stlouiedipalma wrote: Sorry, but I don't see anything remotely close to an impeachable offense here. After such goodies as Iran-Contra, WMDs and the Plame incident this pales by comparison. It appears to me that the Obama haters are scrambling for some mud, Sean Hannity being the chief scrambler. Using Rove and the toe-sucker/hooker-singer Morris doesn't lend it any credibility whatsoever.

Ha ha ha, you brought up PLAME???? Umm, you do realize it was a dead journalist that outed her from a NON COVERT position, right???

You're about as biased as the media, because if this was reversed against a repub, your little tidy whiteys would be in a bunch.

IggyPride00 wrote: Hannity is demanding a grand jury tonight because he is convinced laws were broken according to every legal scholar he has talked to. He wants impeachment, as well as jail time for all of those involved for committing federal crimes. Now that Bill Clinton is involved, a professional liar, he is more convinced than ever this is huge and will be Obama's Watergate taking out multiple top administration officials.

Can you imagine, boys and girls, just how much howling these same networks would be doing if this stunt had happened under a Republican president?

None of us would have working eardrums left.

I would normally agree, but if you pick up any news source they are skewering him over his lack of leadership on BP, which if you had to pick one to focus on is a better story as it has the potential to do far far more political damage to him than the Sestak thing.

Agreed, although "skewering" is a bit of an exaggeration.

Mr. 300 wrote:

stlouiedipalma wrote: Sorry, but I don't see anything remotely close to an impeachable offense here. After such goodies as Iran-Contra, WMDs and the Plame incident this pales by comparison. It appears to me that the Obama haters are scrambling for some mud, Sean Hannity being the chief scrambler. Using Rove and the toe-sucker/hooker-singer Morris doesn't lend it any credibility whatsoever.

Ha ha ha, you brought up PLAME???? Umm, you do realize it was a dead journalist that outed her from a NON COVERT position, right???

You're about as biased as the media, because if this was reversed against a repub, your little tidy whiteys would be in a bunch.

And exactly which Vice President's chief of staff was in the Plame mess up to his eyeballs? Got his ass convicted then had his sentence commuted by W? Just this year received an award along with his former boss from some right wing group?

C'mon gutterball, you can guess, can't you?

He was convicted for the coverup -- not the so-called crime.

Please show me where ANYONE was convicted for outing a CIA operative. You can't, because it never happened.

On topic: NBC did carry a short story on this last night, much to my surprise. Not surprising was how it was framed around Obama's explanation and dismissed as being no more than political bickering by the Republicans.

The only thing Brian Williams didn't do for the story was drop to his knees and give Obama yet another hummer on TV.

Writerbuckeye wrote:The only thing Brian Williams didn't do for the story was drop to his knees and give Obama yet another hummer on TV.

He's saving that for Katie Couric. Brian does have his limitations!

Writerbuckeye wrote: He was convicted for the coverup -- not the so-called crime.

Please show me where ANYONE was convicted for outing a CIA operative. You can't, because it never happened.

Stlou was quite the non factor over at the other site, and I see he's brought the conspiracy without any facts thing over here. Too bad, you've been proven wrong, so now just go away and leave the topic at hand.

If someone in the press would do their job and keep pressing this, then maybe it would get traction. The DOJ won't touch it 'cause Obama will cut them off at the knees and they know it.

^^^Don't be too hard now. We NEED comical liberals here or things would get boring.

IggyPride00;372641 wrote:Hannity is demanding a grand jury tonight because he is convinced laws were broken according to every legal scholar he has talked to. He wants impeachment, as well as jail time for all of those involved for committing federal crimes. Now that Bill Clinton is involved, a professional liar, he is more convinced than ever this is huge and will be Obama's Watergate taking out multiple top administration officials.



I would normally agree, but if you pick up any news source they are skewering him over his lack of leadership on BP, which if you had to pick one to focus on is a better story as it has the potential to do far far more political damage to him than the Sestak thing.

so the country should bow down to sean hannity's demands? get real. who is sean hannity but some tired weakling wind bag.

^^^See what I mean?

Of course there was a crime committed, and everyone knows it.

Belly35;372487 wrote:NO! This is a excape story by all parties Billy, Sestak, Obama, Rahm ...this is just a little water to try an put out the smoke ...and where there smoke there is fire. Someone will get burned for sure.... I only see good thing coming out of this
Public Servant pink slip
Billy ass in a sling and Hillard 2012 support including the failure of broken Demo party
Sestak get pressured and more comes out to protect his career
Rahm get thrown under the bus
Eric Holder is left holding his own balls
Other Demo also get sucked in

Turns out Sestak was small time compared to Colorado Senate Candidate Andrew Romanoff, who the White House reportedly discussed 3 different jobs with in order to get him to leave the race. They used Rahmbo's underling to facilitate the talks.

I fully expect Republicans to seize on the message of a new culture of corruption as there are scandals breaking out everywhere.

Hannity will no doubt be leading the drum beat for a special prosecutor, grand jury and eventual impeachment hearings.

A few more scandals like this and there may be a bunch of public servants getting pink slips in the near future.

http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0610/38064.html

IggyPride00;377637 wrote:A few more scandals like this and there may be a bunch of public servants getting pink slips in the near future.

I'm thinking that's going to happen regardless of the scandals.

W.H. political team stumbles, bumbles



http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0610/38067.html

I'm ready to go on record that I am perfectly willing to NOT run in a Democrat primary in exchange for a job in the Administration. PM me for my email, Bam!

I am inclined to believe that several swing voters in the health care debacle vote were probably also promised administration jobs since the leadership probably knew they would lose in November but needed their vote.

More ....................................................... change we can believe in ........................

This is now coming close to the culture of corruption that the Bush admin had for 8 years it's scary.

Incompetency breeds more incompetency and the same goes for criminal politic with the ongoing unforced errors by the Obama Administration the wheels are slowly coming off an many will be thrown under the bus our jump on the sword or bailing out of a failed Public Servant. I would also venture to say that this is not the last two cases we will be hearing. Many Democrats will also start to twist in the sign of an investigation.

Oh Boy ! Now Blagojevich is getting into the act ......this is just going accelerate any and all Democrats ready to jump the Obama Failure Ship.

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2010/06/03/rahm-emanuel-subpoenaed-blagojevich-case/

WOW! Two different situation of illegal job offers and the LLS is nowhere to be found.

Who knows the next thing is they ( LLS) will be calling Obama Public Servant .......

Steven G. Bradbury Head of Office of Legal Counsel, Bush administration :

(To POLITICO's Gloria Park)

Under the Constitution, it's the president's prerogative to fill advisory positions in the White House and to decide who will occupy senior policy offices across the administration. The president may make those appointment decisions for any reason he deems appropriate, including to reward political loyalty, and it would raise serious constitutional issues if Congress tried to prohibit the president, or anyone acting on his behalf, from offering appointments in particular circumstances. For that reason, any statute that purports to criminalize an offer of appointment must be construed, if at all possible, not to interfere with the president's constitutional authority, and if the statute cannot be read to avoid that result, there's a strong argument it would be unconstitutional as so applied.

That is a very interesting take on things.

Bradbury is a very conservative guy having clerked for Clarence Thomas as well as being a stalwart in the Republican party. His view will not be welcomed by the Republican establishment right now, but it theoretically makes alot of sense.

IggyPride00;378577 wrote:That is a very interesting take on things.

Bradbury is a very conservative guy having clerked for Clarence Thomas as well as being a stalwart in the Republican party. His view will not be welcomed by the Republican establishment right now, but it theoretically makes alot of sense.

That's all well and good- but he cannot tamper/interfere with an election by offering something of value to someone so they will drop out of a race (which appears to be the case with Sestak- at least to anyone with half a brain). Nobody's saying he can't appoint people to various positions for loyalty or whatever.

What Bradbury is trying to say essentially is that that law is unconstitutional when push comes to shove because it interferes with and restricts the President's prerogative to fill positions as he sees fit.

I don't necessarily agree with the argument, but I can see based on that argument where it could very easily become a separation of powers issue with the Congress trying to legislate constitutionally protected rights of the President.

Every President has done exactly what BHO has been accused of, and it sounds like this would have been the Bush Administration line of defense had the Democrats ever tried to bring his administration up for charges on it as some Republicans would like to see now.

IggyPride00;378666 wrote:What Bradbury is trying to say essentially is that that law is unconstitutional when push comes to shove because it interferes with and restricts the President's prerogative to fill positions as he sees fit.

I don't necessarily agree with the argument, but I can see based on that argument where it could very easily become a separation of powers issue with the Congress trying to legislate constitutionally protected rights of the President.

The president has the authority to fill positions in the executive branch as he sees fit within the constraints of the constitution. He does not have the authority to abuse that power by upsetting the balance the constitution lays out between the federal government and the sovereign states. It is clearly unconstitutional to interfere with the sovereign will of a state by granting federal power in exchange for influence in a sovereign state's election of its representation in the Union.

This abuse of federal power is no doubt a "high crime" against the law of our land, our constitution. It is an impeachable offense and we can only hope that our fellow countrymen will demand its enforcement.

IggyPride00;378666 wrote:Every President has done exactly what BHO has been accused of, and it sounds like this would have been the Bush Administration line of defense had the Democrats ever tried to bring his administration up for charges on it as some Republicans would like to see now.

The federal government began overstepping the authority of the constitution before the ink was dry. When will it stop? Every past president that has abused this authority is just as guilty. The guardians of the constitution, the American people, have in the past too many times given them a pass. It by no means justifies their actions today. It is high time we hold them accountable for their abuse of power.

Iggy, I used your post for the most part to express my opposition to Bradburry's argument. As you stated you don't necessarily agree with him. I understand your point. The separation of powers must still be governed by the constitution. Separated powers can be abused as well as singular power. It just has an affect on a smaller amount of people (unless of course that separated power is the federal government).

Majorspark WOW! You have made my day and it’s only 6:55 …. Thank you

ccrunner609;378877 wrote:Who cares what other presidents did......Obama should be impeached and will likely be unhireable in 2012.

What you don't understand is that the LLS (Liberal, Left, Socialist) alway
1: Change the subject ... to something they can deal with
2. Blame someone else ... throw other under the bus
3. Talk about past history and not past conditions
4. Believe in fraud ideas and programs
5. Twist the truth