Mediaboss Marketing

With the full House of Representatives expected to vote on impeachment Wednesday, it seems appropriate to point outagainhow if Democrats public sentiments about impeachment were sincere, and not purely partisan, theyd have impeached Obama for the very same things many, many, many times.

In addition to abuse of power, Democrats have charged President Trump with obstruction of Congress over the refusal of the White House to simply allow individuals to testify. The Trump White House, like his predecessors, is very much aware of the separation of powers, and hasn't given Democrats open season to call any witness they want to be grilled for hours without some pushback. This is technically how the system is supposed to work. Congress can subpoena witnesses and documents from the executive branch, but the executive branch can fight those in the courts. Democrats, not wanting to prolong impeachment and risk severe public blowback, have essentially argued that such refusals to comply with the first request merit obstruction of Congress.

So, lets take a look at just a few examples of their golden boy Obama doing the exact same thing, and then we can ask ourselves Why didnt Congress impeach Obama over this? If the same standard theyre applying to Trump today were applied to Obama, the latter would have been kicked to the curb.

In 2009, two party-crashers got past the Secret Service during a state dinner, and managed to meet and shake hands with Barack Obama. How does such a breach in security happen? Congress wanted to know and opened up an investigation. For some reason, though, the White House wasnt equally interested in investigating the breach, and when White House Social Secretary Desire Rogers was asked to testify before Congress, the White House refused to let her, citing separation of powers as the reason. There wasnt anything partisan about this investigation. In fact, Democrats were the ones running it. The refusal to comply with the investigation was bizarre, and legal scholars found the separation of powers excuse in this particular case to be rather dubious.

What was the Obama White House really trying to hide? Who knows? But, despite obstructing Congress, the Democrat-controlled House of Representatives didnt launch an impeachment inquiry.

Elana Kagan served as solicitor general for the Obama administration before being nominated and confirmed to the U.S. Supreme Court. During her time as solicitor general, she was heavily involved in crafting a legal defense for Obamacare. This was significant as issues involving Obamacare were coming before the Supreme Court and federal law dictates that Supreme Court justices must recuse themselves when their impartiality might reasonably be questioned, such as with Elana Kagan and Obamacare.

Under 28 U.S.C. 455(b)(3), a Supreme Court justice has a legal duty to recuse him- or herself from a proceeding if they have served in governmental employment and in such capacity participated as counsel, adviser or material witness concerning the proceeding or expressed an opinion concerning the merits of the particular case in controversy.

Of course, with a closely divided Supreme Court, Obama couldnt afford to have Kagan recuse herself from Obamacare-related cases. So, when the House Judiciary Committee requested documents and interviews to get a clear understanding of her role relating to Obamacare while she was solicitor general, the Obama/Holder Justice Department refused to comply.

Kagan ultimately never recused herself from Obamacare-related cases. Imagine if the tables were turned.

In 2014, Democratic operatives were concerned that the Obama White House wasnt doing enough to help in the forthcoming midterms. So, Obama launched the White House Office of Political Strategy and Outreach to do more for their candidates. Of course, this raised legitimate concerns that Obama had just created a White House office specifically for political activity.

The House Oversight and Government Reform Committee launched an investigation in order to make sure the White House was complying with civil services laws that were designed to prevent executive branch employees from engaging in political activity. They subpoenaed David Simas, the director of the Office of Political Strategy and Outreach, but the Obama White House refused to allow him testify, and actually claimed Simas was immune from congressional compulsion to testify on matters relating to his official duties and thus would not appear before the committee.

The Iran Nuclear Deal was so bad Obama didnt even try to get Senate ratification for it, and much of the negotiations were done without Congress being informed. When congressional Republicans wanted to get answers after Ben Rhodes (the failed novelist turned Obama speechwriter turned top foreign policy adviser to Obama) let it spill to the New York Times that the administration relied on a false narrative to sell the Iran deal to the public, the White House wouldnt let him testify, using the separation of powers excuse. Specifically, the appearance of a senior presidential adviser before Congress threatens the independence and autonomy of the president, as well as his ability to receive candid advice and counsel in the discharge of his constitutional duties, explained White House counsel Neil Eggleston. This was after the White House previously claimed they wouldnt hide behind executive privilege.

The investigation of the botched Fast & Furious investigation is perhaps the most significant example of the Obama administration using executive privilege to justify their refusal to cooperate with a congressional investigation. Attorney General Eric Holder, Obama's wingman, refused to provide subpoenaed documents to the House Oversight and Reform Committee. The blatant attempts by the administration to resist cooperating with the investigation ultimately led to a historic vote to hold Attorney General Holder in criminal contempt.

_____

Matt Margolis is the author of Trumping Obama: How President Trump Saved Us From Barack Obama's Legacy and the bestselling book The Worst President in History: The Legacy of Barack Obama. You can follow Matt on Twitter @MattMargolis

Excerpt from:
Five Times Golden Boy Obama Obstructed Congress and Democrats Didnt Impeach | News and Politics - PJ Media

Representative Bradley Byrne (R-AL) wants to point out the double standard President Donald Trump is facing with impeachment to his Democrat congressional colleagues and the public.

On Tuesday during deliberations of how the House of Representatives should proceed with impeachment before the bodys Rules Committee, Byrne put forth an amendment stating that former President Barack Obama and former Attorney General Eric Holder should have been impeached for the Obama administrations response to congressional into the Fast and Furious gun-running scandal.

In an interview with Huntsville, AL radios WVNN, Byrne, who is also running for the U.S. Senate seat up in Alabama in 2020, laid out his approach and his justification for the amendment.

One of the articles is on abuse of Congress, which is something Ive never heard of before, he said on Tuesdays The Jeff Poor Show. But it is based on Donald Trumps not just willy-nilly and allowing people that work for him to show up for some of these hearings and also not just produce documents willy-nilly. What I do is I take most of that out, and I put in its place a relation of the facts of this Fast and Furious investigation when President Obama was president. We sent a bunch of guns down into Mexico, and some of those guns came back into this country and were used to kill some of our law enforcement agents.

The Obama administration tried to hide it, Byrne continued. They tried to keep documents from Congress. And Congress actually voted to hold them in contempt Eric Holder, the attorney general, and the President. All of these Democrats that are so high and mighty about impeaching President Trump actually voted against holding Eric Holder and President Obama in contempt. Now they are speaking out of both sides of their mouth. The purpose of my mind amendment is to show hypocrisy.

Byrne explained the primary purpose of the amendment was not just to point out hypocrisy to his Democrat colleagues, but for the public as well.

Maybe we shouldnt have held them in contempt maybe we should have voted to impeach them, now that they have got a new standard for impeachment, Byrne added. Part of the message Im sending them today is, Wait a minute, guys. Youre not always going to have a president you dont like in office. You may have a president you do like in office. We may take your precedent and use it against a president that you like. Were cheapening impeachment. Thats my point here. I hope they get his message, and more importantly, I hope the public receives this message.

Follow Jeff Poor on Twitter @jeff_poor

Read the original:
Byrne Offers Amendment to Trump Impeachment Rules: Obama, Holder Should Have Been Impeached - Breitbart

The following editorial appeared in The Washington Post. Guest editorials do not necessarily reflect the views of Messenger Post Media.

Attorney General William Barr has delivered two speeches in the past month that are alarming in substance and which raise questions about his understanding of the proper role and temperament of the nation's chief law enforcement officer.

Barr's speech last month to the Federalist Society, a conservative legal group, was stunningly and dangerously at odds with reality. He argued that Democrats have devolved from "loyal opposition" to a force "engaged in a war to cripple, by any means necessary, a duly elected government" while Republicans "tend to have more scruple over their political tactics and rarely feel that the ends justify the means."

Barr is right that politics today makes too little room for compromise. But the idea that the right is the aggrieved party and only the left is guilty in this decline is almost laughable. It was then-Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell, R-Ky., who declared in 2010 that "the single most important thing we want to achieve is for President Obama to be a one-term president." It was McConnell and the Republicans who refused even to consider Obama's nomination of the well-qualified Judge Merrick Garland to the Supreme Court.

When Barr complains that lawmakers "drown the executive branch with 'oversight' demands for testimony and documents," is he honestly forgetting the unending GOP investigations of the Benghazi attacks or the Fast and Furious pseudo-scandal, which culminated in the Republicans voting to hold then-Attorney General Eric Holder Jr. in contempt of Congress? In accusing the Democrats alone of justifying means by ends, did Republicans' aggressive gerrymandering and restrictions on the franchise just slip his mind? It is Republican legislators who recently stripped governors of powers in states where Democrats had just won gubernatorial elections. It is Republicans who have sought to roll back Florida's voter initiative to enfranchise ex-felons.

Barr again raised concern in an address to police officers on Tuesday, in which he warned that communities that don't give police more support and respect "might find themselves without the police protection they need." Of course police officers deserve support and respect as they carry out their often dangerous duties. They also owe accountability as they exercise their considerable powers.

Exposure of police wrongdoing and racial disparities in law enforcement has led to healthy reforms progress that the Trump Justice Department has undercut. The public has a right to expect police powers will be used with care. Taking criticism comes with the badge. So does the responsibility to protect everyone in the communities police serve even the critics and complainers.

Most of Barr's Tuesday speech praised exceptional police officers, and, as such, it was not as uniformly slanted and alarming as his Federalist Society address. But his implication that criticism may lead to endangerment by police neglect, delivered in the halls of the Justice Department, was still careless at best.

Regrettably, obliviousness and partisanship are all too common in Washington. For it to reside in the attorney general's office is way beyond regrettable.

Visit link:
Guest View: Does the attorney general really believe this? - MPNnow.com

Are you feeling there has to be more to life than this? If this is you, the answer is yes!

Change often seems elusive, lurking around trying to get our attention. You know when something is wrong. Maybe you wake up dreading the day. Perhaps, it is becoming harder to find the energy to get through the day. I understand how you feel, I was there too, not long ago. But one day I was a keynote speaker for a program for students of color entering the communications field. I was as a Vice-President and a Head of Law for a global conglomerate and asked to speak about my career and corporate life. As I looked at the roomful of happy, expectant young faces, I was filled with an odd mixture of elation and sadness. I delivered an inspiring speech and was elated to urge them to be their best. Dont limit yourself. Be courageous. Live with purpose and passion. But saddened, that I was not taking my own advice. I was more powerful than what I felt. I didnt see the ME, they saw. I knew at that moment I needed a change, to get back to real ME.

I was at the top of my legal and corporate career, received numerous awards, was a regular public speaker and in the current issue of Savoy Magazine as one of the Most influential Black lawyers of 2018, with Eric Holder on the cover. But, over the years, little by little I limited myself and allowed others to do the same. I was capable but existing far beneath my potential. I looked to books, podcasts, sermons, conferences, etc. for the motivation to change. But often nothing worked. Why? I was looking for others to do what I must do myself. I had to reframe my mindset and reset my life.

If this is also you, think about how awesome life can be if you reframed your mind and reset to the life you are meant to have. You dont need all the answers, but you do need to take action.

Here are a few of the steps I took:

My journey is still ongoing. But so far, I can once again feel the warmth of the sun on my face. I am present, happy, healthy and living life on purpose.

Decide today to reframe and reset to an awesome life. I did and you can too.

Follow this link:
How to Reframe and Reset to an awesome life - Thrive Global

Photograph Source: United States Attorneys Office, District of Connecticut Public Domain

For months, the names of Michael Horowitz and John Durham have figured in the pounding rhythms of right-wing media in which a heroically afflicted president faces down his perfidious enemies. A steady drumbeat of reports from Fox News, echoed by President Trump and Republican loyalists in Congress, proclaimed these two obscure Justice Department officials would get to the bottom of an alleged conspiracy against the Trump presidency.

They would, in Trumps words, investigate the investigators. It was oh so promising.

I will tell you this, Trump blustered on October 25, I think youre going to see a lot of really bad things, he said. I leave it all up to the attorney general and I leave it all up to the people working with the attorney general who I dont know. I think you will see things that nobody will ever believe.

Horowitz, as the DOJ Inspector General, had the narrower assignment. He was tasked with investigating the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act warrants issued to intercept the communications of Trump campaign adviser Carter Page. Horowitz had to answer the question, Was Page targeted for political reasons, perhaps based on the famous Steele Dossier?

Durham, a senior U.S Attorney in Connecticut, has a broader brief: to review the FBIs decision to open an investigation of the Trump campaigns contacts with Russians in 2015. Durham was selected for the job by Barr.

For those inclined to believe Fox News and the president, the deep state cabal that allegedly targeted Trump was running scared. In early October, Fox News reported that Barr and Durham traveled to Italy recently to talk to law enforcement officials there about the probe and have also had conversations with officials in the U.K. and Australia about the investigation.

From this report the Daily Caller imaginatively extrapolated that Durhams probe had expanded to include looking at the activities of foreign intelligence agencies. One British official told The Independent that Barr and his minions asked, in quite robust terms, for help in doing a hatchet job on their own intelligence services.

On October 22, the Washington Examiner said Durham was scrutinizing four key characters: The Spectator, a right-wing British magazine, claimed former CIA director John Brennan is in Durhams cross hairs.

And so on.

Things that nobody will ever believe.

Trumps words, ironically, are sort of coming true. Horowitz, it is now reliably reported, found that the Trump/Fox News talking points about a deep state conspiracy against Trump are, in fact, things that nobody will ever believe..

Horowitzs report, says USA Today is expected to conclude the FBI was justified in launching its two-year inquiry into the Trump campaign and possible ties to Russian interference in the 2016 presidential election.

The Washington Post reports that Durham has already disappointed Trump. In the course of Horowitzs investigation, Durham declined to endorse one key Republican talking point: that one witness, Joseph Mifsud, was actually a CIA or FBI agent deployed to undermine and defeat Trumps presidential bid.

Durham, according to the Post, has said he could not offer evidence to the Justice Departments inspector general to support the suspicions of some conservatives that the case was a setup by American intelligence. (The Post describes its source as people familiar with the matter.)

Horowitzs Letter

Those pundits expected Horowitz to side with the president could be detained by mere facts, no matter how public. Remember a couple of hundred news cycles agomid-Octoberwhen right-wing media was filibustering about the identity of the CIA whistleblower who first brought Trumps Ukraine pressure campaign to light?

At the time, Horowitz was engaged in a more substantive matter. As Inspector General, Horowitz played a leading role in an extraordinary letter, signed by 70 inspector generals, about the Justice Departments handling the whistleblowers allegation. Although the letter never mentioned the Attorney Generals name, its message was a broad rebuke of Barr.

The legal question was far too intricate to generate pleasurable repartee on Twitter. The whistleblower complained in August to the Inspector General in the Office of the Director of National Intelligence (DNI). The DNI is legally bound to pass to Congress only whistleblower complaints of urgent concern. Joseph Maguire, the acting director of national intelligence, passed the buck and asked the Office of Legal Counsel for guidance. In a secret memo, dated September 2, the OLC decided the whistleblowers complaint was not an urgent matter that had to be passed to Congress.

The OLC, beholden to Barr, took the position that there was no need to tell Congress of the possibility that Trump was withholding congressionally appropriated funds from the beleaguered Ukraine armed forces in order to force the Ukraine president to investigate Joe Bidens son. The legal logic was fallacious and tortured.

Horowitzs name topped the list of 70 inspectors general who declared:

the OLC opinion [written at Barrs behest] could seriously impair whistleblowing and deter individuals in the intelligence community and throughout the government from reporting government waste, fraud, abuse, and misconduct.

Of course, the letter was a dud on social media, cable TV, and Fox News. Who cares what a bunch of bureaucrats in Washington think? Horowitz, the hoped-for savior of Trump, had rebuked his boss, along with six dozen other senior civil servants in public. His real-world actions were ignored by conservative news outlets hyping imaginative reporst on his investigation

The Question

Will John Durham follow Barrs lead? Or Horowitzs?

The modus operandi of this administration is that when they cannot dismiss somebody elses fact-based conclusions, they create a parallel narrative, Joel Brenner, a former inspector general at the National Security Agency in the George W. Bush administration told USA Today.

What kind of narrative will Durham write?

One clue can be heard in the The Report, the Adam Driver star turn about the Senate Intelligence Committees 2014 report on torture. The name Durham is heard exactly once in the movie. And yes, it is a reference to the same John Durham.

Durham is a career Justice Department prosecutor in Connecticut. In 2009 Attorney General Eric Holder assigned him to investigate the CIAs torture program. It was a delicate assignment. On the one side, he had to poke into the dirty business of an $15 billion a year agency that believed it had legal and presidential sanction for enhanced interrogation techniques. On the other side, he was working for a popular new President who said the program was abhorrent and a host of lawyers who said it might well be criminal.

Durham, in short, walked into a legal and political minefield. Two years later, he emerged unscathed with a supple, if not evasive, reading of the law. His investigation exonerated the CIA on 99 out of 101 incidents of torture.

Whatever you make of Durhams report legally and morally, it was politically adroit. The report pleased Obama and Holder who dodged the need to take on the barons of the national security agencies. His report pleased the CIA, which dodge the bullet of indictments of senior officials who had approved the torture regime, including John Brennan. As a narrative, Durhams torture report shows that he implicitly shares the world view of Brennan and other senior national security managers.

Hes also a career prosecutor sure to consider all the facts brought to his attention.

Trump was enraged and threatened by national security leaks, even before he took office. Did Brennan et al commit any technical violations of the Espionage Act in talking to reporters about the president elects Russian contacts? Quite possibly. Would John Durham go out on legal limb to prosecute former top U.S. officials on behalf of Barr and Trump, who will be gone from Washington in five years at the maximum? That seems highly unlikely.

As Trump sails into the high seas of a Senate impeachment trial, Durham s report on the origins of the Trump-Russia investigation is not likely to be a lifeline.

Originally posted here:
Trump's Hand-Picked Prosecutor John Durham Cleared the CIA Once, Will He Again? - CounterPunch