Russia, Obama: what we knew

But what media won’t talk about. Yet at a hearing with Peter Strzock, for proof of the conspiracy, media were forced to talk about what they have ignored for about a year.

Obama’s cybersecurity coordinator confirms Susan Rice ordered him to ‘stand down’ on Russian meddling

by Christian Datoc | June 20, 2018 | Washington Examiner

Michael Daniel confirmed Wednesday that former national security adviser Susan Rice ordered him and his staff to “stand down” in 2016 in regard to Russian attempts to meddle in the 2016 election.

Daniel, special assistant to former President Barack Obama and White House cybersecurity coordinator, told members of the Senate Intelligence Committee that quotes attributed to him in the book, Russian Roulette: The Inside Story of Putin’s War on America and the Election of Donald Trump, were an “accurate rendering of the conversation” he had with Rice and his staff.

Daniel’s staff reportedly responded to the order in “disbelief.”

Over the past year, the Obama administration has been criticized for allegedly being aware of Russian attempts to influence the election yet primarily remaining silent on the subject.

The Washington Post reported that Obama himself — along with three top aides — was given direct evidence from the CIA of Russian President Vladimir Putin’s cyber campaign to influence the election.

The Obama administration reportedly knew of Russia’s actions for months ahead of the 2016 election, but failed to take retaliatory action until December.

“It is the hardest thing about my entire time in government to defend,” a former senior Obama administration official involved in White House deliberations on Russia said of the administration’s inaction. “I feel like we sort of choked.”

https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/news/obamas-cybersecurity-coordinator-confirms-susan-rice-ordered-stand-down-russian-meddling-2016-election

I don’t know, but there are words so much more fitting than “choking.” How about dereliction of duty; or treason; or maybe just fulfilling that super-flexibility role, like President Gumby had promised Putin? Media has been busy ignoring it all.

I remember another distant place where standing down was an issue. Oh yeah, Benghazi.

Obama’s path of treason

Top General Admitting That Obama Knowingly Armed ISIS Committing Treason

Monday, August 17, 2015 | Before its news

WHEN DOES THE IMPOSTER IN CHIEF END UP IN LEAVENWORTH WAITING FOR HIS LONG WALK TO THE GALLOWS?

Forget blaming the “Evil Republicans,” forget blaming Fox News, forget blaming the “Vast Right Wing Conspiracy,” forget blaming race, forget blaming climate change, or lack of climate change, or any other damn thing liberals will come up with as an excuse to exercise their feigned outrage when the rest of the sane people in the country call His Highness’s Ass the TRAITOR that he is. I know how much liberals HATE facts, but they’re just going to have to deal with them here. As my favorite conservative talk show host Andrew Wilkow likes to say, “We’re right, they’re wrong. That’s the end of the story. The arguments here cannot be broken.” I’m [willing] to bet, many of you have a hard time looking in the mirror when you finish reading this, knowing that you did not get involved.

Article III, Section 3 of the United States Constitution:
Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying war against them, or in adhering to their enemies, giving them aid and comfort. No person shall be convicted of treason unless on the testimony of two witnesses to the same overt act, or on confession in open court.
The Congress shall have power to declare the punishment of treason, but no attainder of treason shall work corruption of blood, or forfeiture except during the life of the person attainted.

Since liberals have an uncanny knack for what they call “reading between the lines,” I’ll further elaborate on Treason a bit.

Just so there is no confusion, “the mere attempt to provide support” is TREASON.

Continue http://beforeitsnews.com/politics/2015/08/top-general-admitting-that-obama-knowingly-armed-isis-2735122.html

Related: http://800whistleblower.com/top-general-admitting-that-obama-knowingly-armed-isis-how-is-this-not-blatant-treason/

So the story goes on as does the case against him, as he continues. Obama is an enigma; a living antithesis to the Constitution. He swore to uphold the very thing he is hell bent on violating and destroying.

The ripe fruit of Impeachment

The growing case for impeachment of Obama

What constitutional experts say about high crimes, misdemeanors

2//10/2013
by Chelsea Schilling — WND 

Should Barack Hussein Obama, the 44th president of the United States, be impeached for high crimes and misdemeanors?

It’s not a question yet being asked or debated in the Big Media. But it is a question being addressed by some members of Congress, by an increasing number of pundits by activists on the left and the right – and for more than one or two alleged constitutional offenses.

Some of those who have broached the subject include Reps. Trent Franks, R-Ariz.; Walter Jones, R-N.C.; Trey Radel, R-Fla.; Steve Stockman; former Rep. Ron Paul, R-Texas; former Rep. Dennis Kucinich, D-Ohio; Fox News’ Mike Huckabee; former assistant U.S. attorney Andrew McCarthy; left-leaning investigative reporter Dave Lindorff; talk-radio host Mark Levin; former House Speaker and presidential candidate Newt Gingrich; author and columnist Pat Buchanan and others.

Article II, Section 4, of the U.S. Constitution states, “The President, Vice President and all civil officers of the United States, shall be removed from office on impeachment for, and conviction of, treason, bribery, or other high crimes and misdemeanors.”

The U.S. House of Representatives has the power to commence impeachment proceedings. If the House adopts an impeachment resolution, the U.S. Senate conducts a trial and determines whether to convict or acquit. If an official is convicted, he or she is removed from the position and may be barred from holding office again. The official may also face criminal prosecution.

Only two U.S. president have been impeached by the House: Andrew Johnson and Bill Clinton. However, both presidents were acquitted in the Senate. President Richard Nixon resigned before the full House had voted on his impeachment.

This powerful legislative check on executive and judicial wrongdoing is reserved for the most egregious offenses against the U.S. Constitution and the republic.

During the debates of the Constitutional Convention in 1787, James Madison explained the requirement for impeachment: “[S]ome provision should be made for defending the community against the incapacity, negligence, or perfidy of the chief magistrate. He might pervert his administration into a scheme of peculation or oppression. He might betray his trust to foreign powers.”

In the Federalist Papers (No. 65), Alexander Hamilton wrote that a president should be impeached for “offenses which proceed from the misconduct of public men, or in other words, from the abuse or violation of some public trust. They are of a nature which may with peculiar propriety be denominated political, as they relate chiefly to injuries done immediately to society itself.”

WND assembled a bipartisan panel of top constitutional experts to evaluate 12 popular arguments for impeaching Obama.

“Congress is not the serf of some lord of the manor in the White House.”

Read more at http://www.wnd.com/2013/02/you-asked-for-it-obama-impeachment/#lAuYgv6UEHTvxKsc.99