Posted on 05/17/2016 11:09:22 AM PDT by detective
Sen. Tom Cotton accepted the challenge, but President Obama’s speechwriter and high-ranking foreign policy adviser Ben Rhodes ducked out of a hearing Tuesday where he was to explain whether he misled the country in pushing the Iran nuclear deal.
Members of Congress had been eager to prod Mr. Rhodes over misrepresentations, but the White House had seemed skeptical, saying lawmakers should poke one of their own, Mr. Cotton, an Arkansas Republican that Mr. Obama’s aides say has been misleading.
(Excerpt) Read more at washingtontimes.com ...
Good thing his name isn’t Nixon I suppose.
What, exactly, is executive privilege? It’s not in the Constitution or its amendments. Does it cover criminal or treasonous behavior? Could Nixon have used that privilege?
How very Soviet of him.
YES
Judge Napolitano explained this morning that executive privilege doesn’t apply here, because he spoke about it. The congress needs to subpoena him.
Don't most of us hold congress in contempt? That ass hat would probably love to have the honor of being in contempt of congress. The Obungler administration can make it a threesome. It really hurt Eric Holder and Lois Lerner a lot, didn't it? Not.
Does it cover criminal or treasonous behavior?
It will in this case, looks like.
What a crock!
There is no such thing, just King Obama pretending to be King again.
Yes, many do hold the REPUBLICAN congress in contempt. In some instances, they deserve it but not this time.
I’m sure part time Ryan is all over this...../s
". . . . "The democracy of to-day hold the liberty of one man to be absolutely nothing, when in conflict with another man's right of property. Republicans, on the contrary, are for both the man and the dollar; but in cases of conflict, the man before the dollar.I remember once being much amused at seeing two partially intoxicated men engage in a fight with their great-coats on, which fight, after a long, and rather harmless contest, ended in each having fought himself out of his own coat, and into that of the other. If the two leading parties of this day are really identical with the two in the days of Jefferson and Adams, they have perfomed the same feat as the two drunken men.
But soberly, it is now no child's play to save the principles of Jefferson from total overthrow in this nation.
One would start with great confidence that he could convince any sane child that the simpler propositions of Euclid are true; but, nevertheless, he would fail, utterly, with one who should deny the definitions and axioms. The principles of Jefferson are the definitions and axioms of free society.
And yet they are denied and evaded, with no small show of success.
One dashingly calls them "glittering generalities"; another bluntly calls them "self evident lies"; and still others insidiously argue that they apply only to "superior races."
These expressions, differing in form, are identical in object and effect--the supplanting the principles of free government, and restoring those of classification, caste, and legitimacy. They would delight a convocation of crowned heads, plotting against the people. They are the van-guard--the miners, and sappers--of returning despotism.
We must repulse them, or they will subjugate us.
This is a world of compensations; and he who would be no slave, must consent to have no slave. Those who deny freedom to others, deserve it not for themselves; and, under a just God, can not long retain it.
All honor to Jefferson--to the man who, in the concrete pressure of a struggle for national independence by a single people, had the coolness, forecast, and capacity to introduce into a merely revolutionary document (the Declaration of Independence), an abstract truth, applicable to all men and all times, and so to embalm it there, that to-day, and in all coming days, it shall be a rebuke and a stumbling-block to the very harbingers of re-appearing tyranny and oppression.
Your obedient Servant
A. Lincoln--
Source: Collected Works of Abraham Lincoln, edited by Roy P. Basler et al.
“It’s actually not very hard at all..
... what’s hard is making it fell hard..
...You can’t understand what I’m saying, can you?”
................................................
Eminence Front
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5HTVMh7fur4
Michael Savage is discussing Rhodes’ non-testimony today.
Wasn’t a gag order placed on most if not all the living witnesses that were present at Benghazi. The Select Committee on Benghazi doesn’t include any testimony of the people there during the incident in question and no big deal. Also what is the justification for this heavy handed cover-up? Why even ask - this is merely standard operating procedure for decades.
Barack Milhous Obama.
Well, isn’t that special.
Oh, if ONLY it could be placed at the feet of Zero.
The following is why I have no use for the term ‘conservative’. Just where does one want to return to ‘conserve’?:
- Lincoln (Death of Republic)
- Teddy R. (Fed parks...start of Socialism)
- Wilson/FDR (full blown Socialism. ‘Death of rule of law’ here)
- LBJ (last of Rights abolished)
- Nixon (gold standard, EPA. Rotting corpse)
...
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.