Author Topic: The single most dangerous question to Obama about Benghazi  (Read 137 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Online rangerrebew

  • America defending Veteran
  • TBR Contributor
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 53,321
  • “It’s easier to fool people than to convince them
- The Daily Sheeple - http://www.thedailysheeple.com -



The single most dangerous question to Obama about Benghazi

Posted By The Hagmann & Hagmann Report On May 22, 2014 @ 6:00 pm In Editor's Choice,Featured,Headlines & Head Lies,International,News,Political Gamesmanship,War and Conflict | 7 Comments


By Douglas J. Hagmann

Although numerous unanswered questions continue to plague the Obama White House about the criminal and murderous events of the Benghazi attacks on September 11, 2012, there is one single question that needs to be asked with absolute precision and answered with authenticated specificity.

It is the question that Obama and a very small contingent of his innermost circle fear the most, for it is my professional investigative assessment, based on insider information, that the answer to this question alone will cause the immediate demands for the impeachment and removal from office of Barack Hussein Obama. It is this precise question:

Where exactly within the White House was Barack Hussein Obama, from the time he left the Oval Office at approximately 7:30 p.m. ET, until the following day when he boarded Air Force One destined for Las Vegas, who was he with, and what were the exact nature of his activities during this period?

Unfortunately, I have significant doubts that specific answers to this multi-part question, subject to verification by Secret Service logs, will be forthcoming or cross-referenced with other internal White House logs and other records that are known to be kept and maintained. I also have serious doubts that the Select Committee will press the issue beyond any vague, superficial and peripheral testimony offered by those called before the investigative body.

It is this one particular question—and a complete, truthful and verifiable answer—that has the ability to completely change the perception of events that have been carefully crafted like a cheap paint-by-numbers picture set suitable for children 8-12 years of age.

Just where was the Commander-in-Chief while Americans were fighting for their lives and awaiting assistance that would never arrive? We now know where he wasn’t, which was in the White House situation room. What activities could possibly take precedence over even a brief “pop-in” to the Situation Room for a strategic, election year photo-op? Think about that and all that it implies for a moment.

Based on information supplied to me by two insider sources, the truthful answers to this multi-part question will never be disclosed—ever. Based on one DC insider who is legally muzzled by multiple national security secrecy oaths, “negotiations” are in progress (or perhaps complete) to make certain the committee will stay away from this question beyond a very narrow line of inquiry. This explains the ostensible partisan cooperation under the direction of Nancy Pelosi, according to my source. There is immense pressure being forced upon the committee chair and others to stay away from this line of questioning beyond the requisite superficiality designed for our entertainment.

Moreover, I have been informed that the Secret Service logs, White House visitor logs, and cross-referencing records “including and especially of those individuals present in the private presidential quarters that would identify the names, ages and alleged purpose for their presence” will never be remitted, at least not in their original form, if at all. Furthermore, any answers relating to this question by witness testimony will not be properly reconciled with any documentation at the depth required.

Robert “Tosh” Plumlee, CIA whistle blower, posed 11 questions about Benghazi to elected officials from both political parties and received no responses in return. I pose one, publicly, for it is the truthful answer to this question that is, and forever will be, the “third rail” of the deepest recesses of insider knowledge.

Wait. Watch. And mark my words.

Delivered by The Daily Sheeple [2]


Contributed by The Hagmann & Hagmann Report of Northeast Intelligence Network [3].

Copyright Douglas Hagmann

Douglas J. Hagmann and his son, Joe Hagmann host The Hagmann & Hagmann Report [4], a live Internet radio program broadcast each weeknight from 8:00-10:00 p.m. ET.

Douglas Hagmann, founder & director of the Northeast Intelligence Network [5], and a multi-state licensed private investigative agency. Doug began using his investigative skills and training to fight terrorism and increase public awareness through his website.


Article printed from The Daily Sheeple: http://www.thedailysheeple.com

URL to article: http://www.thedailysheeple.com/the-single-most-dangerous-question-to-obama-about-benghazi_052014

URLs in this post:

[1] Image: http://www.thedailysheeple.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/04/obama-benghazi_s640x427-220x220.jpg

[2] The Daily Sheeple: http://www.TheDailySheeple.com/

[3] Northeast Intelligence Network: http://www.homelandsecurityus.com

[4] The Hagmann & Hagmann Report: http://www.blogtalkradio.com/cfp-radio.rss

[5] Northeast Intelligence Network: http://www.homelandsecurityus.com/
America will never be destroyed from the outside. If we falter and lose our freedoms, it will be because we destroyed ourselves. Abraham Lincoln

Nearly all men can stand adversity, but if you want to test a man's character, give him power. Abraham Lincoln

Be sure you put your feet in the right place, then stand firm. Abraham Lincoln

Offline Right_in_Virginia

  • Hero Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 16,530
Re: The single most dangerous question to Obama about Benghazi
« Reply #1 on: May 24, 2014, 09:00:03 AM »
Quote
Where exactly within the White House was Barack Hussein Obama, from the time he left the Oval Office at approximately 7:30 p.m. ET, until the following day when he boarded Air Force One destined for Las Vegas, who was he with, and what were the exact nature of his activities during this period?

That sure is a good question.  I'd also like this asked:  What were we doing in and through Benghazi; and did this make murder preferable to rescue? 

Inquiring minds want to know.
"January 20th 2017 will be remembered as the day the people became the rulers of this nation again."  --  President Donald J. Trump

Offline Chieftain

  • AMF, YOYO
  • Hero Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 9,633
  • Your what hurts??
Re: The single most dangerous question to Obama about Benghazi
« Reply #2 on: May 24, 2014, 09:20:47 AM »
Per Wiki....

Quote
The Presidential Succession Act establishes the line of succession to the powers and duties of the office of President of the United States in the event that neither a President nor Vice President is able to "discharge the powers and duties of the office". The current Presidential Succession Act was adopted in 1947 and is codified at 3 U.S.C. § 19.

Congressional authority to enact such a law is twofold: Article II, Section 1, Clause 6 of the United States Constitution and Section 3 of the Twentieth Amendment to the Constitution.

Current text

3 USC § 19. Vacancy in offices of both President and Vice President; officers eligible to act.

    (a)

        (1) If, by reason of death, resignation, removal from office, inability, or failure to qualify, there is neither a President nor Vice President to discharge the powers and duties of the office of President, then the Speaker of the House of Representatives shall, upon his resignation as Speaker and as Representative in Congress, act as President.
        (2) The same rule shall apply in the case of the death, resignation, removal from office, or inability of an individual acting as President under this subsection.

    (b)

        If, at the time when under subsection (a) of this section a Speaker is to begin the discharge of the powers and duties of the office of President, there is no Speaker, or the Speaker fails to qualify as Acting President, then the President pro tempore of the Senate shall, upon his resignation as President pro tempore and as Senator, act as President.

    (c)

        An individual acting as President under subsection (a) or subsection (b) of this section shall continue to act until the expiration of the then current Presidential term, except that -
        (1) if his discharge of the powers and duties of the office is founded in whole or in part on the failure of both the President-elect and the Vice-President-elect to qualify, then he shall act only until a President or Vice President qualifies; and
        (2) if his discharge of the powers and duties of the office is founded in whole or in part on the inability of the President or Vice President, then he shall act only until the removal of the disability of one of such individuals.

    (d)

        (1) If, by reason of death, resignation, removal from office, inability, or failure to qualify, there is no President pro tempore to act as President under subsection (b) of this section, then the officer of the United States who is highest on the following list, and who is not under disability to discharge the powers and duties of the office of President shall act as President: Secretary of State, Secretary of the Treasury, Secretary of Defense, Attorney General, Secretary of the Interior, Secretary of Agriculture, Secretary of Commerce, Secretary of Labor, Secretary of Health and Human Services, Secretary of Housing and Urban Development, Secretary of Transportation, Secretary of Energy, Secretary of Education, Secretary of Veterans Affairs, Secretary of Homeland Security.
        (2) An individual acting as President under this subsection shall continue so to do until the expiration of the then current Presidential term, but not after a qualified and prior-entitled individual is able to act, except that the removal of the disability of an individual higher on the list contained in paragraph (1) of this subsection or the ability to qualify on the part of an individual higher on such list shall not terminate his service.
        (3) The taking of the oath of office by an individual specified in the list in paragraph (1) of this subsection shall be held to constitute his resignation from the office by virtue of the holding of which he qualifies to act as President.

    (e)

        Subsections (a), (b), and (d) of this section shall apply only to such officers as are eligible to the office of President under the Constitution. Subsection (d) of this section shall apply only to officers appointed, by and with the advice and consent of the Senate, prior to the time of the death, resignation, removal from office, inability, or failure to qualify, of the President pro tempore, and only to officers not under impeachment by the House of Representatives at the time the powers and duties of the office of President devolve upon them.

    (f)

        During the period that any individual acts as President under this section, his compensation shall be at the rate then provided by law in the case of the President.

Constitutionality

The constitutionality of the 1947 Act has been disputed. Yale Law School Professor Akhil Reed Amar says the current Presidential Succession Act is "a disastrous statute, an accident waiting to happen".[10] There are two main areas of concern:
Meaning of "officer"

There are concerns regarding the constitutionality of having members of Congress in the line of succession. Article II, Section 1, Clause 6 of the Constitution specifies that only an "Officer" of the United States may be designated as a Presidential successor. Constitutional scholars from James Madison to the present day have argued that the term "Officer" excludes members of Congress.

In testimony before the Senate Judiciary Committee on September 16, 2003, Miller Baker stated:

    The 1947 Act is probably unconstitutional because it appears that the Speaker of the House and the President pro tempore of the Senate are not “Officers” eligible to act as President within the meaning of the Succession Clause. This is because in referring to an “Officer”, the Succession Clause, taken in its context in Section 1 of Article II, probably refers to an “Officer of the United States”, a term of art under the Constitution, rather than any officer, which would include legislative and state officers referred to in the Constitution (e.g., the reference to state militia officers found in Article I, Section 8). In the very next section of Article II, the President is empowered to “require the Opinion, in writing, of the principal Officer in each of the executive Departments” and to appoint, by and with the advice and consent of the Senate, “Officers of the United States”. These are the “Officers” to whom the Succession Clause probably refers. This contextual reading is confirmed by Madison’s notes from the Constitutional Convention, which reveal that the Convention’s Committee of Style, which had no authority to make substantive changes, substituted “Officer” in the Succession Clause in place of “Officer of the United States,” probably because the Committee considered the full phrase redundant.[11]

In "Is the Presidential Succession Law Constitutional",[12] Akhil Reed Amar and Vikram Amar refer to Article I, Section 6, Clause 2 (a.k.a., Incompatibility Clause) as evidence that members of the Congress cannot be in the Presidential line of succession. That clause states:

    No Senator or Representative shall, during the Time for which he was elected, be appointed to any civil Office under the Authority of the United States, which shall have been created, or the Emoluments whereof shall have been encreased during such time; and no Person holding any Office under the United States, shall be a Member of either House during his Continuance in Office.[13]

Bumping

The Act is also controversial because it provides that a cabinet officer can serve as Acting President only until a new Speaker of the House or a new President Pro Tempore of the Senate is chosen, who would then replace him as Acting President. This is sometimes referred to as "bumping"[14] and appears to contradict the text of the Constitution, which says (in Article II, Section 1, Clause 6):
“    ...and such Officer shall act accordingly, until the Disability be removed, or a President shall be elected.    ”

The Continuity of Government Commission argued that as well as going against the language of the Constitution, bumping violates the doctrine of separation of powers by undermining the independence of the executive from the Congress:
“    The Constitution on its face seems to stipulate that once a person is deemed to be acting president by the Presidential Succession Act, he or she cannot be replaced by a different person. This interpretation makes some logical sense as the provision would presumably prevent the confusion that would arise if the presidency were transferred to several different individuals in a short period of time. It would also seemingly prevent Congress from exercising influence on the executive branch by threatening to replace a cabinet member acting as president with a newly elected Speaker of the House.[15]    ”
Political question

Even if a court heard a case regarding whether the Presidential Succession Act of 1947 is unconstitutional, a court may decide not to rule on the merits of such a case. For example, in The Political Question of Presidential Succession, Northwestern University Professor Steven G. Calabresi suggests that this Act's constitutionality may be a political question.[16]

Offline Chieftain

  • AMF, YOYO
  • Hero Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 9,633
  • Your what hurts??
Re: The single most dangerous question to Obama about Benghazi
« Reply #3 on: May 24, 2014, 09:29:43 AM »
Please read over the preceding text....

Even though this Act is not enshrined in law, it has served to guide these matters since WWII.  That said there is plenty of wiggle room in there for a slickster like Obama to dodge his responsibilities and get away with it, especially when he has so many people surrounding him who support him absolutely, above any law and especially above that inconvenient Constitution.

The question is, if Obama was not running things in the Situation Room, then who was??  What "Officer" did he put in charge to act in his stead??  If Obama was not available and could not be found, then who stepped up in his place to act as the President, with or without any authority whatsoever??

Remember when Alexander Haig spoke to the press and told them he was in charge immediately after President Reagan was shot??  He was pilloried in the press for that comment even though it did not come across the way he intended it in a hurried response to a pressing reporter during an actual time of National Crisis.  Haig was indeed holding down the fort until the Vice President could be located and brought back to DC, but Haid mis-spoke and paid the price for it. 

Unfortunately we have a professional media who is ready, willing and able to cover for this Administration (and the next one) no matter what it takes.  The President's National Security Adviser is the brother of the President of ABC News.  A relationship like that would never be allowed in a Republican Administration, but it is being exploited to cover Obama's ass no matter what he says or does, or what failed policy rears its ugly head today.



Share me

Digg  Facebook  SlashDot  Delicious  Technorati  Twitter  Google  Yahoo
Smf