has long defended American Communists despite the fact that these people want to overthrow the current government and replace it with a Marxist government. Under an expansive definition of combat all of these Communists would be subjected to drone attack. So would their financiers and others associated with them. The German-American Bund in the 30′s would be so subjected. Any number of religious groups may be subjected to drone attack. Those who believe in the Westminster Confession and thus believe in Christian civil government could be subjected to drone attack under an expansive reading of the term combat.

The possibilities here are endless because the last two administrations have adopted an expansive reading of the term combat. Thus when Eric Holder says Americans not engaged in combat against the United States won’t be attacked, he really doesn’t mean it because he knows the term combat means much more than the average American thinks it means. Any American who wants to overthrow the current political system, even if their ideas are theory only, could be subjected to drone attack. So could their supporters and financiers. Holder’s statement isn’t as transparent as it initially appears. Sen. Paul won the PR battle last week, there’s no doubt about that. However Holder didn’t really cave, the victory is hollow in terms of policy.

Filed under constituton Tagged with , , , , , , ,

Rand Paul Began 2016 Campaign Yesterday

March 7, 2013 3 Comments

Rand Paul went to Washington yesterday to fight the Obama administration’s assertion that it has the Constitutional right to attack American citizens on our soil via drone attacks. Sen. Paul’s filibuster was apparently spontaneous but a cynic may believe he is seeking publicity in anticipation of a run for President in 2016. Sen. Paul certainly got publicity, but not from the mainstream press which largely ignored his filibuster. We’re also seeing in the Senate a greater divide between young, Tea Party elected Senators such as Paul, Rubio, Lee and Cruz and old guard moderates like Graham and McCain both of whom wonder what the fuss is about.

Sen. Paul did a number of things yesterday, all of them good for both himself and the country. He solidified the libertarians behind him. All of his old man’s followers are now solidly behind the Senator. They wavered after he endorsed Romney last summer, now they’re fully behind him. He didn’t just solidify a libertarian following, he got a lot of conservatives on board as well. Those in the Tea Party were excited about his speech and the issues he discussed. These are people who largely supported the War on Terror but who have become increasingly disturbed by drones. In short, Paul broadened his base of support. That can only be good for him and the GOP should he run for President.

Most importantly though Sen. Paul brought to the forefront the issue of executive overreach on drones. In short he made Obama, who ran in 2008 as an anti-war, civil liberties focused candidate, look like a massive hypocrite. The issue here isn’t whether Obama is actually going to use a drone to attack an American in the US. The issue here is that the President and his Attorney General won’t say that the President doesn’t have that right under the Constitution. Our Constitution requires a warrant for arrest and a trial by jury wherein the accused may question those who offer evidence against him. The administration seems to think it has the right to assassinate Americans without arresting them or providing them with a jury trial.

Where are the Democrats on this? Last night they objected to voting on a non-binding resolution that said little more than the President doesn’t have the right to drone attack Americans. This is a party that spent years attacking President Bush on alleged civil liberty violations that never came anywhere near assassination via drone. Then Sen. Obama was a civil libertarian, complaining about warrantless wiretaps and torture. Today the warrantless wiretaps continue and now President Obama believes he has the right to drone attack Americans on US soil. Were his civil liberties concerns during the Bush administration simply a cynical political ploy? It’s looking like they were. The same can be said for most of the Democrats.

Rand Paul seems to be infinitely more likable than his whiny father. He’s more reasonable, he’s willing to negotiate and compromise. By that I mean he isn’t going to sell away the farm in a negotiation but he’s willing to give up x in order to get the y that he finds more important. Yesterday’s filibuster might as well have been the kickoff for his 2016 campaign. Obviously we have a lot to learn about him and all the other candidates who might run for the GOP nomination. For those of us on the libertarian and conservative end of the GOP we must ask ourselves whether there is another conservative who can beat not the Democrats nominee but the moderate’s candidate. Paul has a built in voting block, maybe we ought to think about getting behind the conservative with the best chance to win because you know if Jeb Bush runs the moderate wing will fully back him and they won’t have another moderate challenger. There is a lot of time but this is something conservatives need to think about. We don’t want our votes spread out among three candidates again.

UPDATE: Eric Holder wrote a fairly terse letter to Sen. Paul claiming that the President doesn’t have authority to use a drone to attack an American “not engage in combat” on US soil. The first question to ask is why did this admission take so long? The second question is what if an American is engaged in terrorist plotting on American soil? Are they subject to drone attack? Why can’t they be arrested and tried for treason and half a dozen other criminal offenses? For the time being it appears Sen. Paul is appeased.

Filed under conservative Tagged with , , , , , , ,

Obama Expands Drone Strikes To American Soil

March 6, 2013 8 Comments

Back when Bush 43 was President the anti-war left, Obama included, pitched a hissy fit over drone strikes on terrorists. In fact they pitched a fit over both wars and the detentions at Guantanamo Bay. Since Obama became President the anti-war left suddenly fell silent on all of these issues. Thus proving that they really weren’t against the war, they were just against Bush. Obama didn’t stop the wars immediately, in fact got involved in a third war in Libya. Guantanamo is still open. No one seems to talk about that anymore, the press suddenly doesn’t care how the prisoners there are being treated.

The bigger issue today is that the left is silent on drone strikes. They were outraged over drone strikes on terrorists, accusing Bush of killing children and other innocent people. Obama hasn’t just adopted Bush’s drone strike policy, he’s expanded it. From all accounts Obama goes through terrorist files and picks and chooses which ones to attack. Bush limited attacks to foreign terrorists, Obama with Eric Holder’s help has expanded the attacks to include Americans who may be working with our terrorist enemies. Thus these American citizens, evil though they may be, are denied their Constitutional rights. Obama is their judge, jury and executioner.

All of the drone strikes in question have taken place on foreign soil. It would be one thing if during the course of war the American military killed Americans who are wearing the combat uniform of a foreign power. But these drone strikes involve people who pose no direct threat like, for example, someone who pulls a gun on a cop and gets shot. These are people who may be hatching evil plots but at the time of their execution via drone strike they don’t pose an immediate threat. If Holder believes killing these Americans is Constitutional what is to stop drone strikes on American soil?

Nothing according to Eric Holder. Holder in a letter to Sen. Rand Paul says that while conditions for an American soil drone strike may be rare and unlikely, it would be constitutional. Holder already set the precedent for killing Americans via drone strike abroad. He’s using that precedent to expand it to include American soil. All it takes is an American ”terrorist” and a President willing to push the button. All in the name of public safety of course. Any lunatic dreaming big evil dreams involving death and destruction in his parents basement are potential targets of Holder’s policy. All in the name of public safety.

It’s potentially worse than that. Political opponents can be branded as terrorists and taken out via predator drone. More than a few Democrats called the NRA domestic terrorists after the Newtown shooting. Under Holder’s precedent the President could decide to take out the NRA headquarters in Virginia. All in the name of public safety of course. If we elect ourselves a particularly evil President, it is hardly out of the realm of possibility that this precedent could be used to take out members of other political parties. If the Supreme Court doesn’t like it, he’ll drone attack them too.

Obama is unlikely to attack political opponents in this manner. But that’s not the point. The point here is that we’ve seen this administration expand the use of drone attacks to first include American citizens and now to use drone attacks on American soil. There are no limits on these drone attacks other than the limits the administration has created for itself. We’ve seen these limits erode over just the last four years. Congress needs to limit the power of the President to use drones on American citizens. In fact, Congress would be wise to eliminate the Holder precedent by banning drone strikes on Americans altogether. The government should not be entrusted with the power to declare Americans terrorists without a trial. The potential for corruption is far too great.

Filed under constituton Tagged with , , , , , , , ,

Justice Department Won’t Defend Free Speech

September 18, 2012 3 Comments

Back in July the Justice Department danced around protecting free speech. Assistant Attorney General Thomas Perez in July spent two minutes not answering the question “Will you tell us here today, simply, that this administration’s Department of Justice will never entertain or advance a proposal that criminalizes speech against any religion?” You would think this would be an easy question to answer but apparently not at the Eric Holder Justice Department. This is the same Justice Department that won’t comply with Congressional subpoena’s in the Fast and Furious case and enlists the George Soros Funded group Media Matters to spin the press. So it isn’t like these guys are all about Justice.

The exchange in question happened back in July. It’s only becoming clear now why Perez was reluctant to defend free speech. Hot Air and others opine that the administration backed a UN resolution which was sought by Muslim nations which would criminalize blasphemy. No doubt this plays a role in why Perez didn’t want to back free speech across the board. The Obama administration has spent the last four years trying to appease the Islamic world, the blasphemy resolution was one of the appeasement. That in the United States the Constitution trumps UN resolutions and therefore protects blasphemy against any religion doesn’t really matter to Obama or the left.

Last week the administration spent most of their time attacking an obscure anti-Islam movie on You Tube. This film is supposedly the cause of all the uproar in the middle east, though that has always been a dubious claim. After all, people like Bill Mahr have produced much nastier attacks on Islam (to say nothing of better ascetics) and no one has rioted. Other things are really in play in the middle east, the video is just a made up excuse.

That doesn’t change the administration’s attack on the video. They have roundly attacked it as vile, evil and disgusting. They’ve gone so far as to arrest the alleged producer of the film on bogus parole violations. They have since released him because they have no basis on which to detain the producer. The parole violations were of course nonsense, the administration was really sending a message that anti-Islamic blasphemy will not be tolerated in the United States by this administration. No wonder Thomas Perez danced around defending free speech. He knew the administration had no intention of protecting anti-religious speech.

Keep in mind the only blasphemy this administration will not tolerate is anti-Islamic blasphemy. Americans can continue to attack Jesus Christ and churches of all kind and the administration couldn’t care less and in some cases may join in. We can continue to attack Jews and just about everyone else. Just not Muslims. It isn’t that Obama is a Muslim, he isn’t. What he is though is an appeaser, especially with fellow socialists. Make no mistake, the rioters are Islamic socialists. They have a lot in common with Obama. You don’t actually think the rioters saw that silly video on You Tube do you? They were whipped into a frenzy by Muslim community organizers who are interestingly funded by Soros and other American leftists. They have similar goals, though different end games.

The video isn’t the cause of all these riots, they were caused by 0ther factors be it an organized event by the Muslim Brotherhood or a weapons deal gone bad with the CIA in Libya. The video serves its purpose here in the US, it’s a pretext for Obama’s attack on free speech. If we ever give up our right to free speech, our nation will be lost. We must be free to criticize Islam without government arresting film producers or harassing them. We cannot allow the government to do a perp walk with the producer of an anti-Islamic film like the Obama administration recently did. Their goal is to chill free speech before they try to censor speech via law. This cannot and should not be tolerated by a free people.

UPDATE: The LA Times apparently doesn’t think the movie in question is speech. One wonders how in the world the movie would not qualify as speech under the Constitution. After all, the Constitution protects pornography and all other forms of speech. The idea that it doesn’t protect speech that others find offensive is itself offensive.

Filed under constituton Tagged with , , , , , , ,

Security Leaks Require A Special Prosecutor

July 27, 2012 4 Comments

There have been a number of substantial national security leaks that have happened over the past few months. Nearly all of them make President Obama look strong and heroic. These leaks range from a computer virus attack on Iran (how is this anything but an act of war?) to our Nobel Prize winning President picking and choosing which terrorists to target and kill via drone attacks, these are not minor leaks. Back in June both Democrats and Republicans in Congress attacked the White House for these leaks, demanding an investigation. Obama’s response was to declare it “offensive” to suggest the leaks came from the White House. He has since turned the matter over to Eric Holder.

Sen. Diane Feinstein (D-CA) recently suggested the leaks come directly from the White House and they’ve been leaked to make Obama look good. She’s since tried to walk those comments back but obviously she believes the White House is up to something. Whether it goes up to Obama is anyone’s guess. Even if it doesn’t go up to Obama, someone in the White House is trying to bolster his image by leaking national security information that makes him look good. It should be noted that none of these major leaks make Obama or his administration look particularly bad.

This problem has been left for Eric Holder to investigate. It’s safe to say that Republicans and a fair number of Democrats don’t have much confidence in Holder after the Fast and Furious investigation. Holder has made a number of questionable decisions, including failing to prosecute Black Panthers engaged in voter intimidation because they’re black. Most recently he’s failed to prosecute Jon Corzine, who illegally invested and lost over $1 billion in client funds while running MF Global. Corzine is a major Obama campaign bundler and Holder’s former law firm represented MF Global.

Rather than allow Holder to investigate these leaks, a special prosecutor should be appointed. Generally speaking we don’t need special prosecutors for every minor questionable decision or for every minor leak within the government. But when major leaks are occurring and it appears they’re coming from the White House, it’s best for everyone if a special prosecutor investigates. Keep in mind, it was a special prosecutor who filed charges against Scooter Libby during the Bush administration. He revealed the name of a minor covert CIA agent. Surely the leaks coming from the Obama White House are worse than Libby’s error.

So why isn’t there a special prosecutor in the Obama leak case? This is the million dollar question at this point. If it is “offensive” to believe that the leaks are coming from the White House, then surely they aren’t coming from the top. If that’s the case, why isn’t Obama protecting his political interests by having a special prosecutor investigate this? The worst thing that could happen is that some minor, overzealous staffers get prosecuted. By not having a special prosecutor, Obama makes it look like he’s trying to cover something up because only the most liberal Democrat ideologues have faith in Holder at this point. Not appointing a special prosecutor only hurts Obama’s political interests.

The flip here is that Obama knows where the leaks are coming from and is either trying to protect himself or those people. If this is the case, it’s exactly why we have a special prosecutor at the Federal level. Eric Holder isn’t going to prosecute Obama or any of his top advisors, that much is clear. A special prosecutor would have no problem filing charges against anyone but the President. So is Obama protecting himself or others close to him from prosecution? It’s to early to say one way or the other but the issue is open because of the lack of a special prosecutor.

Eric Holder cannot be trusted to fairly investigate these leaks, his track record doesn’t afford him the benefit of the doubt. This is an important national security issue. It’s far more important that we protect our nation’s national security interests than it is to protect Obama’s advisors or low level staffers. Members of Congress on both sides of the aisle support having a special prosecutor, everyone wants to put a stop to these security leaks. We need a special prosecutor and until we get one our national security is in jeopardy.

Filed under foreign policy Tagged with , , , , , , ,

Obama Obstructs Congress, Expands Executive Privilege

June 27, 2012 2 Comments

Everyone is obsessing over the Obamacare ruling expected to be issued tomorrow. But there’s another interesting event scheduled to take place tomorrow in Washington. The House of Representatives is going to vote to hold Attorney General Eric Holder in contempt of Congress. This of course stems from his refusal to hand over documents in the Fast and Furious scandal. Rep. Darrell Issa recently sent a letter to the President concerning his use of executive privilege. It’s an important letter that properly details the role of executive privilege and why it either doesn’t apply in this case or shows us that there’s something more going on here, perhaps a real large scale scandal or coverup.

Issa notes the history of executive privilege:

Courts have consistently held that the assertion of the constitutionally-based executive privilege — the only privilege that ever can justify the withholding of documents from a congressional committee by the Executive Branch — is only applicable with respect to documents and communications that implicate the confidentiality of the President’s decision-making process, defined as those documents and communications to and from the President and his most senior advisors. Even then, it is a qualified privilege that is overcome by a showing of the committee’s need for the documents. The letters from Messrs. Holder and Cole cited no caselaw to the contrary.

This is important because historically executive privilege only applied to communications made to the President concerning decisions he has to make. In short, the privilege allows the President’s advisers to provide him with advice without fear that an investigation will be held which pins the blame on bad decisions the President makes on them. It frees the President’s advisers to speak freely, that’s the point of the privilege.

With that in mind of course it makes one wonder whether Obama received advice from advisers on Fast and Furious long before he allegedly read all about it in the newspapers. Issa details two possible conclusions one could reach concerning Obama’s executive privilege claim:

Accordingly, your privilege assertion means one of two things. Either you or your most senior advisors were involved in managing Operation Fast & Furious and the fallout from it,including the false February 4, 2011 letter provided by the Attorney General to the Committee,or, you are asserting a Presidential power that you know to be unjustified solely for the purpose of further obstructing a congressional investigation. To date, the White House has steadfastly maintained that it has not had any role in advising the Department with respect to the congressional investigation. The surprising assertion of executive privilege raised the question of whether that is still the case.

So which is it, was Obama involved in Fast and Furious from the beginning and now he’s trying to protect his advisers or is he simply trying to obstruct a Congressional investigation. There is of course a third option, lawless Obama is trying to expand executive privilege to the point where the executive branch does not have to respect or respond at all to the legislative branch despite the latter’s Constitutional authority to oversee the executive.

The claim of privilege is even more bizarre in light of Holder’s offer to Issa made on June 19th. As Issa details:

During the June 19th meeting, the Attorney General stated he wanted to “buy peace.” He indicated a willingness to produce the “fair compilation” of post-February 4th documents. He told me that he would provide the “fair compilation” of documents on three conditions: (1) that I permanently cancel the contempt vote; (2) that I agree the Department was in full compliance with the Committee’s subpoenas, and; (3) that I accept the “fair compilation,” sight unseen.

Issa of course rejected this offer, largely because he didn’t want to declare Holder in compliance without first seeing the documents. The very next day Obama declares executive privilege on the very documents that Holder tried to “buy peace” with the day before. It makes no sense that these documents would be in play for a bargain on the 19th but by the next morning they’re protected by executive privilege. It’s pretty clear that Obama is trying to obstruct the Congressional investigation, at least as far as this small batch of documents is concerned.

Issa cited In re Sealed Case (Espy) 121 F.3d 729 (1997) which states on executive privilege:

The privilege should not extend to staff outside the White House in executive branch agencies. Instead, the privilege should apply only to communications authored or solicited and received by those members of an immediate White House adviser’s staff who have broad and significant responsibility for investigating and formulating the advice to be given the President on the particular matter to which the communications relate.

This is important because the Courts have already decided that communications within, for example, the Justice Department aren’t subject to executive privilege. This includes communications between the Attorney General and his subordinates. In short the only way these documents could be subject to executive privilege is if Obama is directly involved and receiving advice from Holder or other advisers. This goes against everything Obama has said on Fast and Furious so far and it goes against what Holder has testified under oath to concerning this program. In short, either they were lying or they’re trying to both obstruct a Congressional investigation and expand executive privilege.

It’s a safe bet that the documents Holder offered Issa contain no communications with Obama. Holder wouldn’t have made those documents available on June 19th. This the claim of executive privilege fails under the In re Sealed Case (Espy) case. That doesn’t mean there aren’t other documents out there linking Obama earlier than when he and Holder claim the President found out, only that these documents don’t contain such information. What is really going on here is Obama is helping Holder obstruct the Congressional investigation and expand executive privilege. It is a lawless act and one we should generally oppose no matter what we think of Fast and Furious or Issa’s investigation. The last thing we need is more executive power. We should be very reluctant to allow the President to withhold even more documents from Congress and the American people.

Filed under constituton Tagged with , , , , , , ,

Obama Fundamentally Transforming America Through Lawlessness

June 27, 2012 2 Comments

The Obama administration won a partial victory in the Arizona immigration case decided on Monday. They were also defeated on the major point of the legislation. Arizona law enforcement can now ask people they arrest or question whether they’re here illegally. The administration’s response to this defeat has been disturbing. They’ve decided not to respond to any Arizona police agency which tells them they have an illegal. In short the Obama administration lost, so they’re taking their toys and going home. Childish perhaps but it’s the latest in a long line of brazenly lawless actions. We Americans need to decide whether we want to be a nation of laws or a nation of an imperial President.

It’s the President’s job under the Constitution to enforce the laws passed by Congress and signed by the President. The Constitution doesn’t allow the President to pick and choose which laws passed and signed by previous governments he will enforce. It also doesn’t permit the President to write new laws on his own. In just the past couple of weeks we’ve seen the President brazenly write new immigration law, creating a whole new class of immigrant worker. All of this was contained in the Dream Act, which Obama wasn’t able to get through Congress even when his party held a filibuster proof majority in the Senate. Now Obama outright refuses to enforce immigration law as written, refusing to work with Arizona to arrest and deport people here illegally.

This is hardly the first time Obama has refused to enforce the law. The President has refused to defend the Defense of Marriage Act. Eric Holder refuses to acknowledge a Supreme Court ruling that explicitly allows states to require picture ID to vote. Holder is likely going to be held in Contempt of Congress this week for refusing to hand over documents in the Fast and Furious case. Obama is claiming executive privilege when none exists. The list goes on and on, we have a very lawless administration.

Obama’s refusal to enforce immigration law has nothing to do with lack of funding, which has long been the excuse for not enforcing such laws. His refusal has everything to do with the fact that he lost at the Supreme Court. Likewise, he couldn’t get what he wanted on immigration from Congress so he unilaterally wrote the law himself. The Constitutional law professor apparently doesn’t like separation of powers. He also doesn’t like enforcing laws he doesn’t like, nor does he like Supreme Court rulings that don’t come down in his favor. If Obamacare is ruled unconstitutional tomorrow, would it surprise anyone if Obama decides to unilaterally declare the mandate law?

Let’s say a Republican President was unable to get a tax cut through the Congress. Rather than enforcing the law as written, the GOP President declared that the IRS would no longer be collecting said tax and no one would be penalized for not paying it. This would be a brazen disregard for existing law, it would likely result in impeachment and rightfully so. It’s the President’s job to enforce the law. Let’s say a state instituted tougher laws against bank robbers (bank robbery is a Federal crime) and a Republican President didn’t like the tougher laws and challenged them but lost at the Supreme Court. If that President then refused to work with the state to prosecute bank robbers, the public would be outraged and rightfully so.

These examples unfortunately are exactly what Obama is doing right now with immigration and the Arizona law. Immigration isn’t even the issue here, we can disagree on which policy on immigration is right or wrong. The issue here is what the law is and whether its being enforced by the President. The same is true of the Defense of Marriage Act. We can disagree on whether the law is a good thing or not but that’s not the issue. The issue is that it’s the law and the President is refusing to enforce or defend it. We can disagree over whether picture ID should be required for voting. But the Supreme Court has ruled it Constitutional in an opinion penned by the most liberal Justice, Stephen Breyer.

What Americans need to ask themselves is whether we want to be a nation of laws, where Congress passes them, a President signs them and whoever serves as President enforces them or we want to have an imperial President who picks and chooses which laws he wants to enforce. Do we want legal certainty when we elect a President or do we want uncertainty? If we want legal certainty, meaning we want to know that the laws on the books will be enforced, then we must reject the imperial actions of Obama. If we want the President to pick and choose based on his personal whims, opinions or based on which lobbyist or voting bloc offers the most, then we must support Obama. But in doing that we must recognize that we are creating legal uncertainty and we’re bringing down the foundation of our nation. We have always been a nation of laws, Obama is fundamentally changing this. Did Obama’s voters really bargain for this in 2008?

Filed under constituton Tagged with , , , , , , , ,

← Older posts

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 140 other followers