Posts Tagged ‘Department of Justice’

Pathological Liar Obama Now ‘Brazenly Lying’ About His Own Lies (Obama KNEW ObamaCare Would ‘Transition’ Millions And Lied)

November 19, 2013

Please read this:

November 18, 2013 12:00 AM
Obama’s ‘5 Percent’ Con Job
It’s a 100 percent lie, according to the White House’s own figures.
By  Andrew C. McCarthy

Last Thursday, President Obama purported to undo the “Affordable” Care Act (ACA) mandates that he and congressional Democrats quite intentionally designed to force Americans off their health-insurance policies . . . notwithstanding the president’s promise, repeated over and over again since 2009, that Americans would be able to keep their health-insurance policies. In my weekend column, I argued that Obama’s latest unilateral diktat is lawless and transparently political. With each passing day, however, what becomes more breathtaking is the depth of systematic, calculated lying that went into the extensive — the criminal — Obamacare fraud.

Let’s quickly recap the lawlessness and cynical politics behind Thursday’s pathetic press conference. Obama, who poses as a constitutional-law expert, knows full well that a president has no legal authority to waive statutory mandates. Even if he had such power, moreover, he knows that there is no practical possibility of undoing — within the next few weeks, as the ACA would require — the new arrangements that insurance companies and state regulators spent the last three years structuring to comply with Obamacare mandates. In sum, Obama is well aware that his proposed “fix” is frivolous. His hope is that the country overwhelmingly consists of dolts who are too uninformed to realize that this is the case, and who, with a little help from his media courtiers, can be convinced to blame the insurance companies, rather than the president, for the fact that millions of Americans are losing their coverage under his “reform.”

Now, having covered Thursday’s con job, let’s get back to the overarching Obamacare scheme perpetrated by the president for more than four years — a fraud that, I contend, the Justice Department would not hesitate to prosecute had it been committed by a private-sector executive. I’ve related the standards for criminal and civil enforcement that would militate in favor of prosecution in a case involving the dimension of fraud and breach of fiduciary duty we find here. In addition, NRO’s Andrew Stiles had a superb report on Friday showing the sundry ways the administration’s dysfunctional Obamacare website, HealthCare.gov, runs afoul of various consumer-protection laws. Again, when such infractions are committed by private businesses, the government punishes them quite severely.

We now discover even more evidence of how brazen Obama’s lies have been.

The president claims he truly believed that people would be able to keep plans they liked because Obamacare provides for those plans to be “grandfathered” — exempted from termination. Thus, he insists, he was acting in good faith when he made the promises that people could keep those plans, though he concedes the promises “ended up being inaccurate.”

This is yet another calculated deception, a willful continuation of the fraudulent scheme. The president well knew that, in implementing the “grandfathering” provision, his administration wrote regulations so narrow that tens of millions of existing plans would be eliminated. Congressional Democrats knew this, too: When Republicans endeavored in 2010 to enact legislation that would have broadened the regulation into a meaningful safe harbor, Democrats closed ranks and voted down the proposal – including Democrats such as Senator Mary Landrieu, who now pretends to be a crusader in the cause of letting Americans keep their insurance.

Unable to deny that millions of Americans have lost the coverage he vowed they could keep, Obama and other Democrats are now peddling what we might call the “5 percent” con job. The president asserts that these victims, whom he feels so terribly about, nevertheless constitute a tiny, insignificant minority in the greater scheme of things (“scheme” is used advisedly). They are limited, he maintains, to consumers in the individual health-insurance market, as opposed to the vastly greater number of Americans who get insurance through their employers. According to Obama, these individual-market consumers whose policies are being canceled make up only 5 percent of all health-insurance consumers.

Even this 5 percent figure is a deception. As Avik Roy points out, the individual market actually accounts for 8 percent of health-insurance consumers. Obama can’t help himself: He even minimizes his minimizations. So, if Obama were telling the truth in rationalizing that his broken promises affect only consumers in the individual-insurance market, we’d still be talking about up to 25 million Americans. While the president shrugs these victims off, 25 million exceeds the number of Americans who do not have health insurance because of poverty or preexisting conditions (as opposed to those who could, but choose not to, purchase insurance). Of course, far from cavalierly shrugging off that smaller number of people, Obama and Democrats used them to justify nationalizing a sixth of the U.S. economy.

But that’s not the half of it. Obama’s claim that unwelcome cancellations are confined to the individual-insurance market is another brazen lie. In the weekend column, I link to the excellent work of Powerline’s John Hinderaker, who has demonstrated that, for over three years, the Obama administration’s internal estimates have shown that most Americans who are covered by “employer plans” will also lose their coverage under Obamacare. Mind you, 156 million Americans get health coverage through their jobs.

John cites the Federal Register, dated June 17, 2010, beginning at page 34,552 (Vol. 75, No. 116). It includes a chart that outlines the Obama administration’s projections. The chart indicates that somewhere between 39 and 69 percent of employer plans would lose their “grandfather” protection by 2013. In fact, for small-business employers, the high-end estimate is a staggering 80 percent (and even on the low end, it’s just a shade under half — 49 percent).

That is to say: During all these years, while Obama was repeatedly assuring Americans, “If you like your health-insurance plan, you can keep your health-insurance plan,” he actually expected as many as seven out of every ten Americans covered by employer plans to lose their coverage. For small business, he expected at least one out of every two Americans, or as many as four out of every five, to lose their coverage.

Avik’s eagle eye also catches that, even as Obama was spinning on Thursday about how his broken promise affects only the teeny-weeny individual-insurance market, his administration was telling a much different story to state insurance commissioners. In a letter about Obama’s proposed “fix,” the head of the relevant consumer-information office referred to “all individuals and small businesses that received a cancellation or termination notice with respect to coverage” (emphasis added). This, Avik observes, “contradicts assertions from the administration that only people in the individual market — people who shop for coverage on their own — are affected by the wave of Obamacare-related cancellations.”

It gets worse. My friends at the American Freedom Law Center (on whose advisory board I sit) are representing Priests for Life, a group aggrieved by Obamacare’s denial of religious liberty — specifically, the ACA’s mandate that believers, despite their faith-based objections, provide their employees with coverage for the use of abortifacients and contraceptives. On October 17, the Obama Department of Health and Human Services, represented by the Obama Justice Department, submitted a brief to the federal district court in Washington, opposing Priests for Life’s summary judgment motion. On page 27 of its brief, the Justice Department makes the following remarkable assertion:

The [ACA’s] grandfathering provision’s incremental transition does not undermine the government’s interests in a significant way. [Citing, among other sources, the Federal Register.] Even under the grandfathering provision, it is projected that more group health plans will transition to the requirements under the regulations as time goes on. Defendants have estimated that a majority of group health plans will have lost their grandfather status by the end of 2013.

HHS and the Justice Department cite the same section of the Federal Register referred to by John Hinderaker, as well as an annual survey on “Employer Health Benefits” compiled by the Kaiser Family Foundation in 2012.

So, while the president has been telling us that, under the vaunted grandfathering provision, all Americans who like their health-insurance plans will be able to keep them, “period,” his administration has been representing in federal court that most health plans would lose their “grandfather status” by the end of this year. Not just the “5 percent” of individual-market consumers, but close to all consumers — including well over 100 million American workers who get coverage through their jobs — have been expected by the president swiftly to “transition to the requirements under the [Obamacare] regulations.” That is, their health-insurance plans would be eliminated. They would be forced into Obamacare-compliant plans, with all the prohibitive price hikes and coercive mandates that “transition” portends.

Obamacare is a massive fraudulent scheme. A criminal investigation should be opened. Obviously, the Obama Justice Department will not do that, but the House of Representatives should commence hearings into the offenses that have been committed in the president’s deception of the American people.

— Andrew C. McCarthy is a senior fellow at the National Review Institute. He is the author, most recently, of Spring Fever: The Illusion of Islamic Democracy.

Last week I was riding my exercise bike when I almost fell off of it laughing.  Bill O’Reilly and liberal contributor Kirsten Powers were in agreement that Obama didn’t “lie” when he made his now-infamous “if you like your health plan you can keep it.  Period” promises.  And the conservative was sputtering mad, saying, “I can’t believe you are giving [Obama] a pass.”

Kirsten Powers is a liberal, but there are moments when she opens her eyes just a little bit.  She understood the horns of the dilemma she was embracing, and stated it for the record to O’Reilly viewers.  “Giving him a pass?  We’re saying he’s incompetent.  How is that giving him a pass?”

Those are your only two options here: either Obama has no business being president, is in so far over his head it is beyond unreal, and has no idea how to run a staff or accomplish anything relating to running a government.  Or he is a demon-possessed liar.

Actually, there is a third alternative: Obama is both incompetent AND a demon possessed liar.

In any event, O’Reilly and Powers – in giving Obama the benefit of the doubt regarding his honesty and integrity – now stand proven wrong.  Yes, I agree with them that Obama is very clearly incompetent.  But the man lied through his teeth, and there isn’t enough incompetence in the world to excuse him from what he clearly had to know as not only a lawyer, not only the onetime editor of the Harvard Law Review, but “a constitutional professor” as well.

This is what Obama’s Department of Justice was arguing:

The [ACA’s] grandfathering provision’s incremental transition does not undermine the government’s interests in a significant way.  Even under the grandfathering provision, it is projected that more group health plans will transition to the requirements under the regulations as time goes on. Defendants have estimated that a majority of group health plans will have lost their grandfather status by the end of 2013.

“Group health plans” include employer-based coverage plans.  This DOJ brief is a legal document; if it is false Eric Holder needs to go to prison for that CRIME.  And Obama’s DOJ was filing this brief IMMEDIATELY PRIOR TO OBAMA GOING OUT AND MISREPRESENTING THE OFFICIAL POSITION OF THE ADMINISTRATION [LYING].

The Department of Justice, in a legal court case (with Kathleen Sabelius’ Department of Health and Human Services as the defendant), officially projected that “A MAJORITY” of employer-based health plans will be “transitioned,” i.e., will be cancelled or substantially altered such that TENS OF MILLIONS OF AMERICANS WILL BE FORCED INTO OBAMACARE.

We can go back to 2010 when Republican Senator Enzi pointed this fact out and tried to pass a bill through Harry Reid’s Democrat Senate protecting Americans from this health care holocaust.  AND EVERY SINGLE DEMOCRAT VOTED TO CANCEL THE AMERICAN PEOPLE’S HEALTH CARE PLANS TO FORCE THEM INTO OBAMACARE.  PERIOD.

Consider the quote the fourth paragraph up again.  This is what Andrew McCarthy said in a discussion with Megyn Kelly last night:

KELLY: And so the administration in this case goes in and tells the court. I mean, tell us, take the legalese out of it. And tell us, that full screen we had on the board up there, what does it actually say?

MCCARTHY: What they are basically saying  is that we have this grandfather provision — they don’t say in there, by the way, that’s what the president is relying on to say if you like your health care plan you can keep your health care plan, period. We have this grandfather provision, but it’s fading away. In fact, by the end of 2013, we anticipate that most who were covered by the grandfather provision will lose their coverage.

KELLY: And they’re not just — the shocking thing about this is, they’re not just saying, and it’s only those on the individual market judge. I mean, this is in writing saying, it is most group health plans.

MCCARTHY: Megyn, that only is not true, they cite to a Kaiser study which is about employer health plans. I mean, the whole thing is about employer health plans. They cite to page in the federal register which also is about employer health plans and basically estimates that about seven of 10 people on the high end estimate who have employer health plans, these are the people who get their coverage at work are going to lose that coverage.

KELLY: Yes. We know about that piece in the federal register, we talked about that a while back. Because it was shocking when we first saw it about the estimates from the administration on how many people are going to lose their policies, or have them changed significantly under ObamaCare.  But what we have now is the Department of Justice running into court and touting it. Today, present day. Because that regulation was 2010 right after ObamaCare was passed. This is present day, them going into court and saying, trust this judge. The majority of people who have group health plans are going to be canceled.

MCCARTHY: That’s exactly right.

KELLY: What does that mean? What does canceled mean in the group health care context. It doesn’t necessarily mean the same for people who have employer-based insurance as it does for those in the individual market.

MCCARTHY: Yes, the word they used is transition. They don’t say cancel.  They do say, lose your coverage which means that you won’t have the same coverage that you have now.

KELLY: Like, we’re not breaking up. We are just transitioning into new relationships that have nothing else to do with one another.

So, yes, a good 100 million American families will lose their employer-based health coverage under ObamaCare.  And Obama knows it.  And his Department of Justice knows it.  And his Department of Health and Human Services knows it.  There are over 150 million Americans who get their coverage from their employers – and the Obama administrating was touting the fact that 70% of them would lose their plans and be forced to “transition” into ObamaCare.

The sheer, galling, rabid dishonesty of Barack Hussein Obama and all the thugs who work for him is beyond stunning.

Barack Obama has lied America into a state of complete economic collapse.  He has already lied America into the collapse of the American health care system that, in spite of liberals idiotic railings, provided the very best on planet earth such that when world leaders needed the best health care in the world, THEY CAME TO AMERICA.

As we speak, the five million Americans that Obama has written off and couldn’t give less of a damn about are in a true crisis: they have until December 15 to purchase health care plans because they were dumped due to ObamaCare regulations.  And the ObamaCare website doesn’t work, which means they can’t buy a plan even at the higher premiums and higher deductibles that ObamaCare is offering (in spite of another lie from Obama to make his plans more “affordable”).  There are people with life-threatening health issues who could literally die.  That is PRECISELY the case facing Edie Littlefield Sundby.

Thirty-six times Obama said something very similar to this on camera in front of millions of Americans:

“No matter how we reform health care, we will keep this promise: If you like your doctor, you will be able to keep your doctor. Period. If you like your health care plan, you will be able to keep your health care plan. Period. No one will take it away. No matter what.”

Barack Obama has refused to hold ANYBODY accountable for ANYTHING, dating back to the Fast and Furious scandal where a US Border Patrol officer was gunned down and murdered by a Mexican drug cartel with guns that Barack Obama and Eric Holder handed to them.  Obama hasn’t held ANYBODY accountable for the fact that the first US ambassador since the despicable Carter years (1979) was murdered after BEGGING Obama for more protection in Benghazi, Libya.  We now know that Obama himself, his Secretary to the United Nations and his Secretary of State all directly lied when they claimed that the preplanned and coordinated terrorist attack was merely the haphazard result of a Youtube video.  And we KNOW that video was never part of the reason for that attack, just as we know that the Obama regime knew that at the time.  Obama hasn’t held ANYBODY accountable for the fact that his very own IRS politically attacked Obama opponents for “anti-Obama rhetoric.”  We know that Obama has refused to hold ANYBODY accountable for the incredible police-state abuses of the National Security Agency as they’ve done whatever the hell they want to spy on whoever the hell they want whether the Constitution bans it or not.  And he hasn’t held ANYBODY accountable for the abject nightmare of his “signature legislative achievement.”

We need to hold OBAMA accountable.  Or don’t you DARE ever get upset when a president lies to the people again.  This is a man who is clearly guilty of committing felony fraud by inducement – and he committed against more human beings than any leader who ever lived in all of human history.

Now we know why Obama abrogated the ObamaCare law and gave employers until AFTER the election to be held accountable to ObamaCare regulations.  Because the same Obama who knew damn well that millions of Americans would have their individual health care plans forcibly cancelled, he also knew that 100 million employees would have their health care cancelled if his abomination of health care took effect before the 2014 election.

Update, 11/22/2013:

There is absolutely ZERO question that Barack Obama KNEW that millions of Americans were going to have their health care cancelled due to ObamaCare.  This from the “Health Care Summit” back in February 25, 2010:

REPRESENTATIVE CANTOR: Well, actually, Mr. President, this is the Senate bill along with the 11-page proposal that you put up online that really I think is the basis for the discussion here.

But I do want to go back to your suggestion as to why we’re here. And you suggested that maybe we are here to find some points of agreement to bridge the gap in our differences. And I do like to go back to basics. We’re here because we Republicans care about health care just as the Democrats in this room. And when the Speaker cites her letters from the folks in Michigan and the Leader talks about the letters he has received, Mr. Andrews, his — all of us share the concerns when people are allegedly wronged in our health care system. I mean, I think that is sort of a given.

We don’t care for this bill. I think you know that. The American people don’t care for the bill. I think that we’ve demonstrated in polling that they don’t. But there is a reason why we all voted no. And it does have to do with the philosophical difference that you point out. It does have to do with our fear that if you say that Washington can be the one to define essential health benefits, there may be a problem with that. And that’s the language that’s in the Section 1302 of this bill, that it says that the Secretary shall define for people what essential health benefits are.

But let’s — in the spirit of trying to come together, let’s try and say, maybe if — if we assume that Washington could do that, could really take the place of every American and decide what is most essential, what would be the consequences? And that’s also where we have a big difference in this bill and what would happen.

First of all, the cost, and Jon Kyl laid out the tremendous cost in the nearly trillion dollars of this bill. And I don’t quite know, because CBO said it couldn’t assess how much your additions would cost to it, but we do know that there are plenty of taxes on income. Now, you suggest investment income should be taxed. We have additional taxes on medical devices and the rest. What is a consequence of that? We know there are consequences that small businesses will feel because of the impact on job creation.

But also, Mr. President, when we were here abut a year ago across the street, you started the health care summit by saying one of the promises you want to make is that people ought to be able to keep the health insurance that they have. Because as we also know, most people in this country do have insurance and an overwhelming majority of people do like that coverage; it’s just too expensive.

Well, the CBO sent a letter — I think it was to Leader Reid — about the Senate bill. And in that letter, it suggested that between 8 million and 9 million people may very well lose the coverage that they have because of this, because of the construct of this bill. That’s our concern. And so, as we are in — as we are in the market — in the section of this discussion about health insurance reform, I note, Mr. President, that you have suggested strengthening oversight of insurance premium increases. Because we want to make sure that there aren’t excessive insurance premium increases that take place.

The problem is when you start to mandate all of the essential benefits, there are going to be some insurance premium increases. None of us really want to see them. But if you stop them, who is going to pay for it? Well, then we get back to the fact that businesses won’t be able to pay for it and people are going to lose their coverage.

So I guess my question to you is, in the construct of this bill, if we want to find agreement, we really do need to set this aside. And we really do need to say, okay, the fundamental structure is something we can’t agree on, but there are certainly plenty of areas of agreement. And because I don’t think that you can answer the question in the positive to say that people will be able to maintain their coverage, people will be able to see the doctors they want in the kind of bill that you’re proposing.

THE PRESIDENT: Well, let me — since you asked me a question, let me respond. The 8 to 9 million people that you refer to that might have to change their coverage — keep in mind out of the 300 million Americans that we’re talking about — would be folks who the CBO, the Congressional Budget Office, estimates would find the deal in the exchange better. It would be a better deal. So, yes, they would change coverage, because they’ve got more choice and competition. So let’s just be clear about that, point number one.

When Obama came out and said he had no idea that 5 million people AND COUNTING would lose their health insurance because of the way his damn law was written, he is nothing but a stone cold LIAR without shame, without decency, without virtue and without integrity.

Here is the video [accessed here] of Barack Obama back in February 25, 2010 when he openly admitted what he denies right now:

Also back in 2010, Obama regime officials KNEW that nearly 100 million Americans (93 million was their number) would lose their health insurance due to ObamaCare and be forced to come crawling to Obama for their health insurance.  So he knew that his “8 to 9 million” “out of the 300 million Americans that we’re talking about” was a lie, too.

It is not enough to say that Barack Hussein Obama is a dishonest man.  He is a pathologically, rabidly dishonest man.

There is absolutely no question that Barack Obama knew that when he said, “if you like your health plan, you can keep your health plan.  Period,” he was lying through his teeth.  Period.

Advertisements

Obama And Holder Again Attacking Jesus Christ And Any Young People Who Might Believe In Him (Worship The State Instead, Kids!)

July 23, 2013

Poor troubled kids have a problem according to Barack Obama and Eric Holder.  They are worshiping the wrong god.

Here’s how Obama wants these kids to act:

But, sadly, troubled kids in Louisiana who would otherwise turn to crime are being taught to consider the God of the Bible.  Which means Obama and his lawthug Holder must persecute them:

Louisiana Young Marines Program Loses Federal Funding Over ‘Religious Activities’
July 2, 2013 |  Filed under: Law & Government,Life & Society,Top Stories |  By: Garrett Haley

Young MarinesBOSSIER CITY, Lou. – The sheriff of a Louisiana parish is stunned after Department of Justice funds were cut from a local Young Marines chapter, simply because some of the organization’s activities were deemed to be “religious.”

According to reports, the Louisiana Commission on Law Enforcement (LCLE) stripped $30,000 in allotted DOJ funding from the Bossier Parish’s Young Marines unit, which is a character-building program designed to encourage healthy lifestyles for members. An official for the DOJ told reporters that the cuts were due to voluntary student-led prayers and a mention of “church” in a Young Marine oath.

“[DOJ regulations prohibit] funding on inherently religious activities, such as prayer, religious instruction and proselytization,” he told columnist Todd Starnes. “And any religious activities must be kept separate in time or location from DOJ-funded activities.”

Julian Whittington, sheriff of Bossier Parish and a coordinator of the Young Marines program, is thoroughly disgusted by the DOJ and LCLE’s decision, saying it was “aggression and infringement of our religious freedoms.” After the funds were cut, DOJ officials told Whittington he would have to write a letter, promising not to pray or use the word “God” in Young Marines meetings, or else the money would never be restored.

“I flat said, ‘It’s not going to happen,’” he told reporters. “Enough is enough. This is the United States of America—and the idea that the mere mention of God or voluntary prayer is prohibited is ridiculous.”

Whittington further emphasized that he’s more concerned about the censorship than he is the lost funds.

“The money is not the issue,” he stated. “It’s the principle of the matter. What is going on here? Who is dictating what can or can’t be said in Bossier Parish?”

For over ten years, the Bossier sheriff’s office has facilitated the local Young Marines program, graduating over 1,000 participants since the chapter’s inception. According to the Young Marines’ national website, the organization “promotes the mental, moral, and physical development of its members,” and also “focuses on character building, leadership, and promotes a healthy, drug-free lifestyle.”

Participants in the Young Marines program are asked to recite the following oath:

“From this day forward, I sincerely promise, I will set an example for all other youth to follow and I shall never do anything that would bring disgrace or dishonor upon God, my country and its flag, my parents, myself or the Young Marines. These I will honor and respect in a manner that will reflect credit upon them and myself. Semper Fidelis.”

Government officials took issue with the first sentence’s mention of God, saying any federally-funded institution should not include religious overtones. However, Starnes recently pointed out that both the U.S. military’s commissioning oath and enlistment oath include the phrase, “So help me God.” And Whittington further asserted the inconsistency of the decision when he mentioned to local TV station KTBS that both the Pledge of Allegiance and the dollar bill include references to God.

Despite the funding controversy, Bossier Parrish’s Young Marines unit appears to be going strong, receiving an outpouring of financial support in response to the ordeal, according to the Shreveport Times. Just last week, another 15 young people were graduated from the program. At the ceremony, Whittington stated that the DOJ had overstepped its rightful authority.

“It’s more about the principle of the issue that Department of Justice can come down here in Bossier City, in our building and tell us what these young people just recited—a voluntary prayer,” he explained to reporters. “We don’t believe that’s offensive. We’ve never had a complaint, and we’re going to keep it in our program as long as we’re doing it here at the Bossier Sheriff’s Office.”

Photo: Bossier Sheriff’s Office

Under the “fundamental transformation” of Obama’s God damn America, it’s a crime to worship Jesus.  Unless you worship “Black Jesus” Obama.

In Obama’s God Damn America, America now teaches Palestinian kids that “Jews are wolves.”  Because Judeo-Christianity doesn’t worship Obama.

In Obama’s God Damn America, the Bible (which condemns homosexuality as an “abomination” [Leviticus 18] that will result in the full wrath of God on any culture that embraces it [Romans 1]) is out and homosexual perversion is in.

Obama Rejected His OWN LAWYERS When He Waged His ‘Not-War’ With Libya And Ignored Congress

June 18, 2011

When Bush – during the tense crisis-aftermath of having just been horribly attacked by terrorists and having no idea if we’d be attacked again – asked his lawyers what he could do and what he could not do, HE LISTENED TO THEM.

Obama, the self-righteous hypocrite, denounced Bush for listening to the conclusions of his top laywers.  Obama and his legal puppet Eric Holder actually wanted to criminalize the men who did what they had to do during an incredibly dangerous time for our nation.  They actually sought to politicize the war and hold the previous administration criminally responsible basically for not being as foolish as the Obama Administration and it’s “man-caused disasters” instead of “terrorism” and it’s “overseas contingency operation” instead of “war on terror.”

But now we Obama is greater than his lawyers, and certainly far greater than the Constitution, in his own diseased mind.

Obama rejects top lawyers’ views on war power in Libya
Key figures in administration’s legal team questioned continuation of air war without Congress’ OK
By CHARLIE SAVAGE
June 17, 2011

WASHINGTON — President Obama rejected the views of top lawyers at the Pentagon and the Justice Department when he decided that he had the legal authority to continue American military participation in the air war in Libya without Congressional authorization, according to officials familiar with internal administration deliberations.

Jeh C. Johnson, the Pentagon general counsel, and Caroline D. Krass, the acting head of the Justice Department’s Office of Legal Counsel, had told the White House that they believed that the United States military’s activities in the NATO-led air war amounted to “hostilities.” Under the War Powers Resolution, that would have required Mr. Obama to terminate or scale back the mission after May 20.

But Mr. Obama decided instead to adopt the legal analysis of several other senior members of his legal team — including the White House counsel, Robert Bauer, and the State Department legal adviser, Harold H. Koh — who argued that the United States military’s activities fell short of “hostilities.” Under that view, Mr. Obama needed no permission from Congress to continue the mission unchanged.

Presidents have the legal authority to override the legal conclusions of the Office of Legal Counsel and to act in a manner that is contrary to its advice, but it is extraordinarily rare for that to happen. Under normal circumstances, the office’s interpretation of the law is legally binding on the executive branch.

A White House spokesman, Eric Schultz, said there had been “a full airing of views within the administration and a robust process” that led Mr. Obama to his view that the Libya campaign was not covered by a provision of the War Powers Resolution that requires presidents to halt unauthorized hostilities after 60 days.

“It should come as no surprise that there would be some disagreements, even within an administration, regarding the application of a statute that is nearly 40 years old to a unique and evolving conflict,” Mr. Schultz said. “Those disagreements are ordinary and healthy.”

Still, the disclosure that key figures on the administration’s legal team disagreed with Mr. Obama’s legal view could fuel restiveness in Congress, where lawmakers from both parties this week strongly criticized the White House’s contention that the president could continue the Libya campaign without their authorization because the campaign was not “hostilities.”

The White House unveiled its interpretation of the War Powers Resolution in a package about Libya it sent to Congress late Wednesday. On Thursday, the House speaker, John A. Boehner, Republican of Ohio, demanded to know whether the Office of Legal Counsel had agreed.

“The administration gave its opinion on the War Powers Resolution, but it didn’t answer the questions in my letter as to whether the Office of Legal Counsel agrees with them,” he said. “The White House says there are no hostilities taking place. Yet we’ve got drone attacks under way. We’re spending $10 million a day. We’re part of an effort to drop bombs on Qaddafi’s compounds. It just doesn’t pass the straight-face test, in my view, that we’re not in the midst of hostilities.”

A sticking point for some skeptics was whether any mission that included firing missiles from drone aircraft could be portrayed as not amounting to hostilities.

As the May 20 deadline approached, Mr. Johnsen advocated stopping the drone strikes as a way to bolster the view that the remaining activities in support of NATO allies were not subject to the deadline, officials said. But Mr. Obama ultimately decided that there was no legal requirement to change anything about the military mission.

The administration followed an unusual process in developing its position. Traditionally, the Office of Legal Counsel solicits views from different agencies and then decides what the best interpretation of the law is. The attorney general or the president can overrule its views, but rarely do.

In this case, however, Ms. Krass was asked to submit the Office of Legal Counsel’s thoughts in a less formal way to the White House, along with the views of lawyers at other agencies. After several meetings and phone calls, the rival legal analyses were submitted to Mr. Obama, who is a constitutional lawyer, and he made the decision.

A senior White House official, who spoke on the condition of anonymity to talk about the internal deliberations, said the process was “legitimate” because “everyone knew at the end of the day this was a decision the president had to make” and the competing views were given a full airing before Mr. Obama.

The theory Mr. Obama embraced holds that American forces have not been in “hostilities” as envisioned by the War Powers Resolution at least since early April, when NATO took over the responsibility for the no-fly zone and the United States shifted to a supporting role providing refueling assistance and surveillance — although remotely piloted American drones are still periodically firing missiles.

The administration has also emphasized that there are no troops on the ground, that Libyan forces are unable to fire at them meaningfully and that the military mission is constrained from escalating by a United Nations Security Council resolution.

That position has attracted criticism. Jack L. Goldsmith, who led the Office of Legal Counsel during the Bush administration, has written that the administration’s interpretation is “aggressive” and unpersuasive, although he also acknowledged that there was no clear answer and little chance of a definitive court ruling, so the reaction of Congress would resolve it.

Walter Dellinger, who led the Office of Legal Counsel during the Clinton administration, said that while “this is not an easy question,” Mr. Obama’s position was “both defensible and consistent with the position of previous administrations.” Still, he criticized the administration’s decision-making process.

“Decisions about the lawfulness of major presidential actions should be made by the Department of Justice, and within the department by the Office of Legal Counsel, after consultation with affected agencies,” he said. “The president always has the power of final decision.”

Other high-level Justice lawyers were also involved in the deliberations, and Attorney General Eric H. Holder Jr. supported Ms. Krass’s view, officials said.

Matthew Miller, a Justice Department spokesman, said, “Our views were heard, as were other views, and the president then made the decision as was appropriate for him to do.”

This article, “Obama Rejects 2 Top Lawyers’ Views on War Power in Libya,” first appeared in The New York Times.

Even DEMOCRATS are now beyond outraged for Obama’s contempt for the truth and for basic reality:

Representative Lynn Woolsey charged the President of showing “contempt” for the Constitution, and insulting the intelligence of the American people.  Woolsey made the following statement: “The Obama Administration’s argument is one that shows contempt for the Constitution and for the executive’s co-equal branch of government, the United States Congress.  To say that our aggressive bombing of Libya does not rise to the level of ‘hostilities’ flies in the face of common sense and is an insult to the intelligence of the American people.  This act must not stand, because we can’t afford another full-blown war—the ones we’re already fighting are bankrupting us morally and fiscally.  Let those who support the military campaign against Libya make their case, in an open debate culminating with a vote in the U.S. Congress.  The American people deserve nothing less.”

Democrats denounced the two wars Bush waged in Afghanistan and Iraq.  Obama is still in both countries, but in addition he is now bombing three others.  WE ARE NOW IN FIVE WARS UNDER OBAMA.

And now we learn that we is circumventing the normal proces and not even bothering to listen to his own top lawyers.

What we are finding out is that Democrats are the quintessential essence of hypocrisy, with way too few exceptions.  Where are all the damn liberal protestors shouting about all these outrages?  They crawled out from every rock when Bush was president.

Barack Obama should be impeached according to the standard of BARACK OBAMA:

“The President does not have power under the Constitution to unilaterally authorize a military attack in a situation that does not involve stopping an actual or imminent threat to the nation,” Obama responded [on December 20, 2007].

Unlike Barack Obama, George Bush NEVER ACTED IN SUCH A MANNER.

If Democrats had any honor or integrity whatsoever, this would not stand.  The problem is that they don’t.

We have a fascist for a president.

Update, 6/18: Headline: “NATO bombs Tripoli, sending Khadafy into rage.”  Strange, this.  It seems that Qaddafi is under the clearly completely false impression that Obama constantly bombing his country somehow qualifies as “hostilities” or mayhap even “war.”  I’m sure it’s all just a complete misunderstanding, one that the Teleprompter-in-Chief could lay to rest with one of his long speeches.

Dept Of Justice Attorney Resigns Due To Obama Obstruction Of Justice In Black Panther Case

May 20, 2010

We pointed this abortion of justice out (that’s when justice gets treated like something that doesn’t deserve to exist and murdered, liberals) some time ago.

DOJ Voting Rights attorney resigns over Black Panthers stonewalling
By: J.P. Freire
Associate Commentary Editor
05/18/10 6:40 PM EDT

A trial attorney with the Department of Justice’s Voting Rights Section has resigned, citing concerns about the government’s refusal to prosecute a case involving voter intimidation by the New Black Panther Party. A letter of resignation obtained by The Washington Examiner from a former Justice Department employee makes clear DOJ has refused to allow attorneys in the Voting Rights Section to testify before the congressionally-chartered bipartisan U.S. Commission on Civil Rights, despite subpoenas that could result in their being held in contempt.

In his letter of resignation, J. Christian Adams said:

On the other hand, the events surrounding the dismissal of United States v. New Black Panther Party, et al., after the trial team sought and obtained an entry of default, has subjected me, Mr. Christopher Coates, and potentially at some point, all members of the team, to a subpoena from the United States Commission on Civil Rights. The subpoena is based on an explicit federal statute and seeks answers about why the case was dismissed.

I have incurred significant personal expense in retaining a number of separate attorneys and firms regarding this subpoena in order to protect my interests and advise me about my personal legal obligation to comply with the subpoena. Over the last few months, one of my attorneys has had multiple communications with Federal Programs regarding the subpoena. My attorney suggested to them that the Department should file a motion in district court to quash the subpoena and thereby resolve conclusively any question about my obligation to comply.

Months ago, my attorney advised the Department that a motion to quash would be welcome, and that I would assert no objection to the motion. Further, my attorney has explicitly sought to ascertain whether Executive Privilege has been invoked regarding the decisions of individuals not in the Voting Section to order the dismissal of the case. If Executive Privilege has been asserted, or will be, obviously I would not comply with the subpoena. These options would provide some conclusive legal certainly about the extent of my obligation to comply with a subpoena issued pursuant to a federal statute. Instead, we have been ordered not to comply with the subpoena, citing a federal regulation (emphasis mine).

Adams also cites his knowledge of the criminal character and “violent tendencies of” members of the New Black Panther Party, saying:

As you also know, the defendants in the New Black Panther lawsuit have become increasingly belligerent in their rhetoric toward the attorneys who brought the case. (See eg., April 23, 2010 statement of Malik Zulu Shabazz,http://www.newblackpanther.com/usccrphony case statement.pdf, describing the “phony case” brought by “the modern day racist lynch mob seeking to hang what [we] think .are [our] modern slaves.”) Their grievances toward us generally echo the assertions that the facts and law did not support the lawsuit against them, ab initio. Knowing intimately the criminal character and violent tendencies of the members of New Black Panther Party, it is my profound hope that these assertions are tempered.

This follows the departure of another attorney, who before transferring to South Carolina, read a statement to a surprised “goodbye luncheon” about his opposition to the way the case is handled (see here). More updates to follow. The document is below:

J. Christian Adams resignation letter 051910

UPDATE: The New Black Panthers’ website appears to be down. You can read Malik Zulu Shabazz’s statement over at Main Justice.

Intimidating men armed with clubs in front of a polling place, you say???  That’s voter intimidation!!!  That’s a violation of Civil Rights!!!  That’s an insult to our entire democracy!!!  These people have to be arrested and prosecuted!!!

Oh, they’re blaaack.  Well, then, it must be okay, then.