Barack Obama

Is It Time to Indict Barack Obama?

The president's misdeeds look suspiciously like those of former Virginia Gov. Bob McDonnell.

|

McDonnell Verdicts May Spur Similar Trials; Judge Expanded What 'Official Acts' Constitute, Experts SayThe Washington Post

With his federal trial now over and former Virginia Gov. Bob McDonnell likely heading off to prison, the nation must now ask: Is it time to indict President Obama?

The question arises because Obama has done much of what McDonnell did, and in some cases to a greater degree. Let's compare and contrast.

McDonnell: The heart of the case against McDonnell was this: He used the power of his office to help a benefactor, Jonnie Williams Sr., by promoting Williams' product—Anatabloc—and arranging meetings between Williams and state officials.

As many news services noted, prosecutors pressed McDonnell about one telling sequence of events in which he asked Williams about a $50,000 loan and then, six minutes later, emailed a staffer, "Pls see me about anatabloc issues at VCU and UVA. Thx."

That looks pretty bad. But then so does this:

Obama: In May of 2011, Washington lawyer Antoinette Bush met with Obama officials and a Hollywood lobbyist at the White House to discuss concerns raised by the entertainment industry. As reported several months later, Ms. Bush and her husband "have donated heavily to the president's re-election effort: Mr. Bush gave $35,800 on the day of his wife's White House meeting last year."

That was from a New York Times story: "White House Opens Door to Big Donors, and Lobbyists Slip In," which found a clear correlation between the size of a donation and the donor's access to the Obama White House. The story also noted that donor gifts were "sometimes given in close proximity to meetings."

McDonnell: One of the more damning witnesses for the prosecution was Bill Hazel, Virginia's Secretary of Health and Human Resources. Regarding Anatabloc, he declared on the witness stand that "I won't even put the stuff in my mouth." Still, he met with Williams because the governor wanted him to. As The Times-Dispatch reported, Hazel got "a request in a late-night email from McDonnell to send a representative to a meeting at the Executive Mansion with Williams and the first lady." The meeting was set for the day after the McDonnells came back from a stay at Williams' Smith Mountain Lake estate. Despite it, Williams failed to persuade state officials to include Anatabloc in the formulary of medicinals covered by the state employee health plan.

That sounds like another passage from the Times story:

Obama: "Dr. William C. Mohlenbrock, chairman of a health care data analysis firm . . . contributed the maximum allowable gift, $35,800, to the Obama Victory Fund. . . . Later in the year . . . he landed a meeting with a top White House aide involved in the health care overhaul, but failed to persuade Medicare officials to require more health data collection as part of the new regulations. Joe E. Kiani, who heads a medical device company, Masimo Corporation, stepped up his giving to Democrats last year as medical device makers campaigned unsuccessfully for the repeal of an excise tax imposed on the industry. Mr. Kiani had several meetings with White House officials last year. . . . In the midst of these gatherings, he donated $35,800 to the victory fund."

McDonnell: In 2011, Williams pressed for—and got—a launch party for Anatabloc at the Executive Mansion. McDonnell made an appearance at the event. As news stories noted, "prosecutors say it is one of the prime examples of an 'official act' that the first couple performed for Williams."

Obama: Just two months before McDonnell was indicted, The Washington Post reported on a public visit the president made to DreamWorks animation. The company is headed by Jeffrey Katzenberg. As the Post reported, "Katzenberg ranks among the president's most valuable political donors and fundraisers, jumping in early to raise money for his first White House bid and pulling in more than $500,000 in donations in both 2008 and 2012." The story quotes Bill Allison, editorial director of the nonpartisan Sunlight Foundation, who called the DreamWorks appearance "payback."

At this point Democratic partisans might raise a key distinction: Obama's benefactors all contributed to his campaign coffers, while Jonnie Williams gave money to the McDonnells personally. But as the McDonnell legal team noted back in January, "federal law makes clear that quid pro quos can just as easily come in the form of campaign donations as personal gifts."

Indeed. Four years ago Illinois Gov. Rod Blagojevich was tried (and convicted) on corruption charges for trying to sell an appointment to Obama's vacant Senate seat. News stories reported that "prosecutors said (Blagojevich) had sought personal gain—campaign donations, especially—in exchange for" the appointment and other official acts. Campaign donations, especially.

During the McDonnell trial, Williams explained why he let the governor use his private jet: "If you're a Virginia company, you want to make sure you have access to these people. He's a politician, I'm a businessman." No doubt former Rhode Island Rep. Patrick Kennedy would agree. Explaining why he gave $35,800 to Obama's re-election bid at the same time he was trying to get the administration to help his nonprofit, Kennedy told The New York Times that's just "how this business works. If you want to call it quid pro quo, fine."

Any thoughts on that, Eric Holder?

NEXT: Obama Plans to Bomb ISIS Without First Obtaining Congressional Approval

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  1. The first black President is untouchable. Especially a Democrat worshipped by the media.

  2. McDonald was most certainly guilty of what he was charged with. And that fact makes me think that we ought to just legalize bribery as long as it is disclosed.

    What McDonald did was take a few hundred thousand dollars in gifts from some shady vitamin maker and in return give the guy access to various officials in Virginia. McDonald sold access. McDonald’s mistake was that he didn’t understand how to legally sell access. You don’t take the money up front. You give the access and then take a big do nothing job after you leave office from the people to whom gave access. I fail, however to see how the legal way is any better.

    Chris Dodd is currently the head of the MPAA and makes a hell of a lot more money that McDonald ever collected. Does anyone here think that job is anything but a pay back for Dodd carrying water for the MPAA on copyright issues? Of course not. It is nothing but a bribe.

    1. Here’s another example of questionable favoritism.

      http://www.bloomberg.com/news/…..rules.html

  3. Yeah, it’s time to indict him. If not for this, then for murdering an American citizen and spying on millions.

    1. Or for using the IRS and the DOJ to go after his political enemies. Obama’s misuse of law enforcement and the IRS are both much worse than anything McDonald or even Blogovich ever did.

      And it wasn’t just spying on the American people. It was then feeding that data to his campaign. All of the tech companies cooperated with the NSA. They also were huge supporters of his re-election campaign and designed what they brag about being the most effective and targeted internet and social media strategy in history.

      Only someone as retarded as Shreek or partisan as Tony could believe that those two things are not related.

      1. POTUS turned away from elite NY golf courses

        Each of these clubs can now expect a visit from the IRS.

        And.nothing.else.will.happen.

        1. Breitbart News has now been audited. The real damage this asshole has done is to destroy everyone’s trust in the government. Maybe Breitbart deserves to be audited. I don’t know. But I do know no one, not even the worst lying partisan if they were honest, believes that their being audited is anything but petty political payback. So it doesn’t matter if it is partisan or not. People perceive it as such and that has the same effect.

          That asshole is destroying our rule of law and any faith people have in our civic institutions.

          1. The real damage this asshole has done is to destroy everyone’s trust in the government.

            Anyone who has EVER trusted government is a fool.

            Yes, they are 10x worse now than before, and before they were horrific. Trust in government is the VERY thing that got us here.

            1. No trust in our institutions is the very thing that built the country. Take that away and you have nothing. The reason why so called banana republics are so poor is because there is no rule of law. Without a rule of law and trust in civic institutions, no one can save or invest or do much anything because they can’t count on the government not showing up and stealing what they have.

              Destroying people’s faith in the IRS is one of the quicker recipes for disaster. The entire tax system is based on voluntary compliance. If a critical mass of people ever started thinking that the only thing that will get them audited is pissing off the government and just stopped paying taxes, the IRS would be fucked. There would be no way to collect from that many people. This is what happened in Greece.

              It took 500 years of English history to build law and governmental institutions that people trusted. And as a result of that we all got rich. Take that away and we will become Zimbabwe very quickly. We all think we are just smarter than the rest of the world. We are not. We just have a rule of law and protection of property rights that allows us to thrive when people who live in country’s that don’t cant.

              1. It can’t happen here, John. This is Murika, fuck yeah!

              2. The only thing government can be trusted to do is consolidate its own power.

                This is case in point.

                I’m not an anarchist. There needs to be law. There needs to be courts. There needs to be a last word in force, strong enough to defeat all evil. But the second a government tells you that it’s their job to do anything EXCEPT protect the rights of the individual, they are expanding beyond their mandate and you are on a slippery slope to hell. They will become so powerful that they simply disregard the Constitution, will of the people and common decency.

                We are there. Now. FYTW! And we are there because of one simple error. We trusted government with more power than the absolute minimum they needed to protect our rights.

                1. Yes Fransisco, you have to be able to trust the government to fairly and justly enforce the laws. If people don’t trust the government to do that, we are fucked. That is my entire point.

                  We are talking past each other. I am not saying people have to trust the government to solve their problems. I am saying people have to trust the government to fairly enforce the laws. And we are not quite past that point, but we are close and Obama has spent six years trying to push us over.

                  1. Yes Fransisco, you have to be able to trust the government to fairly and justly enforce the laws. If people don’t trust the government to do that, we are fucked. That is my entire point.

                    Based on that, and I agree, we’re pretty fucked at this point. Case in point, most people are now more afraid of cops than they are criminals.

                    1. …most people are now more afraid of cops than they are criminals.

                      I disagree. Most people want more cops to fight all the criminals. Because CNN and FOX have convinced the US population that everybody is a pedophile rapist drug dealing knockout gamer.

              3. I see what you’re saying, but “trust” is the wrong word for it. The government is like a chainsaw. I expect that if I keep it in good repair and use it properly, I probably won’t cut my fingers off. I don’t trust the chainsaw not to cut me. Exactly the opposite – it’s made of sharp metal and designed to cut things.

                Government is made of violence. If it’s not controlled and kept in good repair, it’ll hurt us. I trust that it’ll cause grave harm and injury unless it’s actively prevented from doing so.

            2. But, Francisco, we need super big all powerful government to protect us from the corporations, else they’ll make slaves of us all!

          2. The real damage this asshole has done is to destroy everyone’s trust in the government

            Well to be honest, the administrations that came before him were already doing a pretty fine job at that, it’s just that he’s accelerated it and taken it to an entirely new level.

            When everything is illegal to be enforced randomly only for the purpose of revenue generation or punishing political enemies, then it’s only a matter of time before the rule of law breaks down completely.

            Laws are no longer about protecting the people. Laws are about revenue generation and protecting the ruling elite. And of course for the purpose of being used as a bludgeon against anyone who might complain about this fascism or try to get in the way.

            1. Laws are no longer about protecting the people. Laws are about revenue generation and protecting the ruling elite. And of course for the purpose of being used as a bludgeon against anyone who might complain about this fascism or try to get in the way.

              Were they ever about anything else?

              1. Were they ever about anything else?

                Yes. For about 3 months. Until government realized it could increase its own power by passing laws.

                But it’s a matter of degrees, of both the sleaziness of the politician and the willingness of the public to accept a loss of liberty. We are approaching the end and will likely need a Jeffersonian reboot. Hopefully it can be done peacefully, but I’m skeptical.

                We are going to go to war with ISIS tonight. They are a threat to America, I’m told. The real threat to America resides in DC.

                1. Yup, the same crowd who has spent a decade bemoaning war is about to continue and expand a war. And BTW you can’t bomb away idealism. If IS attacks America, then let’s debate a response. The fact they could attack us so we need to get the first punch in is garbage.

          3. The sad part is that the fucking idiots on the left see nothing wrong with this. It just never occurs to them that a Republican administration protected by a Republican House and Senate might use the same powers against them.

            1. How can they see anything wrong with it? The entire life philosophy of the left is built on trust of the government and in giving them complete control of all aspects of society.

              If they question this, their entire world falls apart and they might have to start asking themselves if maybe libertarians are right about some things. Then they would feel like a lone sheep cast out of the flock. And that’s a very scary thought for a collectivist.

              1. “The entire life philosophy of the left is built on trust of the government and in giving them complete control of all aspects of society.”

                Right – this must be why “leftist” places like MA decrim pot, legalize gay unions, etc. way before “rightie” states even consider it. It must be why MA and other “leftie” New England states jail fewer of their population too.

                Backwards bizzarro world.

                The left believes in tolerance. While individuals of all types have their shortcomings, it’s clear that those on the reasonable left have been more successful at so-called “modern english civilization” than the barbarians and white supremacist populating many other “free” places. In fact, many of those formerly “conservative” places are following our lead in matters of civil society.

                You can act as if these freedoms are “bad”, but that rings hollow. If Reagan and his war on drugs hadn’t made things so bad we wouldn’t have had to pass so many laws to decrim and allow for medical use, etc.

                But they did – and so we have to be “activist”. Oh, BTW, the Libertarian Party of MA is on our side in many of these issues and gladly take money from Soros for such issues. Hurts, doesn’t it?

                1. I’ll tell you what, when your Massachusetts utopia has a government that operates on the governing principle of “leave people alone unless they are hurting someone else” then I’ll believe you. Until then I’ll look at the admirable outcomes of your civil union and decrim examples as nothing more than your favored-team giving permission to its own politically-favored groups to do things that should never be illegal in the first place. Strange that you didn’t mention that Massachusetts and other NE bastions of progressivism also happen to have some of the most draconian of firearms laws, are happy to engage in city-wide violations of their citizens Fourth Amendment rights and want to tell people what they can eat and drink and how to care for themselves.

                  Try to get your head wrapped around this: the proper role of government isn’t to hand out privileges but to protect preexisting rights. Everything else is social engineering with a SWAT team to enforce your desired outcomes.

                2. MA elects fake Indians that complained about house flipping yet made tons of money doing it. Using govt. to create protected classes then allowing a white privilege person to charade as one of those classes damages the protected class.

                  Warrantless searches during the aftermath of the marathon bombing. Where are your civil liberties? Don’t have ant. Only have what govt. is willing to doll out that day.

                  Losing hundreds of children in the government “child relocation” program. I believe you call it DCF. If you are going to use govt. to protect people maybe you should actually hold the hacks to that standard.

                  And please don’t lump northern New England in with Mass. Unless you think “shall issue” carry, no waiting periods for gun purchases, and no magazine capacity restrictions are present in Mass. But yet the three northern New England states have three of the four lowest violent crime rates (blue state stalwart North Dakota is the other) and Mass is on the other side if the median. Oops.

                  And you don’t need an oppressive government to “give” you these things. You need a small government to get the F out of the way from you accessing them without the government.

          4. I’d consider finally waking up the masses and making them distrust government would be one of the few good things he’s done.

            1. There is a difference between not trusting the people in government and not trusting government at all. If your legal and governmental institutions stop functioning, it is very hard to have anything other than a completely dysfunctional economy. And I mean really dysfunction, like what we have times a hundred. Like Venezuela bad.

            2. Only they won’t mistrust government. They’ll just reason with themselves, do some mental gymnastics and brain convolutions and come up with the reasoning that Obama is not the one as they thought he had been, and that the next one, maybe a Lizzie Warren, will be the one who will finally bring about the utopia.

          5. So apolitical auditing is a good thing?

            1. Of the two options on offer, its the better.

            2. Yes. Some people really are crooks and don’t pay their taxes.

            3. Of course. With a flat tax that precludes the possibility of “targeted” tax breaks.

          6. Destroying everyone’s trust in government s not damage, it’s education.

          7. The real damage this asshole has done is to destroy everyone’s trust in the government.

            If he actually did that, I’d move him up 30 places on my ranking scale of US Presidents.

            What better way to truly have a Libertarian Moment? Unfortunately, he’s only confirming the distrust among people who are actually paying attention. If you were paying attention, you already knew not to trust the motherfuckers.

            1. Libertarianism is not anarchism.

              1. We’ll never have a fully Libertarian government, let alone an Anarchy.

                But the only way we get the government to move toward that direction is to greatly decrease the majority’s confidence in government.

                Also, I don’t see anything in my statement about anarchy, just that more distrust in our current government by more people would be a good thing.

                1. We need to reduce the trust in government’s ability to solve problems not enforce the law.

                  1. We need to reduce the scope of problems that are properly addressed by government. And the number of laws pertaining to things that are none our government’s business.

                    Handing out traffic tickets? Enforcing contracts? Governments can do those things well enough to make it worthwhile. School lunches? Medical care? Governments cannot do those things well. And if you make it do those things it will fail catastrophically, even as its enablers frantically redefine “success” downward to conceal that failure.

              2. I hate to break this to you John, because I agree with some things you say, and you are pretty sharp, but some of us are anarchists. You do not speak for everyone.

            2. If he actually did that, I’d move him up 30 places on my ranking scale of US Presidents.

              What better way to truly have a Libertarian Moment?

              This presumes that the reaction to people losing trust in government is to move away from government. History has shown this to be a very shaky presumption. Very often the response to anger with government is to replace that government with something worse and more restrictive. Worse governance is often the reaction to bad governance.

              I agree with John’s position…reform is the better way to go than rejection. Our government, as built in its governing document, is not inherently anti-freedom. It defines and protects property rights. It defines and protects certain important individual liberties. It has a system of checks-and-balances, when we hold politicians accountable for enforcing them. It protects our right to protest politicians with whom we disagree. That’s a decent foundation from which to work. The key is to hold politicians accountable.

              While losing trust in government might increase membership in a libertarian movement, that’s a far cry from creating a libertarian-friendly government…because we’re still a minority and the majority often learns the wrong lessons from government mistakes.

              1. The blockquote function on my last comment glitched. The first two sentences were the only ones meant to be blockquoted…the rest was mine.

    2. Three US citizens, but who’s counting? 😉

  4. Can someone remind me why we are having this conversation again? The first black president cannot be indicted. End of story, move along, nothing to see here.

    1. They could produce a video of him sodomizing his daughters and Shreek and Tony would be on here calling it “old news” or a “racist invasion of the God Emperor’s privacy”.

      1. No explanation would be necessary, only ‘BUT BOOOOOSHHHH!!!!’

      2. And even if the Republican House had the balls to impeach, Democrats in the Senate would never vote to convict.

        1. That is why they should start impeaching cabinet members. Start with Holder first. Holder is the most unpopular and disliked cabinet member in decades. Let the Dems in the Senate die on that hill or if they vote to impeach let the village idiot try and put another hack through confirmation.

          The GOP really has no balls.

          1. Meh. Not going to happen it would be the Shutdown II Apocalypse level red if they went down that road in the media.

          2. The GOP can’t do anything because they have no moral legs to stand on themselves. They don’t dare damage the machine that will give them the same amount of corrupt power once they are back in charge. Only the handful of libertarians in congress stand between us and becoming a 3rd world police state.

            Nancy Pelosi is railing again to try to give the government sweeping new powers over the internet, and all the cool kids still believe that the Democrats are going to save them from mean old corporations. Is there any hope that these sheep will ever wake the fuck up? What does it take, do the camp trains need to start rolling into town and taking away their family and neighbors first?

            1. Sadly, it may take that much to wake people up.

            2. But the GOP, since the media hates them and will actually cover their misuse of power, will never be able to use those powers. If a GOP President ever tried 1/10th of the shit Obama has, he would be impeached.

              At this point the media has made it so I don’t see how you could ever vote for a Dem President. Thanks to the media, a vote for a Democrat is voting for a President who will never be held accountable for anything he does.

              1. Thanks to the media, a vote for a Democrat is voting for a President who will never be held accountable for anything he does

                But that’s what the left wants, an all powerful dear leader who they can place all of their faith in. If only they can just get the right one this time.

                Just because they keep getting the wrong sociopath asshole, doesn’t mean that the they won’t get the right sociopath asshole next time.

                1. Of course that is what they want. That is why you can’t give it to them. The Obama years have proven beyond doubt the media can no longer be trusted with a Democratic President.

            3. What does it take, do the camp trains need to start rolling into town and taking away their family and neighbors first?

              “Oh, well, those family and neighbors were enemies of the State. Wreckers and kulaks. Good riddance!” – future leftards

          3. Yes, we should ask the mob who they don’t like and hang those people…

            1. I bet that actually made sense in your head, didn’t it? We really need a higher quality troll around here.

            2. Did you accidentally copy and paste a comment you meant for one of your progressive blogs?

              Progressive liberals are the ones with the entrenched history of lynch mobs, slaver. Now go fuck off back to your klavern.

    2. I wish people would stop saying this. I know it satisfies a certain fatalistic urge, but it’s only as true as we allow it to be. The American people aren’t going to rise up to save Barack Obama, no matter what color his skin might be.

  5. Well, first of all, you can impeach a sitting president, but not indict him–though you can indict him after he’s been removed from office. Also, the offenses that A. Barton lists are quite legal, since Obama was doing favors in return for campaign contributions, not cash given for his personal use. If Obama posed for a photo in some dude’s Ferrari and then let him hold an event in the White House pushing his company, the Republican House probably would impeach him.

    1. the Republican House probably would impeach him.

      Nope. And they spelled your first name wrong.

    2. Since you are an illiterate half wit, it is not surprising you missed this important bit in the article.

      But as the McDonnell legal team noted back in January, “federal law makes clear that quid pro quos can just as easily come in the form of campaign donations as personal gifts.”

      Sorry but, I am only selling favors for campaign cash, doesn’t cut it.

      1. If that’s the “McDonnell legal team” said, they got it wrong. Every president has selected ambassadors whose only “qualification” was a big donation. It may (or may not) be a crime to say “If you give me $250,000, I’ll make you ambassador to Monte Carlo,” but that’s not quite the same thing.

        1. It would be a crime if they admitted to a quid pro qou. If a politician came out and said they were granting specific favors for specific campaign donations, he would be guilty of bribery.

          Whatever you do Alan, please don’t pursue a career in law or if you do, please advise only Prog candidates.

        2. It may (or may not) be a crime to say “If you give me $250,000, I’ll make you ambassador to Monte Carlo,” but that’s not quite the same thing.

          It’s cronyism, also sometimes known as fascism. But nice to see you admit that you condone it. No surprises here.

  6. RAAAAAAAACIIIIIIIIIST!

  7. Did you miss the part where McDonnell was a Republican? They are a plague on humanity and must be hunted down. Democrats are God’s gift to politics and shouldn’t be hassled by these sorts of regulations. I mean, if you’re hunting elephants, do you get sidetracked and hunt rhinos (or donkeys) instead? I don’t think so!

    Duh.

    1. Also he was going to challenge Warner for a senate seat.

    2. An Iron Law comes to mind: Today me; tomorrow, you.

      1. “An Iron Law comes to mind: Today me; tomorrow, you.”

        As if the 5+ year investigations and impeachment of Clinton wasn’t prelude to all of this….??

        Another quick factoid. Republicans definitely spend more of their time, media attention, etc. on talk of impeaching the Dems…than the opposite.

        Being natural authoritarians, they step into line when a Republican is in control…no matter how bad that pol is. Things do not apply evenly because a Dem POTUS makes it just a little harder for them to steal every dollar from the populace and treasury. The end is always worth the means, and the end is piling up money and power (the goal of the GOP establishment).

        People, that being the individual, do not figure into this equation.

        Remember, it’s OK for Ike to have taken a vacation house (bought for him!) on the Augusta fairway…from his donors. It’s OK for Boehner to play Golf 50+ times a year. But God Forbid a Black Man relax in a rented property….bad bad bad bad. Impeach!

        1. Things do not apply evenly because a Dem POTUS makes it just a little harder for them to steal every dollar from the populace and treasury. The end is always worth the means, and the end is piling up money and power (the goal of the GOP establishment).

          If you were to switch the words “Dem” and “GOP” in this excerpt, you’ve concisely described Barack Obama’s entire presidency.

          Not that you’re remotely intelligent enough to figure that out on your own, slaver.

        2. Funny because it sure does seem to be Team Blue Members that have been the ones crowing the word impeachment constantly. Maybe because the current jerk-in-office is a political albatross and y’all need to gin up the base with imaginary threats?

          Lackwit.

        3. headinass. You are frothing at the mouth like a cappuccino machine.

  8. If he takes us to war without Congressional approval, he needs to be impeached on the spot.

    1. It’s not going to happen. BO is the first Black President in the history of the United States. He is untouchable. Period.

      1. Why? Seriously. Untouchable by whom?

  9. Indict?

    how bout we just get the noose ready.

    -FFM

    1. Well that could be considered racially insensitive.

      1. Rand Pauls campaign manager never kowtowed to such sensibilities!

        http://talkingpointsmemo.com/m…..space-page

  10. Wishful thinking, but it will never happen!

    http://www.Crypt-Tools.tk

    1. See, even Pedo Bot knows da troof.

  11. He can be impeached on the Bergdahl swap. But that will never happen because most congressman are don’t uphold their oath anyway. The bottom line is the old political axiom- “If enough voters want something, it will happen.” Whether it be largesse from the Treasury or Revolution.

  12. Ah, on one hand you support “free speech”, that being money….and the other hand we should indict pols for it?

    If that’s the case, you better head back and indict most every President in modern history…and probably ALL of history.

    Quoting the McDonell legal team isn’t exactly like reading the law……

    Listen – just accept that another GOP hero who was looking to run for POTUS…was caught being his “real” self – one who would sell anyone and anything down the river for a fancier wedding or a watch.

    Say what you will about Obama. He doesn’t need to do that and I doubt he would. McDonell was very close to being a Fundamentalist (women should be barefoot and preggy) and his views informed his action. Rather than step up to the plate and earn money with a decent book or by joining a lobbying firm after leaving office, he decided to get it the easy way – by trying to subject millions of Virginians to untested and unsafe “diet” products. He could have cared less whether they added weight, did nothing, caused cancer, etc. as long as he got his cash.

    It’s called selling out and it’s the main platform of both the GOP and so-called “Libertarian” subgroups. He who pays…plays.

    1. derp

      You are too stupid to realize how stupid you are.

      1. Even by prog troll standards its incoherent and retarded.

    2. lol I think you would find wide ranging support “if that’s the case, you better head back and indict most every President in modern history…and probably ALL of history” in addition to every politician in history on this website for exactly that.

    3. These words you use, they almost make sense but taken as a whole are complete fucking nonsense.

      1. Allowing people to give money to campaigns or publish books or movies in support of candidates or ideas is not “bribery”. If it is, then all forms of political speech are and the term is rendered meaningless.

      2. McDonald was never a hero of anyone. And even if he was, that has nothing to do with the sleazy behavior Obama has repeadedly engaged in.

      . Rather than step up to the plate and earn money with a decent book or by joining a lobbying firm after leaving office

      So a payoff from a publisher for a book no one will buy or a big money job paying you back after you leave office or paying you for your friends you gained while in office is better or morally different than just taking a bribe? Nothing says good clean government like Chris Dodd earning millions shilling for the MPAA.

      Craig, I know you are trying here but you need to understand fat, drunk and stupid is no way to go through life.

      1. John, I can’t take it anymore.

        McDonald is a clown who sells hamburgers.

        McDonnell is the former governor referenced in the article above.

      2. “McDonald was never a hero of anyone. And even if he was, that has nothing to do with the sleazy behavior Obama has repeadedly engaged in.”

        I believe it’s McDonell and he was a hero of fundamentalists and the general christian right and was promoted as one of the leading figures for them to run for POTUS. You don’t get that nod without being somewhat of a hero.

        Point is, he – like Cantor, etc. – could have legally parlayed his fame into money if he had a bit of patience and that was his goal. I think even the rabid righties here would agree on that. Gov. of Virginia is a very powerful position…

        But instead he sold out to be a cheap hawker of fake diet products.

        You can’t disavow him now. Heck, he was vetted and elected….not for no reason…but because he represented all those “freedom loving” righties in VA.

        Let’s look at his positions – which were clear to the people of VA at the time of his election:
        he has not favored standard exceptions on abortion in cases of rape and incest
        He supported drilling for oil off of the coast of Virginia
        McDonnell opposes gay marriage
        McDonnell opposes legalizing marijuana

        “McDonnell “described working women and feminists as ‘detrimental’ to the family.”

        Yet instead of kicking him to the curb, “Reason” is attempting to say (here) that we should GET THE DEMOCRATS. Brilliant.

        1. Your point boils down to “he could have done the same thing legally so therefore he is wrong”. That makes him stupid but it doesn’t make him morally at least any worse than the people who do it legally.

          Yes, he could have done all of this legally. And that is exactly Reason’s point. People like Obama are doing the same thing McDonald is right now.

          1. “Yes, he could have done all of this legally. And that is exactly Reason’s point. People like Obama are doing the same thing McDonald is right now.”

            Obama is taking money personally for loans and hawks diet products, Amway, etc?

            That’s news to me.

            Personally, I’d like to see much tougher laws on money in politics. But due to the “non-activist” rightie SCOTUS members (friend of the Kochs, of course), we now have unlimited cash in the game. The only choice of anyone who wants some power – whether for good or for bad – is to get lots of money together.

            At this point – sadly, IMHO – the only question is whether the left can raise more cash than the right. I suspect we won’t in the short run, but once we see another GW or equiv. we will quickly empty our pockets.

            1. Personally, I’d like to see much tougher laws on money in politics.

              So there’s two ways to do that.

              1. You limit existing rights of citizens.

              or

              2. You limit the government.

              Which approach do you choose Craig?

            2. Craig, the point I think you are missing is that libertarians distrust ALL GOVT POWER. It doesn’t matter what team you play for (Blue/Red), you are still human and human nature is flawed. Therefore, realizing this, we seek to limit the government’s power over the individual in order to minimize the deleterious effects of the inevitable corruption of this power. The current POTUS is the current head of a beast and is an easy, convenient, and reasonable target of criticisms. Bush was corrupt, and Clinton, and Bush, and Reagan, and??.. ad infinitum. Dems are easier targets of libertarian criticism as they have collectivist tendencies. Reps are wolves in sheep’s clothing as they say small govt. then grow it exponentially while trampling our natural rights. The answer is to have a special document, let’s call it a constitution, that specifically delineates power to the federal government, and leaves all other powers not specifically enumerated to the states. Oh wait, we have one of those, now how can we get our government to respect it. Last time it took revolution. This time we seek to participate via the party of liberty.

              1. “Craig, the point I think you are missing is that libertarians distrust ALL GOVT POWER.”

                Not true if the General Run here consider themselves libertarians…..they accept Rand Paul wanting to be the arbiter of birth control, of whether to attack ISIS or of whether to keep the security state as big as it is (he wants all three)….

                BUT, consider that distrust of government (power, money and authority) is what our country is/was founded on. So the statement “we distrust all gubment power” is like saying that daylight comes during the day. It’s obvious!

                I distrust all authority. But that doesn’t mean I throw it in the trash can and claim I’ve found something better than all of our current institutions….many built over 100’s of years of trail and error.

                As to the Constitution, it’s like the blind men and the elephant. You can take 100 people and they will each interpret it differently. These could ALL be intelligent, educated and reasonable people.

                Of course, those from the Tea Party and other “patriots” claim they have special knowledge from on high as to what each word and phrase means.

                You have to know that’s crazy!

                I think we do follow the Constitution as our basis in law. More people, IMHO, are more free than they have been in a long time. It’s no picnic to govern 310 million people..especially when 9 billions other have a effect on things.

            3. headinass said, “Personally, I’d like to see much tougher laws on money in politics. But due to the “non-activist” rightie SCOTUS members (friend of the Kochs, of course)”
              Still using the thinner tinfoil I see.

      3. 1. Allowing people to give money to campaigns or publish books or movies in support of candidates or ideas is not “bribery”. If it is, then all forms of political speech are and the term is rendered meaningless.

        Well said, and, regardless of their protestations about fairness, it’s clearly the intention of the modern left and significant parts of the GOP to destroy the idea of political speech. The left from 1900 forward has been about efficiency in the grand socialist sense of the word. Individualist debate, unrestrained political speech, and the confusion of political slugfests are muddy and usually result in gridlock. Much more efficient to centrally plan political speech through legislation and activist judges who would limit how and through which venues we can denounce or support particular candidates.

        When faced with the problem of a corrupt statesman–an individual who does nothing but wield brute force of the institution of the state, whether he’s democratically elected or no–there is a class of intellectual who, in league with populists, would limit the range of people who would communicate with or about that statesman rather than limiting his power.

        If that isn’t indicative of the political dark universe that we’re living in today, I don’t know what is. It’s like these people are driven by some purist form of ur-jacobinism.

    4. I never thought we’d see the day when a troll even dumber than Tony would show himself, but I’ve been proven wrong.

  13. I generally enjoy Hinkle’s work, but this is What If? filler.

    Impeachment is fundamentally a political concern, not a legal one. Obama remains too politically powerful to impeach even if the Republicans were to retake the Senate, and the price the GOP paid for the Clinton impeachment will serve as a warning for prospective impeachment, already a dubious prospect if history is any judge, for decades to come.

    The Framers were deeply intelligent and humane men by the standards of their era, but the degree to which the president has transitioned from the errand boy of the Congress to an American Prince over the past century makes their good intentions re: impeachment allowances moot. When American citizens think government, they don’t think Congress; they think the Executive, the strong man who gets things done via fiat to his underlings rather than through the frustrating process of deliberation.

  14. the real point here is that the Justice Department theory of what constitutes “official acts” encompasses things that every politician does as a part of constituent service–making appearances, getting them an opportunity to talk to Government officials, promoting local businesses, etc. . . . The law is intended to punish citizens who try to deprive the public of the honest services of their elected officials (don’ laugh at the concept of honest services), and making intrroductions does not rise to that.

  15. my friend’s sister makes $83 an hour on the laptop . She has been fired for ten months but last month her payment was $12435 just working on the laptop for a few hours
    Find Out More. ?????? http://www.jobsfish.com

  16. my buddy’s step-mother makes $66 /hour on the internet . She has been out of work for 7 months but last month her pay was $15294 just working on the internet for a few hours. pop over to this web-site………..

    =================== http://www.netjob70.com

  17. Clinton being let off the hook for lying in a deposition was a significant turning point. But if I recall he did lose his law license.

  18. The hits keep on coming! This from that bastion of liberty, the Great Jim DeMint State of SC:
    http://www.washingtonpost.com/…..-indicted/

    How I love such freedoms. The freedom to take money for your own pocket is perhaps the original one, right? Why should the Gubment tell me how to spend my campaign money?

    “South Carolina House Speaker Bobby Harrell (R) was indicted Wednesday on nine charges of violating campaign finance law and misconduct by a public official.

    Documents filed in Richland County accuse the powerful House speaker of using campaign funds for personal expenditures and for using his office to benefit a business he owns.

    The complaints come two years after the Charleston Post and Courier raised questions about more than $325,000 Harrell transfered from his campaign account to his personal account for reimbursements without reciepts or itemized invoices.”

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.