He's turning in the young babe for an old fogy, because the House Oversight Committee is going to charge Obama for the IRS scandal - bet. The babe was good at fighting off the business side of ObamaCare. Imagine that, George W. Bush had a Democrap working the Enron case. I'll bet Bush knew about Enron from his governor daysand his father in Houston, and he was ready to bounce them without any regards - business.
lol I'm sure Obama's shaking in his boots. Especially with all that evidence Darrell Issa has that he was in fact involved that he just hasn't decided to share in all these hearings about this.
That would depend on whether a future Grand Jury indites Lerner. She may just start singing like a Canary if she's looking at jail time.
With high crimes from all categories, Obama is ready for any congress people to rise up against his treason and fraud any time they like. He blasted Watergate straight out of the water ages back in '09 and ever since.
And by singing like a canary you mean saying the things that you want to hear her say right? What if she testifies that she has no knowledge at all of Obama's involvement? Would her testimony mean anything to you then? Or would she automatically be lying if she says that, and telling the truth if she confirms your theory?
I don't care how she testifies. If she's willing to spend the next 10 - 20 of her life in jail at age 62, more power to her.
Hearings are held to gather evidence for prosecution, not to present the prosecution. I'm betting that former prosecutors, Representatives Jordan and Gowdy, are doing the prosecution work, since the justice and treasury departments are all cronied-up. I look for the indictment hearings to be presented later in the summer as the elections campaigns get into full swing - generating Republican glee. I'm confident that Obama was Affirmative Action all the way by racist senior congress members to "affirmatively campaign" and win the presidency, because they wanted to dump the broken system on a black man; and to up the ante on him, they recommended him to the Nobel Commission - chances are the United States funds the award, anyway. It is absurd to believe that anyone could learn the tricks of the trade in three years, what the twenty and thirty year congress members know - you know how to play tricks on new people into your trade, don't you? You see, to the Middle-east countries, the United States seems to be a racially prejudiced government and the white politicians have always been giving them inaccurate interpretations of the Constitution; and so, it appeared that Obama broke the racial barrier, and it was hoped that he would deliver interpretations of the Constitution for the countries so they could put together a strong economy like the USA. The United States Constitution (and state and municipalities) is successful primarily, because it was relatively the first of the modern era designed to unravel (expand) government, because nobody knew how to properly organize government; so the mistakes and corruptions are considered apart of the maturing process of a new government. Secondly, the U.S. Constitution was complimented, because the actual real estate of the country could "expand freely." All the "old countries" are confined to their already defined boundaries, and cannot handle the mistakes and corruptions that the "leader" can handle. The United States system is on the brink of collapse, because of our evolved and narrowed tolerance for efficiency that the inadequate constitution designed for expansion cannot handle. What are the politicians supposed to do if there is no need for new laws? The Constitution is not designed for that, and so we experience political gridlock, because the politicians have to appear to be doing something, otherwise the people would realize that they are not worthy of their salaries and benefits - right?
None of this matters where Obama is concerned; because -- for reasons PF posters have amply discussed in the past -- there is simply no way in hell that Barack will ever be impeached for anything, no matter what. So all he needs an attorney for is to minimize potentially embarrassing situations or avoid real idiocy -- though who could tell? -- before the Anointed One steps right in it -- again. So probably attorney fatigue suffices to explain the change; because even if you KNOW that your presidential client will never really be held responsible for anything, still it's probably harrowing to realize how often Obama does something or signs off on something that would have ended up getting -- let's say -- Bill Clinton impeached -- ahem! -- again.
And on the taxpayers' dime - I'll bet he's paid better than anyone in the Administration. Does the Senate have to approve him, and his salary??? Do we get to review his salary? Ooh - is he getting paid better than the woman before him???
Refer to my previous post. It is very difficult to prosecute an impeachment that means anything (Bill Clinton, Charlie Rangle), and we want this impeachment mean something - an eventual indictment. If anything else, we want to understand how it is done since Nixon bailed out and resigned. In the modern era when a case has to be very fact filled and the justice department is cronied we need to understand how it is done. You're right - the conservatives like to yell and scream "impeachment and indictment," but what they do not understand is how difficult it is to prosecute - do you understand how difficult it is? - - - Updated - - - Oh Yes - you are the grand master champion debater.
When the Republican dominated Congress takes their seat in 2015 BH Obama will need a lot of lawyers and so will Holder because he will get bounced so far out of the AG's office that his butt will hurt for a month. BH Obama and Holder will join the NBPs and try to storm the White House to get Joe out of there while Joe is distracted trying to get Moochell's mother out. Learner will bump of BHO's head because she has been abused by our affirmative action president and his thugs.
