Quote:
Originally Posted by Jermyn Davidson
We are no where near an impeachment for this President.
However, this question is non-sensical because the President hasn't done anything that would even warrant the hint of such a discussion.
|
I was wondering when you would chime in to support the Prezzy. DM was getting lonely trying to carry Obama's koolaide, while still drinking it by the gallons. You're right that we're no where near an impeachment for Obama; however, you're wrong when you said he hasn't done anything which would warrant the hint of discussing impeachment. He has.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jermyn Davidson
Like I said about Benghazi from the begining, this was a State Dept blunder, not a WH blunder and that is coming to light more and more daily.
|
Have you read the emails which were FINALLY released by the WH yesterday? Remember, Carney and Obama have been pleading to the press that the WH had NOTHING to do with the revisions; that it was entirely pushed by the CIA. Well, these emails don't reflect that. They show that Sept 14 and 15, the WH was well aware that the State Dept was pushing for revisions, softer tone and a different story than what the CIA originally gave.
The President and WH knew that the State Dept was doing this, and yet for weeks Obama did NOTHING but LIE to the American people about some stupid youtube video. They even went as far as arresting the guy who made the video...oh but they said it was just for his protection. Of course, they're the ones who put his life in danger by LYING, but that doesn't matter I guess.
It IS a WH blunder and a huge FAILURE of Obama to either see the State Dept emails and do nothing to stop the lies; OR to be so detached (see the thread about Chris Matthews' racist accusations) that he doesn't know what's going on in his own administration.
Either way, the buck stops with Obama. It's his failure.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jermyn Davidson
IRS scandal, President Obama is addressing that.
|
He and the WH are doing some MAJOR damage control. Of course, there's already issues with what he claimed last night and what actually is happening. Obama claims he fired the Acting Director of the IRS; yet, the AD sent an email to his staff stating he would be remaining until the end of his assignment. Remember, he's only the ACTING DIRECTOR, which means he's only there a period of time. That period of time is over in June.
When's the last time someone was fired, but allowed to remain on staff another month until their assignment ended?
Obama LIED last night. Blatant. Outright. LIED. He needed to say something to try and get some heat off him, so he came out in front of the cameras and said, "Hey, I just fired the guy." LIAR.
Not only did he lie, but really Obama is the reason this happened. He joked about using the IRS to audit people who opposed him. We know IRS employees overwhelmingly support Obama and donated to his campaign. In fact, the Director of the IRS' Office of Rulings and Agreements, which oversees the determination of non-profits is a big Obama donor!
This was not, as the WH and IRS claim, just 2 rogue employees in Cincinnati. Some of the emails were from DC and California. This was a systematic effort, directed by someone high up, to stall the applications of conservative groups only during an election year.
That, sir, is Obama's failure. His campaign continually demanded IRS records of opponents, continually demanded donor information from PACs, and the IRS did just that. The IRS sent demands to these groups for private donor info, among other things.
Obama is in this, whether by WH involvement or by virtue of his jokes and speeches. This is his problem, and he needs to own up to it. Words have consequences. His class war rhetoric has consequences.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jermyn Davidson
AP News records-- there was a serious breach of national security and if this happened under a Republican, the same actions would have been taken in this environment that is on overkill regarding security.
|
To be honest, I laughed when I read what happened to the AP. The people who routinely carry Obama's water; who smear conservatives for their opposition to him; who have wore blinders over their eyes from the moment he announced his campaign for President...this couldn't have happened to a more deserving group of hypocrites. Of course, once I take off my partisan glasses and look at this with unbiased eyes, I see this isn't something to take lightly.
Tell me, since you seem to know what the WH, AG Holder, and the AP doesn't...what was this "serious breach of national security?" Or are you just spouting the admin LInE? I watched the hearing with Eric Holder yesterday, and the man is as incompetent as Obama. "I don't know. Uh, uh. I can't comment. I don't know. I'm not aware. Uh, uh. Uh. Uhm. Well, I don't know. I recused myself. It's not my fault, blame my deputy." It was ridiculous watching this guy claim ignorance on this.
Again, what was the serious breach of national security? I also watched Jay Carney's WH presser yesterday. A couple reporters kept asking him about this. One even stated that whenever the WH doesn't want to comment on something it's either "an ongoing investigation" or it's due to "national security."
What was it, Jermyn? You claim to know, so what is it? I know what they're claiming it is, and the ironic part is the WH and CIA knew about the AP article, read it and requested it not be published immediately, due to national security concerns.
LINK So if the WH and CIA knew what was being published, and only asked the story be held for a while...where's the "serious breach of national security" that's being claimed now? Obviously the WH didn't have an issue with it then.
Even if that is to be considered the serious breach of national security, there are steps the DOJ is required to take, and did not, prior to seizing phone records.
- 1. Subpena can only be considered after "all reasonable attempts" have been made to get the same info from other sources
- 2. It must be "as narrowly drawn as possible" and should be "directed at relevant information regarding a LIMITED subject matter and should cover a LIMITED time period.
- 3. A Judge, Grand Jury, and the Attorney General himself is required to sign off on a subpena.
We know no attempts were made to get records from the AP or other sources; we know it was not limited in scope or time - 2 months and 20 separate lines is not limited; we don't know whether a Judge or Grand Jury was involved or signed off on it, they're not saying; and from yesterday's House hearing, we know AG Holder did not follow the guidelines required, but instead recused himself from the case (although he doesn't know when he did it and he didn't formally recuse himself in writing).
And if this happened under a Republican, you and every Liberal around would be calling for the AG's resignation AND for the impeachment of the President.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jermyn Davidson
The CIA guy, the President is barely connected to this.
|
First, the CIA thing is either a badly concocted setup by the Russians, or a HUGE blunder by the dumbest spy ever in the history of the CIA. Think Mr. Bean. The Russians want us to believe that some CIA employee was trying to flip one of their officials for information. The circus included photos of terrible wigs, a compass, a map of the city in Russia, and other items including a letter in which this alleged "spy" wrote detailed plans to flip the Russian official. Allegedly, this "spy" said the US would pay the Russian official $1MILLION a year for information. It didn't even have to be good info. It gave details of setting up a gmail account. Oh for crying out loud, this is a FARCE! This is ridiculous. If this guy was a spy, whomever his handler is at the CIA needs to be sent to Siberia.
Now, I doubt Obama is connected; but again, he nominates the head of, and is responsible, for the actions of the CIA.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jermyn Davidson
In fact, the President's connection to these things are based on the fact that he is the President while these things are happening and the buck ultimately stops with him.
He's addressing these issues as approprite for his position.
He's not in a position to where impeachment is even a possibility because he himself is not directly connected to any of these things.
|
We don't know yet whether or not he's connected. The Congressional hearings will find out whether or not he is. One other thing to note, at the hearing yesterday with AG Holder, Congressman Issa showed evidence that admin officials were using personal email accounts to circumvent the Presidential Records Act. Obama himself uses a Blackberry all the time. There are a lot of things, I guarantee you, that have been hidden due to their use of personal emails, etc.
Linear Mode
