The fact that Janet Reno appointed Ken Starr to investigate Bill Clinton still seems appropos to me as an historical precedent.
The Democrats don’t have a “super-majority” in Congress. Ever heard of Scott Brown of Massachusetts?
When US Attorney (and Bush appointee) Patrick Fitzgerald indicted Democrat Governor Rod Blagojevich of Illinois, it took the Democrat-controlled legislature in Illinois about one month to impeach Blagojevick and remove him from office to minimize the political damage to the rest of the Illinois Democrats. Obama and Holder could have replaced Fitzgerald with a Democrat appointee, but they haven’t.
Remember that none of the issues that led to the impeachment of Bill Clinton began as “federal” issues. If there were to be a Grand Jury investigation in any of the 50 states concerning Obama’s eligibility, he could be forced to testify under oath. Clinton was impeached for perjury and obstruction of justice concerning his Paula Jones sexual harrassment Grand Jury deposition.
“The fact that Janet Reno”....under pressure from the Republican Congress..... “appointed Ken Starr to investigate Bill Clinton still seems appropos to me as an historical precedent.
There fixed it for you......and exactly my original point...
“The Democrats don’t have a “super-majority” in Congress. Ever heard of Scott Brown of Massachusetts?”
Ever hear of Olympia Snowe, Susan Collins, Graham, McCain, et al....and thats just the Senate....I notice you didn’t mention the House where there is an overwhelming Democrat super majority...... No matter how you try and spin it, the Democrats had, and still effectively have, a supermajority in the Congress (last I heard Brown was voting with the Dems on cloture votes...oops)....interesting, but the point was that the power lies with the Democrats, NOT with the Republicans in Congress. One vote preserving the filibuster via cloture does not change that. They still have 59 out of 100 votes in the Senate......Futhermore the Democrats have no impetus to persue the issue of Obama’s eligibility now do they?......Pay attention now.....and try to follow the discussion....
Patrick Fitzgerald?......huh? What has he got to do with it?
PF has retained his position as DUSA because of his high profile reputation for nonpartisan investigation/prosecution ..... What does that have to do with the current discussion?
I’m sure Obama is more than happy to have Fitzgerald prosecute any and all, (remember Obama has thrown Blogo under the bus) except Obama himself ......No worries there, Fitzgerald has no authority in DC..... his District is Illinois, and he can’t just go wandering afield where ever he feels like ........ sigh....
“If there were to be a Grand Jury investigation in any of the 50 states concerning Obama’s eligibility, he could be forced to testify under oath..”
Oh boy! another big IF.....
What State Laws has Obama violated? State Grand Juries have no jurisdiction over Federal matters....I don’t see your point at all.....reaching for straws again?
Maybe they should go after the state SoS for putting Obama on the ballot....I think they’ve tried that.....Your hero Alan Keyes tried it in California using Orly Taitz.....
“Clinton was impeached for perjury and obstruction of justice concerning his Paula Jones sexual harrassment Grand Jury deposition.”
And the Senate failed to convict and remove him, so your point is?
Do you think that IF a State Grand Jury indicted, then the DA prosecuted, tried, and convicted Obama in state court for running in their state for US President (sic), the Democratic House would then Impeached him for “High Crimes and Misdemeanors”, and the Democrat US Senate would then convict and remove him from Office.....
James, you’re more fun than Comedy Central......