While there is increasing talk about the possible impeachment of President Barack Obama, we know the Democrats are no doubt considering what would be the most effective defense of this president against impeachment. I know exactly what kind of defense they're doing to use and why they will use it.
So how could the Democrats defend Barack Obama against impeachment, and they quite likely will use this defense? It's real simple, and it's basically a legalistic defense. And remember who the grand jury is here for this process of impeachment and removal is, the House of Representatives for the impeachment and the Senate for the removal procedure. And you should also remember that most of these folks are lawyers. So the legalistic defense is exactly what they understand.
But the legalistic defense is really easy, view this narrowly as a criminal procedure, as if the president is being accused of a crime, and the defense is, that if there is even any crime that was committed, the president wasn't involved and didn't authorize or condone it, and therefore, the president isn't guilty of any of it. President Obama said he didn't learn of the IRS scandal until that Friday afternoon when we all learned about it from the press. There will be no memos or recordings or any other proof that Barack Obama ordered, or knew about anyone, in the IRS targeting those conservative and TEA party groups.
The president only learned about the scandal in the Veterans Administration hospitals when we learned about it, he had no idea any of that was going, they'll tell us, and therefore is not guilty of any allegations related to that. Apply this defense to every single scandal. Everything that has gone wrong under the Obama Regime, apply this defense. The defense will challenge, on every issue, the prosecutors of Obama's impeachment to produce one memo, one recording, one letter, even an email, that proves that President Obama ordered, knew about, or condoned any illegal activity by anyone in the Regime. The legalistic defense will be, since the prosecutors of impeachment can't produce such evidence, that they don't have evidence of Obama's guilt, and therefore impeachment fails.
Sounds good right? Yes, but, there's a problem with this. A legalistic defense has it's tie and place in a real court of law where a real criminal trial determination of guilty or not guilty is to be arrived at. The Constitutional process of impeachment and removal of a president is not a legalistic or court process, but it is a political process. This process was created not to determine the criminal guilt of a president (a president is still a citizen and can be tried in criminal court if there's evidence of a criminal violation) but it was created to determine if a president has violated his oath, the Constitution, or has committed such “high crimes and misdemeanors” to warrant impeachment and removal from office. This is a process different and separate from the criminal court process, which is why the framers of the Constitution separately provided for this process.
Impeachment and removal doesn’t require guilt beyond a reasonable doubt, as a criminal court conviction does, and it also doesn't produce as a result a verdict that a president is guilty. Instead, it produces that result that a president has violated his oath of office, and that said violation warrants removal from the office of President.
The President is responsible for what happens under his administration, and certainly bears some responsibility for the actions taken by those who are appointed by that president, the official carrying out of the duties of the offices those appointees hold. There doesn't have to be a memo, recording, or an email from President Obama to hold him accountable for what Lois Lerner and others did in the IRS scandal for example. It would no doubt strengthen the case for his impeachment and removal if the president knew what was going on and failed to take adequate actions to prevent adverse outcomes.
On that standard, the reported use of State Department cell phone, stolen by the terrorists who attacked our consulate on September 11, 2012 proves that high ranking officials in the Obama Regime were well aware of what was going on that night and failed to take actions to defend the consulate, our ambassador Chris Stevens, and the other Americans who were there that night. That knowledge, and the failure of the president to take needed actions, clearly establishes that what the president did, and failed to do that should have been done, during that night of that attack in Benghazi is worthy of impeachment and removal from office of this president.
Additionally, there is the border crisis. The issue here that warrants impeachment and removal of the president is the willful and deliberate acts of this president to not only violate immigration policy and fail to secure the Southern border, but also the deliberate attempts to implement an amnesty policy without having it approved legislatively by the Congress. President Obama illegally signed, by executive order, the “Dream Act” provisions for illegal alien children to come to the country and stay. This has resulted in the tens of thousands of illegal alien children coming across our border with Mexico.
But President Obama can't claim ignorance of this crisis, that was in part produced by his illegal signing of the “Dream Act” executive order, which invited them to come, but also his knowledge of them coming, before it happened, has been established. The White House posted, on the internet back in January of this year, an invitation for bids from companies to provide transportation for an estimated 65,000 illegal alien children. The Obama Regime knew this was going to happen before it happened because they wanted this to happen, all in violation of our immigration laws that the Obama Regime is willfully and deliberately violating, and in essence overturning, without a change in the actual law approved by Congress. We have evidence here that the President is approving and ordering actions in violation of our country's immigration law. That alone warrants impeachment and removal of this president.
While the Democrats can be expected to use the legalistic defense of this president against impeachment, it shouldn't work. Benghazi and the border crisis are at least two areas where prosecutors of impeachment have a good case for the impeachment and removal of this president. The holding of thorough hearings on many of the other scandals might likely lead to the finding of ample evidence for impeaching and removing this president in other areas.
It's time for the Congress and Senate to begin those investigations, and it's time for reporters in the mainstream media to start acting like Woodward and Bernstein and begin doing some real and honest investigative reporting to finally get to the bottom of so many of these scandals. They're not “phony scandals” and public has a right to know what has happened in this Regime. The time for action by Congress and the media is now.
Take America back from the Far Left – read RightNewsNow every day!
We the People need to stand up...join us IMPEACH OBAMA NOW
Is this scandal the END of the Obama Regime?
The best place for us “right wing extremists” is the Conservative OPEN FORUM click the LIKE button and join the discussion!
Tired of being declined for better credit card offers? Improve your credit rating legally and ethically, this site gives you good information, for free, no scams, to improve your credit – read the secrets on high credit scores at Q Star Credit
No Phony Scandals here, join us for informative discussion about Obama Scandals.
Defeat the far left, please join STOP -- Stopping Tyrannical Oppressive Progressives.
Like Rush Limbaugh? Join Realville on Facebook!
Stay on the right side of issues, visit my QstarNews Facebook page and like it and share it here
Outraged at how Barack Obama is destroying America? Join Us Here to oppose Obama!