Impeach the Stonewalling Obama
I can think of many reasons to impeach Barack Obama.
Of course, this House of Representatives is never going to do that between now and January, when many of the members will be leaving office, most of them against their wishes. But it's actually time to start calling for impeachment.
There are dozens of crimes and misdemeanors to consider, with the dozens of brazen extra-constitutional actions of this White House — from health care to auto-company takeovers to bank bailouts. And of course, there is the ever-present controversy over his total failure even to prove his constitutional eligibility for office.
But Obama's stonewalling over the allegations of Rep. Joe Sestak, D-Pa., is the most Nixonian reason of all. Now the shoe is clearly on the other foot.
While Democrats were prepared to frog-march Richard Nixon out of the White House in the 1970s because of his refusal to allow an independent counsel to investigate Watergate, today's Democrats expect the American people to take the administration's word that Sestak, one of their own, is lying when he said he was offered a bribe to bow out of the U.S. Senate race against Sen. Arlen Specter.
Late last week, the White House finally released its explanation of the job offer. The claim is that Rahm Emanuel sent Bill Clinton to meet with Sestak to offer an unpaid advisory position — not the "high-ranking position" Sestak had claimed.
It took the White House 10 weeks to come up with this highly unbelievable explanation that conflicts entirely with Sestak's own repeated claims.
Sestak needs to be placed under oath by an impartial, independent investigator with subpoena power to see what he has to say about this. So does Rahm Emanuel and Bill Clinton — not that the latter has any respect for being under oath, as we know from previous experience.
This explanation hardly passes the smell test of credibility.
Remember what Sestak said back in February to start this controversy: He was offered a "high-ranking federal job" to get out of the race. He has not deviated from that story in 10 weeks. Then, just two days before the first official explanation of the story, the White House met with Sestak's brother. One day before the first official explanation, Obama met with Clinton. And why did Sestak not tell the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth to the American people for the last 10 weeks?
Now that everyone has had a chance to get these stories in synch, an independent investigation may be too late. The cover-up may be complete. That's why members of Congress, the media and the public have been clamoring for a special counsel to be named by Obama's hapless and highly partisan attorney general, Eric Holder.
It's not as if Obama's White House hasn't been accused of similar bribes in the past.
Last September, the Denver Post reported that Jim Messina, Obama's deputy chief of staff, offered Colorado Senate candidate Andrew Romanoff a position in the administration if he canceled plans to run against Sen. Michael Bennet.
Is it not plausible to assume the Obama White House might try bribery a second time, having gotten away with it the first time? There's a lot to investigate here.
And unlike Watergate, all of the alleged corruption involves Democrats. It involves a White House trying to control another supposedly independent branch of government using power and taxpayer funds illegitimately and illegally.
You know what they said back during the Nixon scandals: The cover-up is worse than the crime. Yes, it's time to start talking about impeachment. Ultimately, that was the only thing that shook the truth out of the trees during Watergate.
To find out more about Joseph Farah and read features by other Creators Syndicate writers and cartoonists, visit the Creators Syndicate Web page at www.creators.com.
COPYRIGHT 2010 CREATORS.COM