Posted on 06/18/2014 1:56:18 PM PDT by PoloSec
A recently released Congressional report makes the case that President Obama was indeed behind the IRS abuse of conservative and Tea Party groups.
Evidence has been found linking the IRS attacks to senior Democrat members of Congress, and shows that the IRS broke the law by providing confidential tax information to Democrats and to the Department of Justice. This information was then used against conservative individuals and groups to silence their dissent.
Meanwhile, only a year after they were requested, the IRS finally agreed to release all of Lois Lerner’s emails, which should provide further evidence linking the IRS attack to Washington and the White House. Conveniently however, the IRS just now says that two years worth of Lerner’s emails have mysteriously vanished in a hard drive crash that occurred in 2011.
Most people aren’t buying the IRS excuse though, especially conservative columnist and Fox News contributor Charles Krauthammer, who thinks the IRS is either stalling or deliberately destroyed evidence. He reacted to the story, and the statement from the White House defending the IRS’ lame excuse, saying what happened constitutes a “high crime” worthy of impeachment.
(H/T Western Journalism)
First, the White House statement that was delivered by new spokesperson Josh Earnest:
It’s entirely reasonable because it’s the truth and it’s fact, and speculation otherwise I think is indicative of the kind of conspiracies that are propagated around this story. There is ample evidence to indicate that a good faith effort has been made by the IRS to cooperate with Congressional oversight, and the far-fetched skepticism expressed by some Republican members of Congress I think is not at all surprising and not particularly believable.
(Excerpt) Read more at conservativetribune.com ...
Well, since they are all RATs...I don't know if there is such a thing.
needs to rat this man out
Ha, that's exactly right.
This scandal has brought one, and only, one major question to the forefront: WHAT IS THE GOP GOING TO DO ABOUT IT???!!!
Obama has committed a multitude of crimes that deserve impeachment, but it will NEVER happen. The GOP leadership has no stomach for impeachment and the Democrats will stand by Obama no matter what. The MSM would pillory the GOP for the very mention of impeachment with cries of racism. I fear Obama will declare himself dictator or at the least use some pretext to suspend civil rights before 2016
Should is the operative word
The dems are in charge right now, of the executive.
I’m just saying, who else do they have?
Who’s next
I never said “should”...and I don’t think you did either in the post I replied to.
No you didn’t. The rule of law should be followed. There. I said it
Look how many insiders it took to “persuade” Nixon to resign. McCord, Gray, Haldeman, Ehrlichman, Kleindienst, Dean, Richardson, Ruckelshaus. Oh, I guess Cox, too, because Nixon appointed him as Special Prosecutor. And, of course, “Deep Throat.”
There were 25 subsequent convictions of various Nixon insiders, who were incarcerated.
The Washington Post, Walter Cronkite, and even the US Supreme Court were implicitly swaying public opinion against the President, simply by an honest treatment of the preponderance of the evidence.
None of those conditions similarly obtain in our time.
Well Kraut tell it to the Hand. That’s the GOP’s response to your idea.
ok...........
I have it from a good source that Obama is tired of the comparisons between him and Richard Nixon.
He is going to sign an executive order bestowing sainthood on Nixon, thus elevating him to Nixon’s lofty status.
Wiki actually has a good description - one that would nail Obama:
“”High” in the legal and common parlance of the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries of “high crimes” signifies activity by or against those who have special duties acquired by taking an oath of office that are not shared with common persons. A high crime is one that can only be done by someone in a unique position of authority, which is political in character, who does things to circumvent justice. The phrase “high crimes and misdemeanors” when used together was a common phrase at the time the U.S. Constitution was written and did not mean any stringent or difficult criteria for determining guilt. It meant the opposite. The phrase was historically used to cover a very broad range of crimes.
In the Washington Post reprinting of the Judiciary Committee’s review of Impeachment in 1974, the review states, “”High Crimes and Misdemeanors” has traditionally been considered a “term of art”, like such other constitutional phrases as “levying war” and “due process.” The Supreme Court has held that such phrases must be construed, not according to modern usage, but according to what the framers meant when they adopted them. Chief Justice Marshall wrote of another such phrase:
“It is a technical term. It is used in a very old statute of that country whose language is our language, and whose laws form the substratum of our laws. It is scarcely conceivable that the term was not employed by the framers of our constitution in the sense which had been affixed to it by those from whom we borrowed it.”
The constitutional convention adopted “high crimes and misdemeanors” with little discussion. Most of the framers knew the phrase well. Since 1386, the English parliament had used the term “high crimes and misdemeanors” to describe one of the grounds to impeach officials of the crown. Officials accused of “high crimes and misdemeanors” were accused of offenses as varied as misappropriating government funds, appointing unfit subordinates, not prosecuting cases, not spending money allocated by Parliament, promoting themselves ahead of more deserving candidates, threatening a grand jury, disobeying an order from Parliament, arresting a man to keep him from running for Parliament, losing a ship by neglecting to moor it, helping “suppress petitions to the King to call a Parliament,” granting warrants without cause, and bribery. Some of these charges were crimes. Others were not. The one common denominator in all these accusations was that the official had somehow abused the power of his office and was unfit to serve.
As can be found in historical references of the period, the phrase in its original meaning is interpreted as “for whatever reason whatsoever”. High indicates a type of very serious crime, and misdemeanors indicates crimes that are minor. Therefore this phrase covers all or any crime that abuses office. Benjamin Franklin asserted that the power of impeachment and removal was necessary for those times when the Executive “rendered himself obnoxious,” and the Constitution should provide for the “regular punishment of the Executive when his conduct should deserve it, and for his honorable acquittal when he should be unjustly accused.” James Madison said, “...impeachment... was indispensable” to defend the community against “the incapacity, negligence or perfidy of the chief Magistrate.” With a single executive, Madison argued, unlike a legislature whose collective nature provided security, “loss of capacity or corruption was more within the compass of probable events, and either of them might be fatal to the Republic.””
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/High_crimes_and_misdemeanours
Thank you
With Biden ousted also, without having got a VP confirmed, the next guy on the list is ... John Boehner, Mr. Speaker. Unpopular as he is around here, he is far and away the best qualified on the list:
- The Vice President Joseph Biden
- Speaker of the House John Boehner
- President pro tempore of the Senate1 Patrick Leahy
- Secretary of State John Kerry
- Secretary of the Treasury Jacob Lew
- Secretary of Defense Chuck Hagel
- Attorney General Eric Holder
- Secretary of the Interior Sally Jewel
- Secretary of Agriculture Tom Vilsack
- Secretary of Commerce Penny Pritzker
- Secretary of Labor Thomas E. Perez
- Secretary of Health and Human Services Sylvia Mathews Burwell
- Secretary of Housing and Urban Development Shaun Donovan
- Secretary of Transportation Anthony Foxx
- Secretary of Energy Ernest Moniz
- Secretary of Education Arne Duncan
- Secretary of Veterans Affairs Sloan Gibson (acting)
- Secretary of Homeland Security Jeh Johnson
NOTE: An official cannot succeed to the Presidency unless that person meets the Constitutional requirements.1. The president pro tempore presides over the Senate when the vice president is absent. The president pro tempore is elected by the Senate, but by tradition the position is held by the senior member of the majority party.
The quality of Obama's bunch started out low in 2009 and has declined from there.
Ugh. Ok, you think theyre going to watch an impeachment and act like a bunch of republicans and not have a replacement for Biden and let the republicans put their guy in?
This conversation is over
Hillary is next. And then there will be an Hispanic as the nominee in 2024.
Duh! Read the 25th Amendment. The 'Rats wouldn't have a choice.
If we had enough votes to oust Obama (two thirds), we would also have enough votes to deny Biden's choice for a VP (a majority), and likely also enough votes to oust Biden himself (two thirds again). Whereupon Boehner (or whoever may have succeeded him as Speaker by that time) is next on the list.
Of course, it's all fantasy. It would take quite a November to have 67 senators. But if it were to come to pass, the Democrats would have no opportunity to replace Biden on their own.
That’s one fine Wikipedia entry.
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.