ARTICLE 1 - obstruction of justice in impeding the investigation of the Watergate burglary, including "approving, condoning, acquiescing in, and counselling witnesses with respect to giving false or misleading statements... and false or misleading testimony"; "making or causing to be made false or misleading public statements for the purpose of deceiving the people of the United States"; and "endeavouring to cause prospective defendants... to expect favoured treatment and consideration in return for their silence."
With regard to Benghazi, I think we're there already. False statements to Congress and the public? Check. Effectively promising favoured treatment to those who play ball -- and punishing those like Greg Hicks who rock the boat? Check. We're learning more about the IRS scandal every day, but it sure looks like we're past the false statements to Congress and the public step there too.
ARTICLE 2 - violating constitutional rights of citzens, including by obtaining confidential IRS tax information about private citizens and causing income tax audits or income tax investigations to be "conducted in a discriminatory manner."
Ahem. That cuts pretty close to home, doesn't it? It almost sounds like you could just cut and paste "Barack Obama" into the article and move forward.
ARTICLE 3 - failing to produce papers in response to lawful subpoenas from the House Judiciary Committee.
We're going to be there pretty soon, if we're not already there, when the House starts demanding the President's emails, records of his whereabouts and activities on the night of 9/11/12, etc.
I'm not saying that Obama will be impeached. He's not as hated by the Right as Nixon was by the Left, and he doesn't have an oppositional mainstream media to contend with. I'm just saying that the support for impeaching Nixon in 1974 is not that much different from what could be martialed against Obama in 2013.
No comments:
Post a Comment