Skip to comments.Did Kerry violate separation of powers by coaching Obama's 2nd debate Benghazi lie? (vanity)
Posted on 12/22/2012 3:34:17 PM PST by Seizethecarp
Sen. John Kerry is the Chairman of the Senate Committee on Foreign Relations responsible for oversight of US State Dept., execution of foreign policy and oversight of diplomatic facilities.
But in Oct. 2012, Kerry was also acting as Obama's debate coach when Obama prepared for the 2nd debate, the foreign policy debate at which Romney was expected to grill Obama over the Benghazigate disaster.
Did Kerry violate the separation of powers and ignore a conflict of interest in being both Obama's foreign policy debate coach and Chair of the committee? Kerry's committee in the legislative branch is supposed to provide an independent check on the performance of the executive branch regarding foreign policy. Was Kerry's independence compromised when he coached Obama while heading this committee, especially if he coached Obama to lie?
Kerry's senate committee would be responsible for investigation and oversight into what happened before, during and after the 9/11 attack. Events after the attack subject to oversight by the committee would seem to include spreading a false "video" narrative as well as lying to the American public in the 2nd debate by making the claim that Obama had said the attack was a terrorist attack on the first day.
This lie in the second debate, possibly as coached by Kerry, could well have saved Obama's election...and Kerry's hoped for appointment as Secretary of State as well! There is a kink in the Nate Silver polling trend showing Obama's fortunes sharply improving after his "alpha" performance in the 2nd debate powered by the Benghazi lie, a lie that was conveniently validated by Candy Crowley...well for at least a few hours.
Did Kerry commit treason when he 'negotiated' with Daniel Ortega?
Romney to grilled Obama over the Benghazigate disaster.?
I must have missed that part.
Any reference to Kerry should begin with “The Cambodian kid-er”
I was prompted to ask this question about conflict of interest when, as he announced the nomination, Barry joked that Kerry would have to go before his own committee and somehow work out how to both preside as chairman and appear as a witness. Very funny Barry.
So I said to myself “How does Kerry both preside as chairman and coach Barry to lie about foreign policy in the debate?”
Treason is a very hard charge to prove, within the limits of the Constitution. You have to have two other eye witnesses to the crime. Now the Logan Act should be brought up during his confirmation hearings. Of course the only person we could hope to bring something like that up would be Ted Cruz.
I suppose we will never find that for his Paris 'negotiations' but we do have a photograph of his meeting with Ortega. However, a conviction in the court of public opinion might be enough to keep that scum out of the Sec State job.
It isn’t that his acts weren’t criminal. Treason just happens to have very strict limits written into the Constitution. There are lots of other crimes of the same sort that are much easier to prove. It is in Article 3, Section 3.
I understood that.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.