As I watch the endless stories on what’s being said, what’s being ignored, etc., and having read the centerpiece transcript and so-called Whistleblower papers (linked to in my last posting), not to mention the social media rhetoric of “if Obama did this, they would have impeached years ago”, I thought okay, let’s look into his actions and see if there is a pattern that needs to be more closely scrutinized.
*Important to note for reference: Clinton was first indicted by a Grand Jury, and then later impeached in 1998 on 2 of 4 articles, including Perjury to a Grand jury and Obstruction of Justice. Five Democrats joined in affirming the two passing articles. Five Republicans voted against perjury, and eight Republicans voted against obstruction. Both articles were defeated in the Democrat-led senate, and Clinton’s poll number rose. That’s quite probably why the Republicans were hesitant to go after Obama.
Let’s lay out a list of actions taken and see if they reveal a pattern that should lead us to collective outrage. If they do, then so be it. If they don’t, then should we have the same outrage in the other direction (anger toward the so-called “witch hunt”)? Or is that a path my friends who will forever hate anything Trump are not willing to succeed? Park that for now; let’s just look at actions:
- Exerting executive privilege over DOJ documents, preventing them from being sent to congress under subpoena.
- Destroying information that was under subpoena to turn over
- Refusing to defend laws he doesn’t agree with, and endorsing State AGs that do the same.
- Weaponizing a Federal agency against rivals
- Working to derail an investigation and having Senators from his own party calling for an investigation into that action
- Using the office to help his personal business benefit
- Subverting the law and funding outside groups through questionable means
All very interesting, and certainly open to interpretation by all sides. It seems that each side has drawn its own conclusions on whether or not these actions are fracturing laws, or oath of office. On the surface I do question the legality of these activities, and perhaps they should be thoroughly and deeply investigated. Perhaps they should result in a resounding defeat next November. Perhaps these could contribute to an impeachable pattern? There’s only one flaw in all of this, however: Trump did none of these; the preceding administration did. If you’re not totally angered by these facts (and that I misled you up till now), feel free to read on:
Point #1: Exerting executive privilege. This dates back to 2011 and 2012, during the so-called “Fast and Furious” gun-running debacle that caused the US to lose over 1,400 weapons in Mexico, with some of those weapons later causing the death of a border agent and many Mexicans. Eric Holder, then AG under Obama, claimed to know nothing about it until it was too late, then later memos showed he knew the year before, then he claimed to forget, then he claimed he never read the memos on the operation. When the paper trail led to the Whitehouse, suddenly the cloak of executive privilege was cast over the subpoenaed information. Holder then became the first AG in history to be found in Contempt of Congress.
Point #2: This was courtesy of Hillary Clinton, as Obama’s Secretary of State. When her State Department phone was subpoenaed by Congress, it was suddenly destroyed – physically – with a hammer and the data subsequently destroyed, defying congress.
Point #3: Refusing to defend laws. This again was Eric Holder, under Obama. The first case of this was his refusal to defend the DOMA (Defense of Marriage Act). It banned same-sex couples from receiving Federal benefits. Now, before anyone gets in an uproar, note that is was passed overwhelmingly by both houses, in 1996, and signed into law by Bill Clinton. But why is it an issue here in this context? Simple: Eric Holder refused to defend it, because he believed it to be unconstitutional. He later went on to not take action on 6 state AGs who also did not defend similar state laws. Regardless of anyone’s point of view on this, there is one critical principle that must be observed in this case, and that is the requirement under Article II that requires the executive branch to “faithfully execute” the laws of the land. Holder doesn’t get to choose which laws he likes and doesn’t like, but he did and Obama defended him. Laws are amended or stayed by two means only: They are amended by the legislative branch, or they are set aside by the judicial branch. They are never … never … to be cherry-picked by the very body sworn to uphold them.
Point #4: Weaponizing a Federal agency. In this case, it was the IRS Director of Exempt Organizations (Lois Lerner), and her Obama-appointed boss (Steven Miller) that orchestrated the denial of tax-exempt status to numerous organizations that appeared to be right-leaning. During congressional testimony she selectively invoked her Fifth Amendment rights, and later during civil actions she requested all court tapes be sealed. John Koskinen was later appointed to head the IRS by Obama, and at White House direction he stonewalled congressional subpoenas and destroyed thousands of pages of records subject to those subpoenas. Oh, and Lerner was also held in Contempt of Congress.
Point #5: Derailing investigations. After Holder resigned as AG, Loretta Lynch was appointed by President Obama. During the Clinton investigations, Lynch met with Bill Clinton (the famous tarmac conversation of golf and grandkids) and shortly after instructed Comey (FBI then-head) to reduce the tone of the investigation (calling it a “matter”). This led to conflicting testimony later by both Lynch and Comey, and even democratic senators (e.g., Feinstein, D-CA) to call for a separate investigation into her actions and what knowledge and direction the President had in all of it. A former AG called it “making the Justice Department an arm of the Clinton campaign.”
Point #6: Using the office for personal business benefits. No, not the Doral resort for the G-20 (which, incidentally, bid cheaper than the other competing resorts, but now the government will spend more at another location). This is again for Hillary Clinton, in her role as Secretary of State. There are dozens (literally, dozens) of documented cases where she appears to have seriously violated her MOU with the State Department; in these cases donors to the Clinton Foundation were given direct access to her in her SoS role, some were appointed to key State Department board of advisor positions, and several governments’ donations to the foundation were not vetted by the State Department, as was required under the MOU. And the big elephant in the room, Russian-owned Uranium One, paid the foundation $2.35M and paid Bill $500K for a speech, and shortly after the Uranium One acquisition of a Canadian firm that controls 20% of all Uranium globally was approved by the US Government, led by the State Department and the White House.
Point #7: Subverting the law. Who here has heard of “Sue and Settle”? This was a practice by the EPA, gearing up under Clinton, running through Bush, and really accelerating under Obama. It allowed the EPA to “cozy-up” to liberal environmental groups. It basically enabled those groups to sue the government (the EPA, specifically), the groups would get paid a large settlement, the courts would hand down a ruling that then became an EPA regulation. This totally subverted the laws of the states and the Feds, and funded these groups at the same time. In fact, in just the first four years under Obama, 80 environmental, labor union and public interest organizations have been party to litigation since the start of the Obama administration, and Eric Holder refused to provide congress with information, and officials under Obama even went a step further by using personal email accounts to correspond with these groups, causing warnings to come out from the house Oversight and Reform Committee, “The use of personal, non-official e-mail accounts raises concerns that you could be attempting to insulate this and other e-mail correspondence from a Freedom of Information Act request. Moreover, your actions may also constitute violation of the Federal Records Act”… Effectively evading congressional oversight of federal agencies.
I could absolutely go on, with Russian activity Obama did nothing to stop (not necessarily illegal, however, as the above cases clearly call into question), the Biden activities, Obama lying to his ambassador on Russia after a boom microphone totally caught him saying something different that he wasn’t aware was there, etc.. But suffice it to say that many of you believe Obama to be the Great Hope, the Rock Star, the person sent to save us from ourselves, and therefore you will, without hesitation, issue him a giant hall pass for anything that appears illegal by him directly, or his administration. As he stated a long time back, “the buck stops here”. So before we run off with short memories and go after the current president for questionable acts, go back and re-read these points and put Trump’s name in front of all of it, and ask yourselves how hard you would be beating the war drums if those were all under his watch?
