So you're saying what, that Obama personally ordered a couple of State staffers to keep quiet? Please.
Hhhmmmm......
Redacted all the pertinent parts from my original post did you? Probably make a perfect candidate to assist, a la State Department spokeswoman Victoria Nuland, the 0 Administration in their continued attempt to "help" the American people "better" understand just what happened in Benghazi, eh?
We have whistle blower protections, a whistle blower being the disclosure by a person, usually an employee in a government agency or private enterprise, to the public or to those in authority, of mismanagement, corruption, illegality, or some other wrongdoing to protect those who inform the public. [
Whistleblowing legal definition of Whistleblowing. Whistleblowing synonyms by the Free Online Law Dictionary. ] as to: Whistleblowing statutes protect from discharge or discrimination an employee who has initiated an investigation of an employer's activities or who has otherwise cooperated with a regulatory agency in carrying out an inquiry or the enforcement of regulations. Federal whistle-blower legislation includes a statute protecting all government employees, 5 U.S.C.A. §§ 2302(b)(8), 2302(b)(9). In the federal civil service, the government is prohibited from taking, or threatening to take, any personnel action against an employee because the employee disclosed information that he or she reasonably believed showed a violation of law, gross mismanagement, gross waste of funds, abuse of authority, or a substantial and specific danger to public safety or health. In order to prevail on a claim, a federal employee must show that a protected disclosure was made, that the accused official knew of the disclosure, that retaliation resulted, and that there was a genuine connection between the retaliation and the employee's action.
You'd lose.
Ford pardoned Nixon, and was generally ineffective. Reagan -- Iran-Contra. Bush 43, rampant incompetence (FEMA, Energy Dept scandal, total failure to prepare for aftermath in Iraq and Afghanistan, disbanding Iraqi army); shredded civil rights (warrantless wiretapping, indefinite detention without due process, torturing suspects, illegal rendition, etc); manipulation of intelligence data and willful refusal to accept weapons inspectors. And unlike Obama, Bush's lies and manipulations sent the US to war with Iraq. Now that is what I call a significant consequence.
So...interesting, you would impeach then attempt a Senate trial against Ford pretty much just for pardoning Nixon, eh? I rather wish he had not pardoned Nixon either, as I want all who commit crimes against, we, the people to be prosecuted , sends a great message to deter future potential wrong doers. But Presidents have the privilege of the power of pardon... so where is your indictable offense again? Explain that please, as you do not even want to prosecute those responsible for mismanagement that led to the death of 4 brave fellow Americans, then tried to cover it up, then tried to intimidate those who had information regarding the truth of the matter from coming forward to inform we, the people, so that our system can improve in the future, to better protect our people out there in very dangerous locales, out their risking, in some cases losing, their lives to represent US, the people.
I think, if memory serves, they held hearings on Iran Contra, and ole Ollie North beat them with their own cudgel if you watch those hearings... never found anything with which to indict [impeach] the Great Ronald Reagan... Democrats Tip O'Neill and then the disgraced Jim Wright had control of the House to bring just such proceedings should they have cared to...and yet nothing..think it was because the loved Reagan? It was Reagan himself on Nov. 25, 1986, not the press, who broke the news linking sales of arms in Iran to supply the Contras in Nicaragua, and pointed out those involved... so advise to please do a bit more homework, then we can discuss further if you like.
And GW, wow... which lies do you speak of? The majority of intelligence agencies, ours and our allies, in the first world held that Saddam was attempting to gain WMDs, particularly nuclear, besides which Saddam had agreed to a cease fire in the First Gulf War in which it was stipulated that he would allow in inspectors...blah blah blah... I mean this, this years-later-quarterbacking of absurdities is way way way past its expiration date, please do yourself a favor, throw it out....it stinks....
But go ahead, start a new thread on GW and all of which you assert, would be happy to prove you wrong on your arguments in oh so myriad ways...as our great leader said famously,
" Bring 'em on".
If I actually had to dig in and list all the times Presidents have lied or failed to predict something that was "obvious" (with the magic power of hindsight, that is), with policy consequences, I'd be here all day.
Yeah? So…? Again, could use that excuse for slothfulness with Nixon, why investigate his “lies”? Nobody died, he won a landslide victory, who was hurt you could say…right? No, he did the wrong things, our representatives in Congress, the judicial and the executive branches did what they were supposed to so that the system will work, continue to work. Now
you are advocating that, since it is your party, that it’s a guy you like, hey, let’s just look the other way.
That is not how it needs be done in America. Sorry, whether your guy or ours, bad deeds need punished. How ‘bout some intellectual honesty here? We can agree on that can we not?
Yes, that's perjury. Obama certainly hasn't perjured himself, and there is no real indication Clinton did either. I.e. no real grounds for impeachment -- except in the fevered dreams of a few partisan hacks, who cannot tolerate the very idea that non-Republicans get voted into office.
Perjury is not required for impeachment. The House can impeach on pretty much any grounds they so decide [ just like the idea behind being able to indict a ham sandwich ]. Booting someone through the trial in the Senate is a much tougher hurdle, never been done. Stop being just partisan and let the truth come out, then lets see… if that is not your view as an American, well….
Fortunately, there is zero indication that there will be any impeachment proceedings as a result of any of this.
Way way way way early yet. Do you start predicting who will... and will not... be in the Final Four in March, the year before, do you?
If so, how often are you right?
Please, just like the common roll of the eyes, a shrug of the shoulders, a loudly uttered, “pfffftttt….”, "please" cannot really be considered a valid argument to any reasoning person, can it?
Nixon ordered his men to subvert the electoral process, the very basis of the legitimacy of our government. At the absolute worst, the Obama administration flubbed the public response to an attack on *cough* a CIA operation, with a few diplomats on site. You did know that 23 out of the 30 people at the Benghazi offices were CIA agents posing as diplomats, and that numerous secret operations were run out of "The Annex" ? Right? Right.
Seems your knowledge regarding the nuance and actual facts in the Watergate Scandal to be a bit thin. Nixon covered up after the fact that these men were sent out to break in and tap the phones of the DNC at the Watergate Complex, Washington, DC. Obama-Hillary et al mismanaged the security beforehand, mismanaged what should have been a rescue attempt that was never even attempted, covered up their incompetence with lies, intimidated those that would tell us the real truth with threats, gagging them from speaking to people trying to find the truth, set up an investigation that left out more of the pertinent details than it included so that “we” might not find out the truth [ if they got their way] and continues this cover up to this day…
So let us know more about this cough worthy CIA operation… what were they doing? Was it legal, was it something like the Iran arms deals maybe? Tell us more…”we” the people want to know…