Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
The only problem is that she's going to go down HARD, which is great, but Obama will be completely insulated from this because all eyes will be on Lerner.
I don't know if he was directly involved or not, but having come up in Chicago politics, he's used to things working a certain way, and I have no doubt that he made it quite clear what he expected of his subordinates when he took office. The Obama administration's "culture of corruption" is glaringly obvious to anyone with eyes, ears and a brain. This was done on his behalf, whether he ordered it or not, because that's the kind of thing he expects from those under him.
Can you arrest someone for something phony like this?
No doubt. Sort of reminds me of that other phony scandal where the Mexican government arrested drug gang members for shooting 300 some people with Fast and Furious guns. Clearly it isn't phony, which is why Holder had to lie to congress about it, Obama had to lie and say it was Bush's program and then use executive privilege to shut down any meaningful investigation.
The only problem is that she's going to go down HARD, which is great, but Obama will be completely insulated from this because all eyes will be on Lerner.
I don't know if he was directly involved or not, but having come up in Chicago politics, he's used to things working a certain way, and I have no doubt that he made it quite clear what he expected of his subordinates when he took office. The Obama administration's "culture of corruption" is glaringly obvious to anyone with eyes, ears and a brain. This was done on his behalf, whether he ordered it or not, because that's the kind of thing he expects from those under him.
If she does go down, don't you think Obama will just pardon her on his last day in office?
There’s little doubt that the Supreme Court would uphold the Congress. It certainly did in 1821, when a miscreant named John Anderson tried to bribe Congress. He was held in contempt, and the House ordered the sergeant at arms to arrest him. When the case got to the Supreme Court, it sided with the sergeant, an officer named Thomas Dunn.
Proclaimed the Court: “The power to institute a prosecution must be dependent upon the power to punish.” In the 1930s, an ex-assistant commerce secretary, William MacCracken, was seized by the Senate for withholding evidence. The arrest was sustained by the Supreme Court in 1935, in a ruling written by Justice Louis Brandeis.
Confirmation coming from other sources now. None that can be considered neutral yet.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
