Forget Trump, Here Are Five Reasons Why Obama Should Have Been Impeached
S E E D E D C O N T E N T
As Democrats privately admit to themselves that there was no Russian collusion, they’ve also shifted gears to focus on the question of obstruction of justice. Despite the Mueller investigation being loaded with anti-Trumpers, even they weren’t able to say that any obstruction occurred. If there’s anything the release of the Mueller report has exposed, it’s not criminal behavior or even impeachable offenses of President Trump, but rather the hypocrisy of Democrats who are willing to call anything an impeachable offense with Trump but pretended the corruption that occurred under Barack Obama was all above board. By any reasonable standard, Congress had multiple impeachable offenses they could have gone after Obama for, but didn’t. Their turning a blind eye to Obama’s corruption completely undermines their efforts today to scandalize Trump and proves that they see two standards of justice: one for Democrats, and one for Republicans. Here are five examples of impeachable offenses that Obama should have been held accountable for, but wasn’t.
5. Illegally creating new laws and entering treaties
Obama’s dictatorial approach to governing would manifest itself many times during his presidency, and any one of them should have had Congress using their check on executive overreach, the power to impeach, but for reasons that can’t be justified, it never happened. One such example is Obama’s unilateral writing of immigration law. It is quite clear that Congress has the power to write immigration law, but Obama decided that since Congress wouldn’t act (and by that, he meant to do exactly what he wanted) he'd simply create a law with his executive pen. When the DREAM Act failed to pass Congress he simply began enforcing it without Congress’s consent by issuing an executive order, known as DACA. It was unconstitutional ( even Obama repeatedly admitted that he didn’t have to power to create immigration law ) and his blatant disregard for the Constitution should have resulted in articles of impeachment being drafted immediately. Lack of accountability to Congress emboldened Obama to expand DACA, but that expansion was quickly fought and defeated in the courts.
In addition to his delusions of dictatorship when it came to writing laws, he also completely ignored the Senate's constitutional role in approving treaties. When it came to his precious and disastrous nuclear treaty with Iran, he knew the GOP-controlled Senate wouldn't ratify it, so he just pretended he didn't need their permission. The same thing happened again with the Paris Agreement. In both cases, Obama cared more about writing his presidential legacy than he did about the Constitution and utterly ignored it.
4. Illegally rewriting existing laws
The most notable example of Obama unilaterally changing existing law without the consent of Congress was Obamacare. According to the Galen Institute, by January 2016, there were at least 70 changes to Obamacare , and “at least 43 of the changes to the Affordable Care Act have been made unilaterally by the Obama administration.”
Obama also unilaterally redefined the meaning of existing laws in order for them to concur with his agenda. In 2016, the Obama administration warned all public and private schools receiving federal funds that “gender identity” was now protected under the 1972 Title IX statute, which protects against sex discrimination. What this effectively did was bully schools into allowing boys to use girls' bathrooms and locker rooms and dorms. Suddenly, “transgender” students' right to use whatever bathroom they felt like trumped the privacy of every other student who might object to having to undress in front of a member of the opposite sex. This also meant that boys declaring themselves “transgender” could play on girls sports teams, and as I’ve covered in the past, this has resulted in male students dominating athletic competitions and ruining opportunities for real girls.
These and other examples are proof that Obama considered himself above the law and the Constitution of the United States.
3. The illegal war in Libya
Democrats often tried to paint the War in Iraq as an illegal war, despite the fact that Congress approved of it, and used that as a basis for calling for George W. Bush’s impeachment. But, when Obama didn’t even go to Congress to start a war in Libya, you didn’t hear any such calls.
Even if you forget the disaster that became of Obama’s war in Libya, what seems to be forgotten is that we never should have been there in the first place. Obama knew Congress was not going to approve of military action in Libya, so instead of going to them for an official declaration of war, he went to the United Nations to get authorization to remove Muammar Gadhafi from power —bypassing Congress’s authority, and as The Washington Time s put it, “dilut[ed] the sovereign power of the United States.”
Obama’s illegal war in Libya proved to be a total disaster. The killing of Gaddafi ultimately led to the destabilizing of the country, enabling ISIS to expand their territory there. Even Obama admitted his actions in Libya were a mistake —but only because of how it turned out, not because of how we got there.
2. Rampant obstruction of justice
I recently documented five high-profile examples of investigations obstructed by Obama and members of his administration and each one of those was an impeachable offense, had Congress had the cajones to hold Obama accountable. But the truth is that obstruction of justice was standard operating procedure in the Obama administration from day one. Midway through his second term, more than half of the nation’s inspectors general wrote a letter to Congress accusing the Obama administration of systemic obstruction of ongoing investigations. That letter should have resulted in the appointment of a special counsel… but Attorney General Eric Holder, who famously called himself Obama’s wingman , wasn’t going to let that happen. In fact, neither Holder or Loretta Lynch, Obama’s second attorney general, ever appointed a special counsel, despite ample times where one should have been appointed. Obama didn’t just appoint attorneys general to lead the Justice Department, he appointed protectors to keep Obama from being held accountable for corruption.
1. Spying on Trump and protecting Hillary
There is n o question that Obama spied on the Trump campaign . We know this happened. We know that this spying was justified using a bogus dossier funded by the Hillary campaign. What began as a means to undermine Trump before the 2016 election ultimately became a means to undermine his presidency. The Mueller investigation, a 22-month effort to uncover alleged Russian collusion predictably turned up nothing, and thankfully, Attorney General William Barr appears to be willing to do something to find out how the illegal spying began . Combine this with Obama’s role in meddling with the investigation of Hillary Clinton , and we get what is truly the biggest political scandal in history. Richard Nixon, had he not resigned, would have been impeached for much less than the crimes of Obama here.
Tags
Who is online
51 visitors
“I recently documented five high-profile examples of investigations obstructed by Obama and members of his administration and each one of those was an impeachable offense, had Congress had the cajones to hold Obama accountable. But the truth is that obstruction of justice was standard operating procedure in the Obama administration from day one. Midway through his second term, more than half of the nation’s inspectors general wrote a letter to Congress accusing the Obama administration of systemic obstruction of ongoing investigations. That letter should have resulted in the appointment of a special counsel… but Attorney General Eric Holder, who famously called himself Obama’s wingman , wasn’t going to let that happen. In fact, neither Holder or Loretta Lynch, Obama’s second attorney general, ever appointed a special counsel, despite ample times where one should have been appointed. Obama didn’t just appoint attorneys general to lead the Justice Department, he appointed protectors to keep Obama from being held accountable for corruption.
1. Spying on Trump and protecting Hillary
There is n o question that Obama spied on the Trump campaign . We know this happened. We know that this spying was justified using a bogus dossier funded by the Hillary campaign. What began as a means to undermine Trump before the 2016 election ultimately became a means to undermine his presidency. The Mueller investigation, a 22-month effort to uncover alleged Russian collusion predictably turned up nothing, and thankfully, Attorney General William Barr appears to be willing to do something to find out how the illegal spying began . Combine this with Obama’s role in meddling with the investigation of Hillary Clinton , and we get what is truly the biggest political scandal in history.”
No, these are all FANTASIES of the ultra-cons, a wondrous wish-list and very little else.
LOL
I remember when they were all strung out and accused Obama of "not knowing the Constitution" which is pretty funny too.
The seeded article is correct on every count and now the Inspector General will soon have a report and there is finally an actual AG who is on the job.
obama was a constitutional hack at best. his lawyers even got laughed out of the supreme court with a 9-0 decision against the admins position.
trump has already beaten obamas record at the supreme court and will continue to do so.
as trump is doing better than obama at the supreme court, that is not saying much for obamas application of our constitution.
obama was just a hack. who is now being investigated for treasonous things.
Yeah, sure.... You guys are so full of impotent rage. Another FAIL! Biggly! Sad.
1. The FBI was keeping tabs on Russia and caught several Trump campaign officials talking to Russian agents. This is confirmed by the Mueller report.
2. If Obama is guilty here then Trump should immediately step down. The Obama Administration did nothing more than use the precedent set by the Bush administration prior. I argued both administrations were overtly generous in their use of "Executive Privilege" but it isn't a crime yet. If we must go and retry Obama then we also must go back and retry Bush. I actually think this would be a great idea! I'm sure we'd all learn something and I'd bet money it wouldn't be what you want.
3. Obama did nothing more in Libya than provide material support (mostly air support) for forces AFTER the Arab League officially asked for it.
4. Changing administrative rules is not rewriting laws. This is how government works. Were it not the case then rejoice(!) Betsy Devos and all the other Trump administrators are so guilty.
5. The DREAM Act was an EO on where to focus immigration. Were this not the case then all the various EOs that Trump has signed for immigration must also be null and void.
It's not the AG's job to impeach a President. It is the job of Congress which was firmly in the hands of Republicans during 6 years of Obama's term in office. If, as you say, he should have been impeached it is only the failings of the Republicans that prevented it.
I actually agree. However, to remove the President you need a 2/3 supermajority in the Senate. The Republicans never had a supermajority in the Senate under Obama, let alone a 2/3 supermajority.
It's designed that way. It should be hard to impeach a President. They never tried. Apparently Obama's alleged crimes didn't rise to the level that they were worth the political costs to impeach.
And there are no Trump crimes whatsoever so any impeachment will be a totally partisan witch hunt the public will have no patience for.
I haven't finished reading the Mueller report yet. Just what the Russian govt. did is a crime. The fact that your president allowed them to do it with impunity is, at the very least, grounds for investigation. There are lots of allegations of crimes in it by your president.
total ignorance has taken many of the right wingers. They have so ingrained themselves with trumpisms and lies that can't see how deep the lies are rising up around them
False
False
Haven't bothered with the Muller report yet have ya
Mitt Romney’s at it again — shading the truth on CBS News’ 60 Minutes .
In this video he’s perpetuating the false Republican narrative that President Obama should have gotten more done during his first two years in office because he had a supermajority in the Senate.
A supermajority is a filibuster-proof 60 or more Senate seats, allowing one party to pass legislation without votes from the other,
Don’t forget: the president needed a supermajority because of the Republicans’ unprecedented use of the filibuster as an obstruction tactic — they’ve used it more than 400 times.
But here’s the deal — the real deal — there actually wasn’t a two year supermajority.
This timeline shows the facts.
President Obama was sworn in on January 20, 2009 with just 58 Senators to support his agenda.
He should have had 59, but Republicans contested Al Franken’s election in Minnesota and he didn’t get seated for seven months.
The President’s cause was helped in April when Pennsylvania’s Republican Senator Arlen Specter switched parties.
That gave the President 59 votes — still a vote shy of the super majority.
But one month later, Democratic Senator Byrd of West Virginia was hospitalized and was basically out of commission.
So while the President’s number on paper was 59 Senators — he was really working with just 58 Senators.
Then in July, Minnesota Senator Al Franken was finally sworn in, giving President Obama the magic 60 — but only in theory, because Senator Byrd was still out.
In August, Senator Ted Kennedy of Massachusetts died and the number went back down to 59 again until Paul Kirk temporarily filled Kennedy’s seat in September.
Any pretense of a supermajority ended on February 4, 2010 when Republican Scott Brown was sworn into the seat Senator Kennedy once held.Do you see a two-year supermajority?
I didn’t think so.
"He said he didn't do it and I believe him." - Donald Trump.
Just keep right on ignoring reality.
And your point is? Do you think anyone here on the right gives a 💩 about what they say?
No, I do not think anyone on the right gives one hoot about facts anymore...
Do you think anyone with intelligence gives a shit what the right says?
Good point. Expressed well.
We should retroactively impeach Obama for all the crimes he committed against America.
But anything Trump does is just fine with you. What a brilliant example of utter hypocrisy.
Why not hold everyone up to equal standards?
They have no standards, except they are always right. Far, far right.
if trump tries to overthrow the results of an election and a sitting president? we will.
equal crime = equal standards
If Obama had been even half as corrupt as Trump, and lied even half as much, you'd be in an outrage - and for good reason.
Honesty, morality, and ethics are things Trump supporters pretend to pay lip service to, while clearly not actually giving a crap about. It's a shame so many of our citizens don't even care about our Constitution or our laws, as long as it's their guy who is violating these things.
Looking at things through such a partisan lens seems to make people immoral, and that's a shame.
You have a problem there already. Obama lied as much if not more than Trump, and Obama's lies were much bigger than Trump's.
Obamacare (aka PPACA) was touted as allowing you to keep your insurance, but within 2 years all insurance ended up being scrapped in favor of the PPACA approved plans.
Obamacare was touted as saving a family of 4 $2500 a year, but that never even came close to materializing. In fact, it caused people to pay more for insurance since not only were the premiums more expensive, but the deductible and OOP were high.
Obama said we needed to help the people of Libya with the humanitarian crisis caused by their civil war. Instead, he removed Gadhafi and caused it to get even more chaotic and dangerous.
Obama's administration when the Benghazi mission was attacked claimed it was a result of a video, when in fact the video actually had nothing to do with it.
Do I need to go on?
You have to be shitting me. Trump has lied over 9,000 times since he's been in office - way more than any other President we've ever had.
I think Trump's attempts at obstruction of justice is a lot worse than anything Obama did. Trump's only loyalty is to himself, not our country, and he spits on our laws and Constitution all the time. He thinks he's an emperor and that laws don't apply to him; he's the same lying, narcissistic, POS he's been his entire life, including all those decades when he was a liberal. Our other Presidents at least gave a crap about the country instead of only themselves.
Bush said "read my lips, no new taxes" and then raised taxes. Obama's promise about the ACA was no worse than that - and actually, I was very happy to have Obamacare when I took 6 months off work to care for my mom. I wouldn't have been able to afford insurance otherwise. Insurance premiums and health care costs have always gone up, but the average percent of increase actually lowered somewhat under the ACA. My biggest issue with the ACA was when the Supreme Court ruled that the fines were legal - while I understand that without healthier people buying in, it's not feasible, I didn't see how the fines could be constitutional (not that I'm a constitutional scholar, but I'm still in disagreement with that ruling).
Libya - meh. All administrations screw up by meddling with other regimes. Again, what Obama did is no worse than what we've done throughout our history. You can also talk about how Reagan's policies led to the creation of the Taliban, or what Bush did in Iraq.
Benghazi - you mean the 10 investigations that the people who bitch about the Mueller investigation were totally in support of? And you really compare Obama falsely blaming a video for the attacks to all the numerous bullshit claims Trump has falsely made, and his retweeting doctored videos, and such? BTW, Iraq had nothing to do with 911, so are you OK with Bush apparently blaming and invading Iraq (when that had nothing to do with the real reason he chose to invade)? Trump is far worse than Bush, Obama, Clinton, and even Nixon at this point.
The fact is, Trump is far more corrupt and unethical, and lies far more often, than any other President.
What has Trump done that is impeachable? Please be specific and what constitutes your reasons as being impeachable.
What were the lies he posted?
We're talking lies here not investigations into criminality. Every President lies, the question is which lies are about important policies. EVERYONE knows Obama lied about the reason behind the Benghazi attack, I just pointed out what the lie was. I was purposely ignoring the investigations as they were about whether Benghazi was bungled in its handling during the attack or not. Was there a stand-down order to forces nearby? Could we have sent air support in time? Those were the questions being asked in all of the Benghazi investigations. But, Obama publicly lied about the cause behind the attack and blamed it on a video, which turned out to not have been the reason behind the attack.
As for Iraq, I believed in the invasion of Iraq as a message to terrorist sponsoring states that we can and will overthrow you if you continue. You are conveniently ignoring the fact that the USA could legally invade Iraq, because there was no peace treaty between the USA and Iraq after the Gulf War in 1991, there was only a Cease Fire. Plus, Iraq admitted multiple times to sponsoring terrorism, particularly against Israel.
You and I are in agreement about the Supreme Court's ruling about the fines for the PPACA. They should never been allowed, but Roberts turned himself into a human pretzel to make them a tax instead.
As I said to people about the Mueller report, to think that Trump obstructed justice with his actions requires you to only interpret everything as being obstruction even if there were plenty of reasons outside of obstruction for Trump to do what he did. For example, I can think of 3 reasons why Trump's firing of Comey cannot be considered obstruction. 1) As President, Trump can fire any member of the Executive Branch for any reason including because they don't get along. 2) Comey's mishandling of the Clinton email scandal. 3) Rod Rosenstein recommended that Comey be fired. None of those reasons involve obstruction and all applied to the Comey situation; but to claim Trump obstructed justice by firing Comey requires that those reasons be completely ignored.
...OTHER than to obstruct an ongoing investigation, which is what the President admitted he did.
"And, in fact, when I decided to just do it, I said to myself, I said: 'You know, this Russia thing with Trump and Russia is a made up story" - Donald Trump
"Comey's mishandling of the Clinton email scandal."
Now that's just hilarious. I'm sure Trump was just furious with how Comey sabotaged the Clinton campaign a week before election day with "We're re-opening the email investigation!". You could not have scripted a better final nail in the coffin to Democrats.
"Rod Rosenstein recommended that Comey be fired."
After being specifically directed to come up with reasons to fire Jim Comey.
"there were plenty of reasons outside of obstruction for Trump to do what he did"
Sure, you can invent any number of reasons, but none of them are Trump literally saying on live TV he fired Comey because of "the Russia thing". Trump believes himself above the law which is why he likely has no idea what he's been doing has only not risen to the irrefutable level of criminal because staff has disobeyed his direct orders as President. they recognized their own jeopardy so took no action and kept him just barely inside the very broad limits of Presidential power. It would be like Nixon ordering the Watergate break in and his guys say they'll do it but end up not going at all but telling Nixon they went but didn't find anything incriminating. Would Nixon be any less criminal at heart? No, but the underlying crime would not have been committed so he might never have resigned or been found out for so many other crimes and ethics violations.
Most Republicans seem to have abandoned any desire to hold their President to any standard of ethics, they now have lowered the bar to concrete evidence of criminal conspiracy with an enemy foreign government, anything less is now a complete vindication for the most unethical dishonest President in US history. The report shows there was conspiracy with an enemy foreign government, they just can't prove it was criminal. They can't prove the Trump campaign staff involved knew they were working with Russian government operatives, so even though they were wet hot for Hillary dirt and were willing to take meetings with Russian nationals offering such, it appears Mueller can't prove it was criminal conspiracy which requires proving they knew who they were really working with. We now know it was the Russian government, Putin has openly admitted it, but I do doubt Carter Page had any clue, I've heard him interviewed and he's about as bright as an oil pan.
But still, do we really just let the Trump campaign off the hook because they were gullible fools? Because they were to fucking stupid to collude? Is that really a valid defense when they ended up getting exactly what they wanted and from Russia's perspective they had witting allies to get their favored candidate elected who they believe would lift sanctions, condone their illegal seizure of Crimea and make big business deals with dirty Russian money.
There aren’t any....
Do we need to get you a shovel?
Wouldn't that be redundant?
The Double Standard at the Heart of the Republican War on Facts
Right-wing politicians can get away with ignoring media criticism, but Democrats have to pay attention to the fact-checkers.
On Tuesday night, as Donald Trump and Democrats delivered competing speeches on immigration and reopening the government , news outlets sprang into action to assess the validity of their claims. Reporters scratched over every word with a fine-tooth comb to split truth from falsehood and the tell public which was which, a longstanding practice that has taken on renewed urgency in the era of QAnon . The Associated Press ran an " AP FACT CHECK " that challenged the truth-challenged president far more than it did the Democrats, but what caught everyone's eye online was this tweet:
It immediately got ratio'd by angry members of the Resistance who compared Trump to a bank robber or a murderer and noted that the president himself had said on camera he would shoulder the blame for a shutdown. It also inspired some commentary about the nature of fact-checking itself: "The fact-checking genre is fine and useful in certain circumstances," tweeted MSNBC host Chris Hayes , "but it is *woefully* under-theorized as an undertaking, which leads it into all kinds of weird, shoddy, and dubious territory."
This debate gets ontological in a hurry, because what counts as a "fact," anyway? When Trump says the wall "is absolutely critical to border security,” how do you fact-check what sounds an awful lot like opinion? (The AP tried anyway, finding that "the evidence is inconclusive." Thanks, guys!) Picking which facts to check, and how minutely you check them, and how you formally rate statements containing splashes of truth and falsehood, is a process shot through with value judgements; anyone who has ever gotten high or majored in the humanities can tell you objective truth is often sought but rarely obtained. The AP ended up checking its own fact-check and finding it lacking, conceding in a statement the tweet "could have done a better job explaining the dynamics that have led to the shutdown."
In practice, public fact-checking depends less on the often-slippery facts and more on the response of the public figures being scrutinized. For fact-checking to be useful, everyone—both the public and politicians—must first agree that facts are useful things and false statements should be condemned and apologized for. The problem is that's not the country we are living in.
The prime example of this is Trump, who has been the target of a barrage of skeptical fact-checking for years now and has mostly ignored it the way he ignores most criticism and correction from the media. Though the president constantly denounces the press—up to and including calling journalists "the enemy of the people"—he rarely makes substantive arguments about why the media is wrong, instead issuing vague blanket denouncements of "fake news."
That might be because Trump's administration is not well-equipped to dispute stories written about it—at the very beginning of his term, the White House spent an inordinate amount of time arguing unsuccessfully about the size of his inauguration crowd. But Trump also knows he doesn't have to try very hard to convince Republicans the media is out to get him. Every Republican president since at least Richard Nixon has painted the press as elitist, liberal, and biased, a charge that may have contained a kernel of truth but quickly became a convenient way to dismiss facts that displeased them. In an effort to fight back against this supposed bias, conservatives have spent decades building an alternative media structure largely disconnected from the mainstream while pushing back on what they see as liberal bias. (That includes complaints about fact-checkers unfairly targeting conservative sites , with Snopes often being singled out .)
The left has its own partisan outlets, of course, and its own complaints about right-wing or pro-corporate bias in the media. If conservative sites and email lists have long spread falsehoods , it should also be said that liberals are not immune from misinformation . Politicians of both parties shade the truth, cherry-pick statistics, and sometimes outright lie. The difference is that conservative media have increasingly merged with the GOP itself, and the elites on the right are less interested than those on the left with good-faith arguments about the truth.
This is most obvious in the case of Fox News, the most influential right-wing media outlet in the country. It's been linked with Trump ever since the network allowed the then-reality TV host to muse racistly about Barack Obama's birthplace in 2011. With Trump in office, it's become difficult to tell where Fox News ends and the administration begins: A disgraced Fox executive and a former Fox host scored jobs under Trump and disinformation machine Sean Hannity has become a presidential adviser in all but name. Trump has at times embraced even fringier figures, as he did when he made an appearance during the 2016 presidential campaign on Alex Jones's Infowars show. The membranes separating nonsense from fact-based opinion, and opinion journalism from political power, are extremely thin on the right.
That's not to say the right-wing media always gives Trump a free pass—this week, Fox anchor Chris Wallace admirably challenged White House spokesperson Sarah Sanders on apparently bogus claims about terrorists slipping past the US southern border. But it does seem like misinformation spreads more easily on the conservative corners of the internet, perhaps partly because older people, who are more likely to vote Republican , are also probably more susceptible to online fake news . And claims of mainstream media bias—warranted or not—have led conservatives to dismiss legitimate stories while excusing outrageous behavior in their own ranks. Many right-wing outlets rallied around Roy Moore when the 2017 Alabama Senate candidate was accused of sexually predatory behavior toward teenagers (Moore ultimately lost). When Republican congressional candidate Greg Gianforte body-slammed a Guardian reporter, some conservatives managed to find room in their hearts to defend him ; after Gianforte won his race, Trump praised him at a rally . (The trend toward dogmatism in right-wing media has been denounced by some conservatives, among them radio host Charlie Sykes .)
A great deal of this dynamic has to do with Trump. Supporting him means, to use conservative journalist Salena Zito's memorable phrase , taking him "seriously, but not literally"—in other words dismissing or discounting the metric tonnage of untruth that comes out of his mouth . When a big part of your job is defending Trump's nonsense, or explaining how actually Trump meant something different from what he said (as billionaire right-winger Peter Thiel was doing as far back as 2016 ), it's hard to simultaneously maintain a rigorous adherence to reality.
But non-Trump Republicans also have a tendency to push aside inconvenient truths and wave off arguments against their policies rather than grappling with them. The most obvious recent example of this was congressional Republicans claiming the experts were wrong about their tax-cut package increasing the deficit, and then, after the experts were largely proven correct, pivoting to demanding government spending be cut to reduce the deficit their tax cuts had helped increase .
This sort of denialism is largely absent from the other side of the aisle. Democratic voters seem to both take their politicians literally and trust the mainstream media to be accurate, and as a result actually care what journalists think. And Democratic politicians spend much more time engaging with fact-checkers on the merits of their arguments. This was on display last summer, when Bernie Sanders got into a dispute with CNN's Jake Tapper and others over the cost of his Medicare for all plan and how much the government would realistically pay hospitals under such a scheme. Whichever side you were on, the argument was firmly grounded in the (fairly technical) details of how one estimates the cost of Sanders's proposed system.
Similarly, when rising left-wing star Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez got dinged by the fact cops for falsely claiming Defense Department accounting errors could fund most of Medicare for all, she initially suggested fact-checkers target the left more often than they do conservatives, but rather quickly turned churlishness into lavish praise of the fact-checking profession:
It's worth pausing to think about the incentives at work here. No conservative in Ocasio-Cortez's position would ever praise the press—in the Trump era, rising right-wingers instead cry fake news and spread dark conspiracy theories . But Trump's constant attacks on the journalists investigating his administration have made the Democratic base think of the press as symbols of virtue. Not even Ocasio-Cortez can get away with decrying the practice of fact-checking.
This restrains the conversation on the left—to an extent. Progressive politicians need to be cautious about backing up their ideas with data: If they say the wrong thing, not only will conservatives jump down their throats, but the same fact-checkers largely trusted by the liberal base will come after them with a barrage of Pinocchios and Pants on Fire. Trump and his allies can always cry fake news and have the support of millions who simply trust their leaders more than journalists. Democrats have no such bailout option.
The question isn't what could make conservatives trust the media again, because it seems clear that a large subset of them never will. Instead, we should ask whether the left will one day follow the right's lead and denounce any journalism that isn't useful to them. Ocasio-Cortez may have inched down that path when she said on a 60 Minutes interview, "I think that there’s a lot of people more concerned about being precisely, factually, and semantically correct than about being morally right.” In this line of criticism ( expounded upon by Eric Levitz in New York ), nit-picky discussions over the exact cost of Medicare for all obscure the larger truth that our current healthcare system is immoral.
This is where the limits of fact-checking become apparent, because facts are not quite the same thing as truth. Facts can tell us that over 27 million Americans lack health insurance, the US spends more per capita than any other country on healthcare, and the expenses are often passed on to people who can't afford to pay their bills . But those facts do not point toward a solution. It's clear that Medicare for all would at least provide insurance to everyone, while shifting the cost of healthcare from individuals and employers to the government. Whether that would save money in the long run—or whether a different model of reform would be more effective—is a matter for competing wonks and studies, not fact-checkers.
Truth is something different, at least to many people—something instinctual rather than reasoned, a feeling that doesn't care about your facts. A truth might be: It is a travesty that people are needlessly bankrupted or killed because they lack access to healthcare that the US, the richest country in the world, could provide if it had the will . Politicians are elected because they speak such truths, not because they have photographic command of the facts. Evidently, enough Americans felt Trump gave them that kind of truth despite his evident disregard for the humdrum stuff of reality for him to be elected president, albeit without even a plurality of the popular vote. To beat Trump in 2020, the left will need to speak an equally powerful truth and convince enough of the country that the government has failed to provide for its citizens and that the wealthy have too much power.
What both sides ought to demand of our politicians is that they construct their truths out of facts, and that they do the hard work of explaining why their proclaimed crises are worthy of urgent solutions. Conservative media failed to do this in Trump's case, instead enabling him to climb to the top of a crowded primary field on demagoguery alone. As the left raises its own champions, it's up to media both mainstream and partisan to take these figures both seriously and literally. This means fact-checking specific claims but also not reducing every debate to whether something is technically true. Moral certainty is no excuse for getting things wrong, but at the same time pointing out factual errors is an insufficient response to Trump.
Fact-checkers thoroughly pointed out Trump's falsehoods before the 2016 election, and here we still are. To beat him, Democrats will have to make arguments that make use of the facts, but also have the ring of truth.
MARTHA RADDATZ : Mike Morell joins us now. Mr. Morell, I want to first get your reaction to what Rudolph Giuliani said.
FMR CIA ACTING DIRECTOR MICHAEL Morell : I mean, one thing that struck me right off the bat was what he said about Benghazi. You know, there was a view out there that she lied about what caused the attack, that she said it was the video. I think one of the really interesting things that is in early 2014, the Federal Bureau of Investigation walked into the House permanent select committee on intelligence and they said that we believe the video was a motivation in this attack. Abu Khattala, who is the only person arrested, said that the video was a motivation. So this idea that the video played no role, which the Republicans keep repeating over and over and over again, just isn't true.
MICHAEL MORELL (FORMER ACTING DIRECTOR OF CIA)
GRAPHICS: MORELL ENDORSES CLINTON, BLASTS TRUMP IN (Off-camera) But she, but those parents have said she said those things to them. That has resonated among the voters.
MARTHA RADDATZ (ABC NEWS)
You know, she said it was terrorism, right, to Chelsea. She said to them, it was the video. Those two things can both be true at the same time. And it turns out, right, it turns out that the video did play a role in that attack. And Republicans don't want people to believe that.
==================================================
The video was a motivation for the attack AND the attack was planned. It was spontaneous as to the time and day, it was planned as to the purpose.
As Morell said, it can be true both that the attack was planned and that it was motivated by the video. The two explanations are not mutually exclusive.
Most people didnt give it enough thought to come to the right conclusion.
And John also calls D-Day a protest that got out of control
Democrats and ring of truth are complete oxymorons.
Abu Khattala was tried and convicted , in the United States, of terrorism in connection with the Benghazi attack .
Because there was no evidence he set a fire himself or shot anyone, he was acquitted on murder charges. According to the United States government prosecutors, Khattala helped devise and form the attack. Some say it was all his idea.
The US government argued in court that Khattala was a leader of the attack, possible THE leader, and he was convicted on four terrorism related charges.
In other words, the United States of America tried and convicted a man who was said to have been an orchestrater of the Benghazi attack, and who is reported to have said it was done as a reaction to the anti-Muhammad video.
To this day there is no one all encompassing narrative of why the attack was done at that time and by those particular Libyans.
Go back and look at Clinton's testimony before Gowdy's Benghazi committee (11 hours). She addresses the matter of the video quite convincingly.
So... He should be removed from office?
I am all for holding Obama and those in his administration accountable for any laws they violated; but "retroactively" impeaching Obama would accomplish nothing- just another waste of tax payer money. We need to save every dollar we can for the House Democrats to investigate how many breaths Trump takes in a day; if he farts more than the average US citizen; his use of twitter can be used as lying to congress; or if he actually a deep cover sleeper for the Russian government- so deep of one that not even Trump himself knows it.
Did you complain about the endless Benghazi investigations and all the money we spent on those?
I've yet to see any real proof of any laws violated by Obama
Did you complain about the endless obstruction that the Obama administration used? How about Holder and Lynch refusing to recuse themselves after being shown to have direct conflicts of interest. No special councils ever granted by those two stalwart Obama lackeys.
IRS hard drives all damaged and conveniently sent to be destroyed at the same time from the very officials that were to be questioned? Those things happen all the time right?/S Too bad the place that was supposed to destroy them didn't- took a whistle blower for them to be found and turned over. How about granting executive privilege to Eric Holder and Holder's wife so they wouldn't have to testify in front of congress over the botched Fast and Furious? After Obama claimed he had no knowledge of the program and never discussed it with Holder? No damn obstruction there.
Anyone supporting Obama has nothing to say about investigations. Mueller and team Obama and Clinton took their best shot and came up empty. I am more concerned about the legality of the FISA warrants, the Obama State Department outing of Trump campaign officials, and the railroading of Carter Page. Very Nixonian using the government to spy on a political opponent.
As for the Dems- they are so full of shit, they can easily pass for Establishment Republicans. They have a clown car bursting with far left loons; their platform is not mainstream; and all they have is "but Trrrrummmmmpppp". Trump sucks, and unless the Dems get their heads out of their asses and find a real moderate to win the nomination; and a political platform that does nothing but cater to their fringe- it will be 4 more years of Trump.
“This astonishing confirmation, made under oath by the FBI, shows that the Obama FBI had to go to President Obama’s White House office to find emails that Hillary Clinton tried to destroy or hide from the American people.” Judicial Watch President Tom Fitton said in a statement. “No wonder Hillary Clinton has thus far skated — Barack Obama is implicated in her email scheme.”
The msm?
MBFC? 
Hard to complain about events that never happened except in the minds of rightwing Obamahaters. And this "article" (a.k.a. rightwing pukefunnel discharge) is a perfect example of that phenomenon.
What crimes? Was he charged with anything? Have you contacted the DOJ? Or are you just whining with your typical BS again? I'd say definitely the latter!
Let's start with the Bushes and Regan
Oh. For. Fuck's. Sake.
KAGA continues his endless flow of garbage onto the NT. Lies, smears, slanders--it's all here. Isn't this trolling?
MASA - Make America Stupid Again
The democrat way....
Yet it seems to only have worked on his deranged haters.
It is the haters of Trump who lack any intelligence at all and have become deranged. It’s called TDS.
It is an opposing view. If you don't agree, either make an argument or ignore it and let it die.
If it were an opinion, KAGA would indicate that with language such as "In my opinion.." or "I think that..." or "It is my feeling that....", etc. I don't see anything close to those phrases in this (or any other) article from this source. All I see are categorical (and false) declarative statements manufactured from the sliime from the rightwing pukefunnel. Let's just start with the opening sentence of this...."thing:"
That's simply a bald-face lie. It's exactly the same way Sarah Sanders lied about "countless numbers" of FBI agents telling her that the Mueller probe was a witch hunt. It's pure fabrication.
Um, he is posting his seed in the OPINION section. He doesn't need to state what he posts is his opinion.
Hope this educates you.
That makes it even worse since there's absolutely nothing in any of the seeded article or his comments that is stated as opinion. Stating multiple times that obviously false claims are established facts isn't opinion. It's lying.
Doesn't have to. It is implied, because it is in the opinion section, that what he is stating is an opinion. No explanation needed.
Now, if you have a problem with his opinions, fine. Don't just call them lies. You need to point out what part of his opinion is wrong, then you can debate the whys.
From the source... Matt Margolis is the author of The Scandalous Presidency of Barack Obama and the bestselling The Worst President in History: The Legacy of Barack Obama . His new book, Trumping Obama: How President Trump Saved Us From Barack Obama's Legacy , will be published in 2019. clearly an opinion writer and not a news reporter thus where it’s seeded.
So calling a massive shit-load of bald-faced lying and calling them "opinions" makes them so? No wonder so many rightwingers just can't understand what fact and truth are.
Indeed. All too often some progressives here assume that it’s a lie to express or seed an opinion in disagreement with their anointed world view.
Thank you
So what are the lies? Be specific with your assertions, and again as to why you think they are lies.
Obviously libs don't know the meaning of opinion., unless it 100 percent fits their narrow world view, it is a lie.
Get over it.
That's the one thing your Scumbag has accomplished.
Comments like the above are what makes the fact that we elected President Trump all the more pleasurable and satisfying to us. The more we see of anger like that from the progressive left the more sure we are that we picked the right person to by the President of all of the American people.
What we have is an "opposing opinion" presented as fact by a dishonest broker. There are about the same number of facts and same amount of evidence in this seed proving Obama committing an impeachable offense as there is proving Donald Trump is really just an evolved rectal wart that was excised off his fathers ass and was then raised as his child.
I’ve known of the author as an opinion writer for about 15 years or so dating back to when he got his career start as a second writer for Blogs for Bush which then became Blogs for Victory. He now writes opinion for the source of the seed, PJMedia.
So, he's got a long standing reputation for being a professional liar. No surprise there.
sorry but having and expressing an opinion or point of view opposed to or in disagreement with your own is not a lie.
Informed opinions should be based on facts but using the thin excuse of "opinion" to package and distribute lies is what you do, every day, day in and day out.
Again, it’s not a lie to hold and express opinions that are in disagreement with secular progressives dogmatic MBFC seal of approval points of view.
At least you're not pretending the messenger isn't a well-known liar. You get partial credit for that.
This seed is another case of "The previous guy did it, so Trump should be able to do it also." It is time for this shit to stop and if it has to be Trump that goes down if we as a nation finally put our foot down, so be it. Maybe the next POTUS will think twice before "going there" if they realize the consequences will be severe, both professionally and personally.
Impeachment is a political process, and requires bi partisan agreement to be anything more than a dog and pony show. Impeaching Obama would have accomplished nothing for the same reason impeaching Trump wouln't either. There is no bipartisan consensus he did anything that requires his removal from office. Republican leaders understood that in 2014 and Democratic leadership knows it as well right now.
Democrats are going to spend the remainder of Trump's first term investigating, trying to find politically damaging talking points. That's all this has ever been about.
Not to mention that even if we had impeached Obama - or we impeach Trump - nothing much would happen, anyway. Clinton was impeached but he didn't lose his job over it. It would be interesting to see whether Nixon would have, if he hadn't resigned.
After the assassination of Lincoln, Andrew Johnson, a southern Democrat from Tennessee became the 17th POTUS and it was largely (incorrectly) assumed that he would cut a deal with the South to end the Civil War. Even though Lee had just surrendered, there were four or five other southern Armies in the field, still fighting Union troops.
He befuddled both the North and South while antagonizing Congress ( still alll Northern & western states ) repeatedly, by trying to fulfill some of Lincoln's lenient policies as well as do what was right for the nation as a whole.
He too was impeached and lived through it.
Interesting reading;
If Trump is impeached yet reelected, the EC should head their heads in shame.
This republic would be a true sham if that happened.
The EC had nothing to do with "Clinton" (I guess you mean Bill) getting re-elected (which was by both a popular and electoral vote landslide). You managed to strike out on just one pitch.
Clinton did not win the popular vote in his first election- unless you consider 43% a majority? He can thank Ross Perot for his victory, and possibly his reelection- though Dole was not a great candidate the secon time around.
As for his second term.
Unless you want to claim Ross Perot didn't get votes that would have gone to Bush and Gore?
He got the majority of the votes (add up Dole's and Perot's vote counts and then look at Clinton's number again). But he got an overwhelming plurality of the popular vote. IOW, he was both the PV and EV winner and, as I said by large margins.
False
Wrong. He’s 100% correct.
Calling false propaganda "opinion" is emblematic for how our rightwing deals with language. Orwell would be so jealous.
Carefully read this op-ed article by our dear KAG. Found it to be enlightening in varying degrees although there is evidence of a certain political slant.
My main takeaway from this----------thing--------is the absolute fact that I now more fully understand why it is that in the last thirty plus years the per cent of corn stalks and waste husks have greatly increased in the making of silage.
An opinion article with a political slant. How shocking!!!
No, an "opinion" article packed with lies--IOW, a political hit piece.
“This astonishing confirmation, made under oath by the FBI, shows that the Obama FBI had to go to President Obama’s White House office to find emails that Hillary Clinton tried to destroy or hide from the American people.” Judicial Watch President Tom Fitton said in a statement. “No wonder Hillary Clinton has thus far skated — Barack Obama is implicated in her email scheme.”
"Here Are Five Reasons Why Obama Should Have Been Impeached"
The BIGGEST OF BIGGLEY'S .....NOT on the list !
Obama …"THE" Hussein, Barrack....Colluded with RUSSIANS:
It’s amazing how the lamestream so called objective media largely covered that up and swept 🧹 it under the rug.