March 5, 2015

A PETITION Has Been Launched To PROSECUTE & EXPELL John Boehner From Congress

Over the course of the past six years many Americans have felt frustrated that Republicans have deliberately worked against the best interests of the American people with impunity. What makes the frustration all the more unbearable is that most people feel there is nothing they can possibly do for redress to hold Republicans accountable for what, in many cases, are blatant violations of federal laws. In a great deal of the cases, a major share of the blame falls on the impotent Department of Justice that is either terrified of investigating what is often seditious and blatant Republican malfeasance, or looks the other way to avoid the appearance of partisan political retribution. Whatever the reason for failing to do its due diligence, it often falls on the people to take matters into their own hands and start a petition.

This week, a MoveOn.org petition began circulating for the purpose of prosecuting Speaker of the House John A. Boehner for willfully breaking a federal law when he knowingly violated the 216 year-old Logan Act. The petition demands that Boehner, “by law must now be tried by Congress, and forced to resign.” However, according to 18 U.S.C. § 953 (Logan Act), by violating the “Logan Act” (Private correspondence with foreign governments) Boehner can be punished “under federal law with imprisonment of up to three years. Any act of prosecuting and convicting the Speaker must be initiated by a Justice Department United States Attorney; at best Congress can conduct its own investigation for ethics violations and expel Boehner, or he can resign. The Koch brothers or Benjamin Netanyahu will never allow that to happen, but by all means please sign the petition and relieve that crushing feeling of frustration.

The petition accurately claims that by

“directly commencing and carrying on correspondence with an officer of a foreign government (Netanyahu) with intent to influence or defeat the measures of the United States,”

Boehner broke a federal law. It also is correct that Boehner attempted to deal in foreign policy to usurp the powers of the presidency of the United States thus violating the “separation of powers” in the U.S. Constitution. But the only prosecutable crime is

“corresponding with an agent of a foreign government with the intent to influence or defeat the measures of the United States”

according to the Logan Act. The petition is to be “to be delivered to The United States House of Representatives, The United States Senate, and President Barack Obama.”

Now, one certainly understands why the petition is not “to be delivered” to the Department of Justice or a United States Attorney; it would be tantamount to flushing it away in a toilet. The Department of Justice just does not investigate or prosecute willful violations of federal laws when Republicans or any of their variant malcontents are involved. As the President has already stated, his administration would rather focus on looking ahead to a hopeful future than backwards; or war criminals George W. Bush and Dick Cheney et al and admitted torturers would already be in federal prisons.



http://www.politicususa.com/2015/03/05/sign-moveon-petition-prosecute-expel-john-boehner-congress.html

March 5, 2015

Hillary Clinton’s TWEET Isn’t Going To Solve Her E-MAIL Problem. NOT EVEN CLOSE.

After enduring 72 hours of negative press over her exclusive use of a private e-mail account during her time as secretary of state, Hillary Rodham Clinton has finally responded! Let's get right to it! Remember that the State Department doesn't HAVE all of Clinton's e-mails. They are held on her own private e-mail server. That's the problem. The 55,000 pages of e-mails she has turned over to State were selected by either Clinton or someone on her team. Given that, a better tweet might have been: "I am going to turn over all of my e-mails -- as soon as I can." Putting the burden on State is sort of a red herring; this isn't really the State Department's fault. Clinton chose to exclusively use a private e-mail account against guidance from the Obama administration. Why she did so remains to be seen -- she hasn't said -- but because of that choice, it's incumbent upon her to make more e-mails available.


~snip~

And it's likely to get worse for Clinton before it gets better. Already, the way she handled her e-mail is being regarded as symbolic of a broader problem with her approach to public service. Here's the Washington Post editorial board Thursday in a piece titled "Hillary Clinton’s use of private e-mail reflects poor judgment":





Clinton's attempt to tweet her way out of this problem -- she did this so people can't accuse her of ignoring it entirely -- suggests that she (or her team or both) don't grasp the extent of the damage this could do to her. Months of subpoenas and hearings could await, which, even if they come to nothing, will be a decidedly unwelcome distraction in the early stages of her expected 2016 presidential bid. Then there is how this all looks, which is just as problematic. As I wrote on Monday, this story highlights almost every one of the traits that people already dislike in the Clintons. Because of that fact, the longer the story lingers, the more difficult it will be for her to sell herself -- and her candidacy -- as something fresh, different and future-looking.




cont'

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/the-fix/wp/2015/03/05/hillary-clintons-tweet-isnt-going-to-solve-her-email-problem-not-even-close/

March 5, 2015

Clinton’s E-mail Mess Shows WE NEED A PRIMARY, Not a Coronation

I am not going to pretend to know enough about National Archives and Records Administration regulations to have a worthwhile opinion about whether Hillary Clinton violated them by relying on a private e-mail address while secretary of state. (Most of the people talking about it on cable TV, or writing their own hot takes, probably don’t either.) Right now, it looks like Clinton went out of her way to keep her correspondence secret when it was supposed to be public. But it’s also true that a lot of Clinton scandals turn out, upon closer inspection, to be bullshit. (See, for example, Benghazi, or Whitewater.) Worse, they tend to be bullshit that serves as a pretext for more bullshit, as each new uproar is said to “feed into the narrative” set in motion by the previous ones.


Yet at a certain point it stops mattering whether coverage of Clinton is as unfair as her defenders say it is. If she‘s going to be the Democratic candidate, part of her job is not to leave herself open to this sort of thing. If she wasn’t actively skirting the law by not using a State Department e-mail address, she was being sloppy. By not keeping her official e-mails separate from her private ones, she gives Republicans a pretext to subpoena them all. At the very least, there’s going to be a drawn-out fight over access to them. Should she be forced to turn them over, her genuinely private e-mails as well as her public ones will be used against her. Imagine what Republicans would be able to do with a trove of private correspondence that Clinton never thought they’d get to see.


The whole mess underscores the immense danger for the Democrats of holding a coronation rather than a primary. Even if the front-runner were as low-drama as Obama, the party, the country and even the candidate would benefit from a genuine debate about everything from foreign policy to the financial industry. And Clinton is not low-drama. She and her husband live at the center of a constantly unfolding political soap opera with endlessly proliferating subplots. Even if they’re not always treated fairly, they also seem to pathologically court trouble. See, for example, recent stories about foreign governments making donations to the Clinton Foundation during Clinton’s State Department tenure. One of those, The Washington Post reported, “violated [the foundation’s] ethics agreement with the Obama administration.”


Maybe there’s nothing more there, or anywhere, waiting to come out. But without other credible Democrats building the infrastructures they’d need to run, there’s no plan B if something explodes. Democrats are betting the future of the country on the Clintons’ ability to avoid crippling scandal. Maybe that wager will ultimately make sense, but there’s no reason to go all in so soon.




cont'


http://www.thenation.com/blog/200169/clintons-e-mail-mess-shows-we-need-primary-not-coronation

March 5, 2015

Top Backer Of Biden 2016: Email Story WILL KILL Hillary's Chances By '1,000 CUTS'

Yup.........................




Dick Harpootlian, the former chairman of the Democratic Party in South Carolina and a top backer of Vice President Joe Biden questioned how viable a Clinton presidency is in light of new questions about Clinton using a private email for business while she was secretary of State.


Harpootlian has repeatedly voiced support that Biden should run for president in 2016. He told the Post that unlike Clinton, Biden "ain't got no e-email problems. He ain't got no foundation problems. What you see with Joe is what you get. There's nothing hidden there." As a result of The New York Times' report about the emails, the House Select Committee on Benghazi, run by Rep. Trey Gowdy (R-SC), plans to subpoena Clinton's emails.

Harpootlian said Clinton needs to address the emails publicly. In her first major speech since the email story broke, at an Emily's List event on Tuesday night, Clinton did not mention or even refer to the email story. "She better peel away the layers of protection and come out and talk about this," Harpootlian said. "Who were the emails to? What is this about? Why did you do it? Put it to bed. You can't play rope-a-dope and be elected President of the United States."




cont'

http://talkingpointsmemo.com/livewire/dick-harpootlian-hillary-clinton-emails-joe-biden

March 3, 2015

Netanyahu INSULTS THE U.S. To Their Face While Taking $8.6 Million IN AID EVERY DAY

Is a stable and strong Israel important to the Middle Eastern region? Of course it is. However, that doesn’t mean we need to agree and bow down to everything that comes out of reelection hopeful Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s mouth. Republicans in Congress can’t seem to get enough of the warhawk prime minister. And it’s certain they wish President Obama was more like him and less like the logically sound, deep thinking, diplomatic chess player, and effective leader that he is. Republicans feel if you throw enough money at a problem overseas with enough might that somehow peace can evolve from an iron fist. However, this isn’t World War II. Conflict in the Middle East hasn’t suddenly risen overnight and isn’t the work of one man creating an opposition for domination. Middle Eastern conflict has existed longer than history books can recall. Throwing money and military might at the conflict will not solve anything long-term. In fact, it could make things far worse. President Obama is thinking long-term, and that’s why he is working on a deal that of course isn’t perfect, but is a step in the right direction in hopes of resolving conflict diplomatically. Diplomacy should always be the first option. Now, as Netanyahu spoke in front of a joint meeting of Congress, he approached his speech in a very skillfully formulated manner. He started by praising President Obama, this of course got a few Democrats to stand up and applaud — well-played, prime minister.

He said:



After that however, he decided he would tear into the president and spout off inflammatory rhetoric that he has used for decades and American conservatives eat up every word as though it is brand new.



Holy sh*t. Bravo for that line, Hollywood may hire him after that one.

~snip~

To put it bluntly, Netanyahu wants things done his way or no way at all. He doesn’t want a deal with Iran to work, because then he doesn’t get his war. His entire speech was a rallying cry for war with Iran. If he wants to “protect Israel” he’d be best to let President Obama and Secretary John Kerry do what they need to do to protect Israel. If you think I’m being inflammatory myself saying Netanyahu wants war, look no further than Senator Ted Cruz (R-TX), because he agrees. First he said:



There’s that World War II rhetoric I told you about. Then he said:



That is what he told us, isn’t it? Cruz continued, parroting Netanyahu:



Comparing Iran to Nazi Germany? Well if that’s not a rallying cry for imminent war, I don’t know what is.




cont'

http://www.addictinginfo.org/2015/03/03/netanyahu-insults-the-u-s-to-their-face-while-taking-8-6-million-in-aid-every-day/

March 3, 2015

SHOCKED Chris Wallace: White House Was ‘FLABBERGASTED’ Netanyahu Accepted Boehner Invite

.

March 3, 2015

Boehner Makes Republicans 'TOOLS & DUPES' Of Netanyahu's Election Campaign

One of the defining precepts of the American Republic from its earliest days to today has been that the president of the United States represents the country in its dealings with the world. It is a view which the Supreme Court unambiguously endorsed in 1936 in United States v. Curtiss-Wright Export Corp:



This consensus, respected by both parties for much of American history, is why John Boehner's sly decision to offer Benjamin Netanyahu a congressional platform to attack President Obama's negotiations with Iran may represent a watershed moment both for the Republican Party and American support for Israel. It's unclear whether the invitation says more about Republicans' confusion about who precisely they've been sent to Washington to represent, or more about the weakening influence of the conservative pro-Israel group AIPAC as pro-peace, pro-Israel groups like J Street and Jewish Voice for Peace have come on the scene. What seems clear is that when even Chris Wallace of Fox News is " target="_blank">calling the Netanyahu-Boehner manoeuvre behind President Obama's back "wicked," then something has gone very wrong with the Republican sense of the national interest.

Netanyahu's speech may be evidence of hubris run amok on his part, but it is also a vivid illustration of the pervasive and destructive rise of partisanship in American politics over the last few decades. Even as the centre ground vanished on contentious domestic issues, there was at least the idea that the country should speak with one voice on foreign policy. Boehner's invitation to Netanyahu has taken a sledgehammer to that consensus.




cont'


http://www.huffingtonpost.com/david-miles/interests-not-infatuation_b_6786910.html

March 3, 2015

Chris Matthews just said "I'll get to the heart of this speech now"....

YOU GO TWEETY!.............CALL IT AS YOU SEE IT........

March 3, 2015

Does Hillary Clinton Have A Position On The Netanyahu Speech?

Maybe I missed the post somewhere but I can't find a single quote or statement issued outlining her position on Netanyahu's Historic Speech breach.

If someone has a link, please post!

March 3, 2015

White House STEPS UP PRESSURE On Netanyahu Over Speech to Congress

In the lead-up to Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s controversial speech before a joint session of Congress Tuesday, White House officials continued to point to what they see as politically divisive and diplomatically damaging theater. President Obama called it a “mistake” for the prime minister to speak before Congress so close to the March 17 elections in Israel. “It makes it look like we are taking sides...it is a distraction from what should be our focus,” Obama said in an interview with Reuters Monday. White House Press Secretary Josh Earnest said the president probably won’t even watch the speech. “I haven’t looked at the president’s schedule for tomorrow,” White House spokesman Josh Earnest told reporters Monday. “I doubt that he will spend his whole time watching the speech.”



Obama Says Talks Include a 10-Year Iran Nuclear Deal

Netanyahu was invited by House Republican leadership to address a joint session of Congress Tuesday, where he will speak out against President Obama’s plan to seek a nuclear weapons deal with Iran. The White House has said the partisanship resulting from the invitation would be “destructive” to the US/Israeli relationship. Earnest warned Netanyahu not to divulge any top secret information about the negotiations that the U.S. may have shared with Israelis, who have received detailed briefings on the negotiations. “Releasing that information would betray the trust that exists between two allies,” Earnest said. He accused Israel of trying to “cherry pick” negative pieces of information gleaned from those briefings in an attempt to undermine the process.


Speaking Monday at a conference in Washington, D.C., hosted by the largest U.S. pro-Israel lobby, AIPAC, Netanyahu insisted his speech “is not intended to show any disrespect to President Obama” and that the Israeli alliance with the U.S. is stronger than ever. “Ladies and gentlemen, the purpose of my address to Congress tomorrow is to speak up about a potential deal with Iran that could threaten the survival of Israel.” Speaking at that same conference later in the day, National Security Advisor Susan Rice said abandoning the talks in favor of immediate sanctions would not stop Iran from producing weapons. Sanctions have not stopped Iran in the past, she said.


And on Sunday, Secretary of State John Kerry said the negotiations with Iran have actually benefited Israel. “Israel is safer today because of the interim agreement that we created,” he said on ABC’s "This Week with George Stephanopoulos." “The 20 percent enriched uranium has been reduced to zero. We have stopped the centrifuge production. We are inspecting inside of their facilities. We have stopped the Arak plutonium reactor in its tracks.” Kerry warned that Netanyahu’s speech runs the risk of becoming a “political football.” Samantha Power, the U.S. ambassador to the United Nations -- and the administration’s choice to speak directly before Netanyahu at AIPAC -- also warned about playing politics. “This partnership should never be politicized,” Power said. “The bond between the United States and Israel is still a national commitment. It should never be a partisan matter."




cont'


http://abcnews.go.com/International/white-house-steps-pressure-netanyahu-speech-congress/story?id=29340087