“He has, acting personally and through his subordinates and agents, endeavored to obtain from the Internal Revenue Service, in violation of the constitutional rights of citizens, confidential information contained in income tax returns for purposes not authorized by law, and to cause, in violation of the constitutional rights of citizens, income tax audits or other income tax investigations to be initiated or conducted in a discriminatory manner.”
Sound familiar? Maybe it does if you are old enough to remember the articles of impeachment prepared against Richard M. Nixon, or curious enough to have studied them after the fact.
Who would have supposed that the disgraced former president, the only one to resign from office, a longtime bulwark of the Republican party, would be the model for Barack Obama’s presidential conduct?
This is getting serious, folks. We have a major coverup, we have abuse of tax enforcement. Could it be that we (not I, actually) have re-elected a man just as unworthy of the highest office as the dearly departed RMN?
In 1973 and 1974, a young lawyer named Hillary Rodham – later to add the name Clinton – participated eagerly in the impeachment proceedings brought against Nixon by the House of Representatives. She has the necessary experience, certainly, and the types of charges and legal niceties are familiar to her, so do you think she might want to help make the case against the current president as well? Perhaps Speaker Boehner would provide her with a comfortable, purple-velvet throne from which to operate on the House floor.
Of course, to avoid any conflict of interest, she might prefer to have some assistant formulate any charges relating to the Benghazi tragedy and coverup. Someone like Susan Rice, let’s say.
To absolve Obama of any guilt in the recently disclosed tax-enforcement witch hunt against the Tea Party and other conservative groups, you have to buy his line that he learned about it from news reports, at the same time that you and I did.
This has been his explanation for every egregious foul-up in his administration. People who aren’t privy to his pure thoughts and intentions go marching off on their own, perpetrating one outrage after another, greatly to his distress once he finds out about it.
That, for example, is how busloads of illegal immigrants with criminal records got released from prison. That is how IRS agents – at the lowest level, mind you; janitors and people like that – conducted a Schutzstaffel-style scrutiny of non-profit organizations that happened to spring from the Tea Party movement.
It was all their idea, they weren’t following orders from superiors, they were going entirely against the will of their Top Boss. Flouting the president seems to be standard behavior in the Executive Branch.
Yes, and Stalin was horrified to find out, too late, about the political purges of the 1930s.
If you buy Obama’s line, then you are accepting the premise that he has no control whatsoever over some, perhaps all, of the most important functions of the Executive. Whatever happened to the sign that Harry Truman kept on his desk: “The Buck Stops Here”? Did it get shipped off to England along with Churchill’s bust?
If he can’t be thrown out of office for high crimes and misdemeanors – and I wouldn’t give up hope – then can’t we find some way to embarrass him into resigning because of incompetence and indifference? How long do you think you would remain in your own job with a record like that?