Is the Impeachment of Barack Obama Moving Forward?
Floyd and Mary Beth Brown
Friday, May 28, 2010
All of a sudden, everyone is talking about the possibility of impeaching Barack Obama.
Drudge is writing about it. Sean Hannity is talking about it. Dick Morris is saying that the potential scandal is "enormous.". Karl Rove called it an "extraordinary charge." WorldNetDaily.com wrote that "it could be grounds for impeachment."
What happened? The story surrounding the alleged bribe of Congressman Joe Sestak initially broke way back in February. We wrote about it then, but it never broke out into the mainstream media. But because of activist pressure and the courageous work of California Congressman Darrell Issa the story refused to die.
ImpeachObamaCampaign.com alone has delivered more than 750,000 petitions to Congress in support of impeachment. Make no mistake, patriotic Americans are driving this sudden turn of events. It is a testament to what can happen when patriotic Americans refuse to look the other way, and they make their voices heard in a real and meaningful way. It didn't hurt that Obama has failed to answer the questions surrounding the attempted bribe of Congressman Joe Sestak.
So did Barack Hussein Obama commit a felony by offering Congressman Joe Sestak a "high ranking" Cabinet position to drop out of the Pennsylvania Senate race against Sen. Arlen Specter?
Let's be clear. The commission of an actual felony is not actually required in order to impeach a sitting president, but if Sestak's allegation is true, and if Barack Hussein Obama's fingerprints are all over this offer, that's a felony, and drawing up Articles of Impeachment against Barack Obama becomes a necessity.
According to Judge Andrew Napolitano with Fox News: "Federal law makes it a felony to offer 'anything of value' to an official of the government in return for a decision in your favor by that official of the government; it is called bribery."
And Congressman Darrell Issa has been relentlessly pushing the matter. He's called on Attorney General Eric Holder to appoint a special prosecutor to investigate the allegation, but Holder is essentially ignoring the request.
Recently, Issa directly challenged Holder: "You don't answer or apparently investigate. ... You're not investigating whether it's a false statement by a member of Congress or a crime by the White House. What are we to do?"
Back in February, Sestak confirmed to Larry Kane, a Philadelphia talk-show host, that the White House dangled a "high ranking" job in front of him to convince him to drop his primary challenge against incumbent Arlen Specter.
Initially, the Obama White House denied the accusation. According to a Fox News report: "White House official told Fox News that Sestak is expected to 'clarify' the allegation."
But Sestak didn't take the hint... he didn't "clarify" the accusation.
He stood by his statement and told Fox News: "I was asked a direct question yesterday and I answered it honestly."
Just prior to the Pennsylvania primary, Issa confronted Holder directly, but Holder refused to comment on the case. When Issa questioned Holder on why he had not responded to his request for a special prosecutor, Holder simply said that he thought he had responded to the request and offered his apologies.
Is it possible that Sestak lied, or that he was simply mistaken?
It seems unlikely as White House Press Secretary Robert Gibbs issued the following carefully guarded statement to the press: "I'm told whatever conversations have been had are not problematic" and Gibbs added that the matter was "in the past."
Stonewalling... obstruction... but it's clear by Gibbs' statement that someone made Sestak an offer.
Keeping in mind that only Barack Obama has the authority to appoint an individual to his own Cabinet, the only question that remains is: What did Obama know and when did he know it?
The American people deserve an answer.
____________________________________________________
Updated: WH Used Clinton To Ask Sestak To Get Out Of Race, Sestak Responds Friday, May 28, 2010
Posted by: Jillian Bandes at 1:33 PM
A statement is expected from the White House later today on the nature of the Sestak bribe. I wonder if it will include this nugget -- a new report out that the White House that they used Bill Clinton to convince Sestak to drop his Senate bid. The New York Times quotes sources who say Clinton was contacted as early as last summer -- that would be right after Specter's party-switch.
Here's what the "anonymous" White House officials told the New York Times:
The White House did not offer Mr. Sestak a full-time paid position because [Rahm] Emanuel wanted him to stay in the House rather than risk losing his seat. Among the positions explored by the White House was an appointment to the President’s Intelligence Advisory Board, which provides independent oversight and advice the president. But White House officials discovered it would not work because Mr. Sestak could not serve on the board while still serving in Congress.
Clinton would be a convenient scapegoat in this story, and I'm eager to see whether the President will oblige repeated requests for a full investigation.
Update: The Atlantic reportedly has the White House memo, authored by chief counsel Bob Bauer.
Update II: Rep. Sestak has released the following statement in response to the White House's comments from earlier today:
Last summer, I received a phone call from President Clinton. During the course of the conversation, he expressed concern over my prospects if I were to enter the Democratic primary for U.S. Senate and the value of having me stay in the House of Representatives because of my military background.
He said that White House Chief of Staff Rahm Emanuel had spoken with him about my being on a Presidential Board while remaining in the House of Representatives. I said no. I told President Clinton that my only consideration in getting into the Senate race or not was whether it was the right thing to do for Pennsylvania working families and not any offer. The former President said he knew I'd say that, and the conversation moved on to other subjects.
"There are many important challenges facing Pennsylvania and the rest of the country. I intend to remain focused on those issues and continue my fight on behalf of working families."
Sestak's statement seems to nearly word-for-word corroborate the story from the White House. Do you think everyone is being honest here?
_________________________________________
To read more on this subject, click here.
8 comments:
The slavering right-wing loons have been talking about impeaching Obama since before he got in office. And how the hell would they push something through with this lack-of-a-scandal? Where's the crime? No-pay for no-play?
And before you start weeping copiously about the "ethics violation" that you wish existed, let me point out that in 1982 President Ronald Reagan offered Senator S.I. Hayakawa a job if he dropped out of the California GOP primary. Are you saying Reagan was a criminal?
Unbunch your panties and go sniffing for other non-existent crimes. This one is pretty flaccid.
You're pretty rude nameless. Here I'll just give you a name. How about 'Spineless Coward', or SC for short. If what you say is true than yes Ronald broke the law. I agree though I would be surprised if these accusations didn't fizzle out - I suppose actual impeachment is wishful thinking. The Dems will just continue to obstruct justice as usual. They can learn from the criminal houdini, the master of obstruction - William Jefferson Clinton.
Have a nice day - butthead! Next time learn some manners or I'll just delete your sorry ass.
You never know though - maybe if we wish really hard it's not too late to save our country from the damage Obama and the democrats have done.
That's what I should've named this blog 'HERE's THE DAMAGE!'
Oh, I'm sorry, Brett. Did I hurt your feelings? Was it me mentioning that your "scandal" was just politics, or pointing out that Reagan did the same thing?
Would it be even ruder to point out that your biggest scandal-pusher, Darryl Issa, is a former car-thief who can be consistantly relied on to spread the party line?
I'm sorry. I sincerely apologize for my rudeness. I see that it's caused you grief. God knows we don't want that.
Oh well thank you for your sarcastic apology. You are right , you are a cynic - congratulations! Darryl Issa isn't "my scandal pusher", he isn't my representative and I didn't vote for him. I can only hope he is no longer a criminal. It would be nice if we could actually trust our politicians, but it starts with us, those who vote for them. It will be interesting to see if Obama can make it to the end of his term.
Try to keep in mind that I didn't write the article. I just thought it was interesting so I posted it. I don't really think Obama will be impeached as a result, but if he keeps actively working to tear down our constitution he will have to deal with a revolt. It has already begun and there's nothing he can do to stop it unless he starts working for the people and not just his cronies. He is too arrogant to change, so he will go down in disgrace. Then he can move to Kenya and become a dictator there. We don't need presidents like him here in the U.S. Another option for him - maybe he can go on the Hamas' payroll like Jimmy Carter, and continue to slam Israel for a living.
Thanks for stopping by cynic guy.
No problem. I am curious about something, though. (Well, 2 things, really.)
1 - What do you think Obama is doing to "tear down our Constitution"? That's a constant talking point from the far right, without a shred of evidence. (It seems to go along with "I want my country back," but they can't seem to figure out what they want it to go back to.)
2 - Why do you say Obama is "arrogant"? (Same problem.)
Alright now I know one thing about you. If you watch or read the media at all you only watch, read, and pay attention to the mainstream media ABC, NBC, CBS, CNN, NY Times, etc. Otherwise you would already know these answers. It would take me too long to answer them in this space so my suggestion to you is you read the 1,000+ articles in this blog, I mean besides just this one. Then you will get all the answers to your questions if you really want to know. My guess is you really don't want to know - that is why you remain so ignorant. Should you investigate - please feel free to leave comments. Try to be civil - if possible. Otherwise - goodbye.
This is why I say you're ignorant. Because the evidence is everywhere and we do know where we want this country to go back to. I can see you have scant knowledge of your opposition, while I know what people like you are about quite well.
That is where we are at now. Where we go from here is up to you.
Post a Comment