Posted on 06/04/2013 5:56:54 AM PDT by Kaslin
Isn't it rich that the White House is accusing Attorney General Eric Holder's critics of being "partisans who seem more interested in launching political attacks than cooperating with him to protect the security and constitutional rights of the American people"?
Partisan? Launching political attacks? Well, if the White House and Holder were not so partisan and attack-oriented themselves, we wouldn't be having this discussion about Holder, the IRS or the AP.
Indeed, politics, partisanship and self-interest dominate the thinking of this White House to the detriment of the national interest. The New York Times is reporting that "some in the West Wing privately tell associates they wish (Holder) would step down, viewing him as politically maladroit. But the latest attacks may stiffen the administration's resistance in the near term to a change for fear of emboldening critics."
Study that quote -- both sentences. The stated reason some in the White House want Holder to go is not because he has engaged in corruption or lied to Congress or any other of the myriad complaints that have been lodged against him, but because they see him as politically maladroit. It's all about politics and appearances and how those affect the administration -- not the nation.
But in the second sentence we learn that the White House will probably keep Holder because it believes dumping him would empower its critics. Again, the determining factors are not Holder's integrity, the rule of law, the importance of the nation's chief attorney adhering to the principle of equal protection under the laws, or anything else involving the national interest. It's all about President Obama and his image and agenda, and Republicans are not to be seen as scoring any victories.
Who did they say was being partisan and political?
The Times reveals another important reason that Holder has been so secure in his position: "His saving grace through years of controversies has been the friendship of two women close to Mr. Obama" -- top presidential adviser Valerie Jarrett and first lady Michelle Obama.
Jarrett provided some insight into how the administration is viewing these scandals and the pressure for Holder to resign.
In a recent interview, she left no doubt that the administration evaluates these scandals in terms of how they are affecting the administration, not on whether the charges have merit.
Jarrett was quick to point out that the administration's mood is "very upbeat." That's swell. But what about the scandals?
Scandals? According to Jarrett, "In any given day, our administration has about 2 million employees, and things happen. We put in process procedures to make sure if there has been any wrongdoing, there will be appropriate consequences, and we will move on."
She's not just saying humbly and contritely, "Please trust us," which would be bad enough. Rather, "How dare anyone suggest there could be any corruption inside this White House? But even if there is, don't you peons understand that we have an agenda to move forward and don't need to be distracted by this? We are about fundamentally changing the United States and are not to be deterred by such trifles."
You think I'm taking liberties here? Hardly. She said, "We have every confidence that people within the White House have behaved appropriately. People all around the country are counting on us not to be distracted or bogged down by this."
You got that? As an American citizen, you are not to concern yourself with executive branch corruption, even when it goes to the very core of our liberties: the federal government's targeting of political opponents and of the press. Your priority should be to join the administration in moving its agenda forward.
Holder, for his part, reflects this same me-directed attitude. He invited reporters to an unprecedented "off-the-record" meeting to discuss allegations about the Justice Department's attack on the press. Even those few media outlets that didn't boycott the meeting implied there was no justification for the secrecy. No, but it apparently served Holder's and the administration's interests; the national interest be damned.
Further, the Times reports that Holder has an additional and personal reason for not wanting to resign, not yet at least: "He wants to participate in this month's 50th anniversary commemoration of the integration of the University of Alabama by two black students."
With this pervasive attitude of staggering arrogance and self-absorption in the administration, is it any wonder these scandals occurred in the first place? Should it be any surprise that Holder is indignant when asked to respond to legitimate questions from congressmen?
We are witnessing a group of Chicago politicians, transplanted to Washington, who believe they are above the law and whose personal and political agendas trump all else. And the longer they get away with it the worse they will get. They must be stopped.
There is no scandal. There is crime against the Republic
While the Benghazi/IRS scandals are worse than Watergate, there is an apt comparison here: the scandals of both administrations are following the same initial course. Both Nixon and Obama claimed no knowledge of what occurred, then as facts became more and more damning, pledged support for those around them. And yes, both were defiant. I believe there is every bit as much to impeach this president as there was against Nixon, probably more. The key is getting through the firewall this administration has built around themselves.
By the way, I firmly believe that “firewall” will begin to crumble when the talk of prison time begins for Obamabots.
You know, promotions, raises, paid vacations...
Feigning ignorance and scapegoating subordinates is not an answer to criminal activity.
  |
  |
You can take it that way too
I hear the White House has an ongoing infestation of house flies. They are not able get rid of the problem.
You don't understand... prison time is just an occupational hazard for the top people in this crowd. In Chicago, being an Alderman almost automatically a ticket to the big house.
The people that are scared by prison time are the mid-level career people - they are the ones that will have to give up the details and connect the dots to convict the higher ups. Hopefully they've been covering themselves by compiling evidence of how they were coerced into committing crimes. That will be an important part of their plea bargain.
The difference is that Nixon’s party still had some men who were honest and patriots. Obama’s party is full of “ends justify the means” Marxists and other criminals. The tipping point was when Clinton committed perjury and the whole Dem party stonewalled and spun for him. We will be free of this scourge only when the electorate has the wisdom and courage to throw them out.
Fire Holder??? Hey, “things happen!!” And besides “what difference does it make?” (snicker)
Our goal should be to outrage them, drive them nuts, force them to do something REALLY stupid that makes their names synonymous with sh*t in America for the next 200 years.
They are not all that bright and they will go way too far, given the right motivation.
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.