I would like to suggest that from now on we give someone unrelated to the news the opportunity to ask questions at presidential "press conferences" and to set the ground rules for attending such "conferences."
As a start, my first rule would be that no member of the media will attend any future "press conferences" until and unless there is no limit on questions and only a limit on the total time for questions and answers. I suggest we also limit responses to thirty seconds. Maybe sixty seconds. And that we stop calling the impromptu "press conferences" a press conference and instead call them Presidential statements. A press conference used to be called this because there was opportunity to follow up and there were few rules. Now we have specific, designated permitted "questions," which were supposed to be limited to one but allowed to have multiple parts.
And, worse, they are counted as "press conferences."
Presidents are supposed to communicate what is happening and hew to the truth. When they do not, the public should know. What was a few stupid "news" reporters became a stream of bias that has yet to right itself. Listen when you wish to most of the press these days and bias is very evident on both sides. But, unfortunately, the most dangerous and insidious media are those who are paid to use statements prepared by the White House as answers during "news" analysis. We can see many of these paid "correspondents" and "experts" on CNN.
For my money, I prefer those who get paid for what they themselves write rather than what is written and said by others. I call out particularly CNN because the people who have been hired by CNN apart from the regulars have been noticeably partisan. It is not necessarily partisan to be anti-Obama. I do not consider myself to be a Republican, but am no longer tied to the Democrats. Perhaps only people like me should be writing anything at all, or at least the editors who are supposed to ensure the absence of bias.
So it is that despite the horrendous and obvious lies, President Obama and his team have been allowed to continue to perpetrate the lie of Benghazi having been a spontaneous demonstration for a noticeable period of time. It is not that the lie was inappropriate as it clearly was. It is the way in which the lie was perpetrated. Against a citizen who dared exercise free speech. Against free speech itself.
A victim of government targeting, like the IRS targeting that has recently come to light.
For those who try to argue that the President did not have a hand in the IRS's lengthy interrogation and long delay in denying not-for-profit status of groups against him until after his election, please explain how you get to this position.
We hear everyone talking about what the President did not know, but not one direct question to him about his knowledge. I do not believe him at all and feel he had a direct hand in these actions that were so clearly against organizations that were given life by the US Supreme Court, a court decision he publicly derided along with the Supreme Court itself, this public stance itself unquestionably encouraged the actions. But whatever happened, his virulent opposition to these organizations permeated his government.
Perhaps we will eventually get some answers about this and so much more. But I doubt that we will without impeaching President Obama. And impeached Obama should be.
If the Republicans can impeach President Clinton, they can clearly impeach Obama.
While Obama continues his failure to produce all responsive documents to the many scandals in which his Administration is involved with the claim that he has "produced thousands of documents," a minor and meaningless amount in this electronic age, the truth is that he has admitted to have withheld documents. And the amount is no doubt very substantial.
In addition, with comments like the one at yesterday's Rose Garden press "conference," we cannot expect straight answers when the answers could lead to criminal prosecution of people in the White House. So it is that President Obama, whose very tone appeared fearful and dishonest, was asked and said the following.
Obama was specifically asked, according to a White House transcript, “Can you assure the American people that nobody in the White House knew about the agency’s actions before your counsel’s office found out on April 22nd?”
He responded: “…Let me make sure that I answer your specific question. I can assure you that I certainly did not know anything about the IG report before the IG report had been leaked through the press. Typically, the IG reports are not supposed to be widely distributed or shared. They tend to be a process that everybody is trying to protect the integrity of. But what I’m absolutely certain of is that the actions that were described in that IG report are unacceptable.”
President Obama willfully evaded the question. I expect nothing else from the President, and do not trust anything he says at this point without far more information.
If you witnessed Hillary Clinton and read the press statements including from those who claimed to have talked with her during the Benghazi crisis as it unfolded, one thing was and remains clear. Someone got Clinton to take the stance she did, and to keep it. Clinton was not facing election. Obama was. And lies are commonplace when dealing with elections, so you will be told by everyone involved in the media these days. Just some Pinocchios. Nothing more. And certainly no reason to impeach. After all, our presidents do not have to tell the truth.
As the politics take over, the free ride given presidents of the past should give way to the realities and importance of honesty in the future. We need to enforce honesty from our Presidents, and perhaps for this reason only I have changed my view on the impeachment of President Clinton. If he were only impeached for his lie to the American People that was enough. We require the truth.
To this end, here are my counts for impeachment.
RESOLVED, That Barrack Obama, President of the United States, is impeached for high crimes and misdemeanors, and that the following articles of impeachment to be exhibited to the Senate:
1. Using the powers of the presidency, President Obama did through words and deed act contrary to the United States in perpetrating a fraud on the American People by claiming a video caused the attack on the Benghazi consulate and the deaths of a US ambassador and other Americans.
2. Using the power of the presidency, President Obama has allowed the IRS to act unlawfully and improperly against his political opponents.
3. Using the power of the presidency and despite his pledge of transparency by which he was twice elected, President Obama has hidden material information and documentation from the American People crucial to an understanding of what is occurring in the US government by the artifice of Executive Privilege.
4. That despite his Constitutional authority and mandate, President Obama and others in his Administration have failed the American People by spending far too much time on personal and political efforts for Democrats and far too little time on administering the government of the United States as is obvious from the numerous problems facing his government, for which he is entirely responsible.
There are certainly better drafted articles, and clearly will be. But I see no way that the House of Representatives should not impeach President Obama unless he provides everything to Congress.