Tuesday, April 29, 2014

"Judicial Watch" finds Obama Admin Email confirming the White House Lied about Benghazi to Save the Presidents Rear-End

Dear All,

Below, is an article just published in the Washington Times that confirms the Obama Administrations intentionally covered up the truth in regards to the tragic Benghazi Affair where US Ambassador Stevens and three others were killed. 

 Sadly, my thoughts go to the families of Ambassador Chris Stevens and the three men who died in Benghazi on 9/11/2012 and how they must feel tonight; knowing that their President and Secretary of State, instead of telling the American people the truth, had the audacity to lie to them and cowardly deciding to not provide them the full facts; just so the they could protect the president’s political rear-end for re-election. 

Just for the record, here is what then Secretary of State Hillary Clinton had to say to a congressman only two days after the attack:

Ill. Rep.: Clinton yelled at congressman for calling Benghazi a terrorist attack

And then Secretary of State Hillary Clinton angrily had this to say during testimony before a congressional hearing on the Benghazi tragedy:

 Hillary Clinton/Ron Johnson Engage in Heated Exchange at Benghazi Hearing (Video)
Excerpt: "With all due respect, the fact is we had four dead Americans," Clinton responded, raising her voice at Johnson, who continued to interrupt her. "Was it because of a protest or was it because of guys out for a walk last night who decided to kill some Americans? What difference at this point does it make? It is our job to figure out what happened and do everything we can to prevent it from ever happening again, Senator."

 “NEVER FORGET” – The families of the dead deserved much better.......as did the Citizens of the United States.

 Ron Kirkish

 Email ensuring ‘Obama looked good’ was post-Benghazi priority

By Cheryl K. Chumley – The Washington Times, Tuesday, April 29, 2014

Key communication chiefs at the White House waged an all-out strategy to rally behind President Obama and help him push the mantra that the Sept. 11, 2012, terrorist attacks on the U.S. facility in Benghazi were due to an Internet video — and not policy failure, a watchdog revealed.

Key to the messaging: Making sure the president appeared strong in the face of adversity, the nonprofit Judicial Watch found, in a recently received FOIA request.

Judicial Watch found — after sifting through documents that were requested from the Department of State on June 21, 2013 — an email from Ben Rhodes, then-White House deputy strategic communications adviser, that showed he joined with others to devise a public relations campaign to “reinforce” Mr. Obama’s statements that an anti-Islam video spurred the attacks.

The main point of the White House team’s strategy was to paint the terrorist attack as being “rooted in an Internet video and not a failure of policy,” Judicial Watch said in an emailed release. Meanwhile, the State Department — at the same time that message was being shaped — initially considered the incident simply an “attack,” and perhaps even a kidnap try, the watchdog said.

The email from Mr. Rhodes, dated Sept. 14, 2012, read in part: “Goal: … To underscore that these protests are rooted in [an] Internet video and not a broader failure or policy.”

Mr. Rhodes also went on, Judicial Watch reported: “[W]e’ve made our views on this video crystal clear. The United States government had nothing to do with it. We reject its message and its contents. We find it disgusting and reprehensible. But there is absolutely no justification at all for responding to this movie with violence. And we are working to make sure that people around the globe hear that message.”

In the email, Mr. Rhodes also advises key White House and administration officials to make sure they presented Mr. Obama as “steady and statesmanlike” whenever speaking of the crisis. Another “goal,” he said, in his email, was to “reinforce the president and administration’s strength and steadiness in dealing with difficult challenges,” Judicial Watch reported.

The recipients of the email included White House press secretary Jay Carney and then-White House Communications Director Dan Pfeiffer, along with several others, Judicial Watch said.

Judicial Watch President Tom Fitton said the latest email only proves that the White House’s main concern in the wake of the Benghazi attack that left four Americans dead was image — more than truth.

“Now we know that Obama White House’s chief concern about the Benghazi attack was making sure that President Obama looked good,” he said in a statement.

Four Americans, including U.S. Ambassador J. Christopher Stevens, died in the terror attack.


Friday, April 25, 2014


Dear All,
It is now becoming undeniably and perfectly clear that President Obama lied once again to the Citizens of America when he pointed his finger at Fox News' Bill O'Reilly during a interview and indignantly  stated, “there is not one scintilla of truth that the IRS did anything scandalous or illegal”.  Same as when former President Richard Nixon held a national news conference and stated, “The President is not a Crook”; when up against the Watergate Scandal.
And then after Lois Lerner (the then Director of the IRS) opined that she was not guilty of any wrong doing, she  took the 5th (twice) so she couldn’t be forced to testify before the Congressional Oversight Committee for the Department of Justice.
Earlier, the Congressional Oversight Committee for the Department of Justice voted to hold USAG Holder in “Contempt of Congress” and just two weeks ago they did the same for Lois Lerner.
The noose is slowing tightening around the necks of these two individuals and the Obama Administration.
Ron Kirkish

Oversight Committee Members Demand Answers About DOJ Role in Targeting Conservative Groups With the IRS

Katie Pavlich | Apr 24, 2014
House Oversight Chairman Darrell Issa and sixteen Committee members are demanding answers from Attorney General Eric Holder after it was revealed last week, through a series of emails, former IRS official Lois Lerner was in contact with the Director of the Election Crimes Branch of the Department of Justice Public Integrity Section Richard Pilger about prosecuting tax exempt groups.  A newly released email obtained by Judicial Watch through a Freedom of Information Request shows someone instructed Pilger to run the idea of prosecution by Lerner, but it is unclear who the instruction came from.
“When you have a moment, would you call me? I have been asked to run something by you," a May 8, 2013 email from Pilger to Lerner states.
Shortly after Pilger's contact, Lerner forwarded the following email to Nicole Flax, the former chief of staff to former IRS Commissioner Steven Miller, who visited the White House 118 times between 2010 and 2011 when the bulk of the IRS targeting of conservatives took place.
"I got a call today from Richard Pilger Director Elections Crimes Branch at DOJ ... He wanted to know who at IRS the DOJ folk s [sic] could talk to about Sen. Whitehouse idea at the hearing that DOJ could piece together false statement cases about applicants who "lied" on their 1024s --saying they weren't planning on doing political activity, and then turning around and making large visible political expenditures.
DOJ is feeling like it needs to respond, but want to talk to the right folks at IRS to see whether there are impediments from our side and what, if any damage this might do to IRS programs.
I told him that sounded like we might need several folks from IRS," Lerner wrote in a May 8, 2013 email.
Flax responded by saying she not only wanted to help, but wanted to rope in the Criminal Division of DOJ.
"I think we should do it – also need to include CI [Criminal Investigation Division], which we can help coordinate.
Also, we need to reach out to FEC.
Does it make sense to consider including them in this or keep it separate?" Flax responded on May 9, 2013.
In another email more than a month before the exchange with DOJ, Lerner detailed how a single prosecution of just one tax-exempt group would essentially send a chilling affect across all [conservative] groups.
"One IRS prosecution would make an impact and they wouldn’t feel so comfortable doing stuff.
So, don’t be fooled about how this is being articulated – it is ALL about 501(c)(4) orgs and political activity," she wrote on March 27, 2013 adding, "There are several groups of folks from the FEC world that are pushing tax fraud prosecution for c4s who report they are not conducting political activity when they are (or these folks think they are).
One is my ex-boss Larry Noble (former General Counsel at the FEC), who is now president of Americans for Campaign Reform.
This is their latest push to shut these down."
Just two days after these emails were exchanged between DOJ, Lerner and Flax, news the IRS inappropriately targeted conservative groups surfaced.
"Mr. Pilger’s communications with Ms. Lerner are also striking for their timing.
They show that the IRS and the Justice Department were actively considering efforts to target tax-exempt organizations just two days before Ms. Lerner’s public apology for the targeting.
This information certainly undermines the sincerity of Ms. Lerner’s apology, but it calls into question your reaction that targeting was “outrageous” and “unacceptable.”
These comments ring hollow in light of evidence that your subordinates apparently colluded with the IRS to target nonprofit groups less than a week before.
We are severely disappointed in the Department’s apparent contribution to the Administration’s targeting of tax-exempt applicants," a letter sent directly to Holder from Issa and other Committee members states.
"This e-mail is shocking on several levels.
As an initial matter, this e-mail is further evidence that the Administration’s targeting and inappropriate treatment of conservative tax-exempt applicants was the result of political pressure from prominent Democrats to “fix the problem” posed by the Supreme Court’s Citizens United decision.
Information obtained by the Committee shows that beginning in 2010, the President and congressional Democrats loudly and aggressively criticized the Court’s decision and conservative nonprofit groups that they believed would benefit from it."
"This e-mail makes clear that the Justice Department, like the IRS and the Securities and Exchange Commission, played a role in a government-wide effort to target political speech.
Certainly, as is apparent in this e-mail, the Department felt the need to do something in response to Democratic rhetoric against nonprofit political speech.
More unbelievably, this e-mail also suggests that the Department actually considered prosecuting nonprofit groups for their political activities.
Even more astounding, the Department considered prosecuting these groups for actions that are legal for 501(c)(4) nonprofits under federal tax law – that is, engaging in political speech.
The Department’s use of alleged false statement on the tax-exempt application is an unfortunate instance of prosecutorial “gotcha,” targeting these victims for supposed “lies” about activities that they are legally allowed to do.
In this way, the tactics suggested by Mr. Pilger appear to be nothing more than harassment by the Justice Department of groups engaged in otherwise lawful activity."
Issa and members are demanding to know who at DOJ gave the instructions to ask the IRS to look into prosecutions and asking for documentation surrounding the communication.
The Committee is also asking for Pilger to be available for a transcribed interview. 
All documents and communications referring or relating to 501(c)(4) tax-exempt organizations or applicants for 501(c)(4) tax-exempt status for the period January 1, 2009, through the present.

All documents and communications between or among Lois Lerner and employees of the Department of Justice for the period January 1, 2009, through the present.

All documents and communications referring or relating to the potential prosecution of tax-exempt organizations for alleged false statements made on Internal Revenue Service forms for the period January 1, 2009, through the present.
 Documentation must be produced by DOJ by May 5, 2014.

Monday, April 21, 2014

CHARLES: Holder’s undermining of the law deserving of contempt

No attorney general should scorn the people’s right to know


By Robert Charles, April 18, 2014 

Joker Race Card Illustration by Greg Groesch/The Washington Times

Attorney General Eric H. Holder was reminded during a recent congressional hearing that he has been held in “contempt of Congress” — for nonproduction of subpoenaed documents.

He interrupted with a personal rebuke of his questioner.
Later, he suggested that questioning of his leadership, nonresponsiveness to congressional oversight, and referring to the contempt vote was evidence of racism.

The accusation was made a second time, perhaps as a political stratagem, by the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee.


Let’s stop there — and stop the deflection, too.


No attorney general of the United States is entitled, for any reason, to escape scrutiny of Congress, period.

Is the attorney general really mounting a defense to his contempt charges on the basis that Congress is racist and that he need not respond to legal prerogatives they lawfully exercise?

Where would that wild notion put us as a country?

How would any attorney general hiding behind this kind of defense ever be held accountable?
Does this mean, for example, whenever this attorney general is questioned for noncompliance with congressional subpoenas — particularly in a case grave enough to earn him criminal and civil contempt citations — an acceptable defense shall be to accuse the questioner of racism?

Is this not a transparent deflection?
Of all people, the attorney general should be the American most respectful of lawful prerogatives, one of which is a subpoena, another judgment of contempt for failure to honor a subpoena.
Should he not reflexively proffer real answers, not diversions?
A few facts are in order here. Congress has exercised an implied constitutional right to find any executive official in “contempt of Congress” since the 1790s.

This means of ensuring accountability by the executive is neither new nor racist, but a matter of balanced powers and constitutional law.

Even an attorney general is accountable to the people and must comply with their “right to know.” Congress enforces that right

Second, no attorney general has ever successfully stiff-armed Congress in a request for material documents, bullheadedly declining to “accommodate,” without eventually disgorging the documents or suffering severe legal consequences.

Even when documents point to the subpoenaed official — indeed, especially then — contempt guarantees visibility into the executive.

Thus, in the top dozen contempt votes since 1975, every vote concluded in material “accommodation” or in severe civil or criminal penalties — until now. Mr. Holder has managed to escape production, accommodation and penalties up to this point. One can see why this bothers Congress — and many Americans.

Third, let us burrow into facts behind this particular vote of contempt. The documents sought relate to the attorney general’s role in a tragically flawed gunrunning scheme, one in which the Obama administration allowed hundreds of guns into Mexico, and then lost track of them.
The gunrunning — more ironic because this attorney general seeks to limit American gun ownership — put firearms in the hands of Mexican drug traffickers, who then reportedly killed hundreds of Mexicans and a U.S. law enforcement officer. The scheme raises issues of judgment, management, civil and criminal law. Any Congress would have a right to ask about origins and approvals — and to get the truth

Curiously, this administration’s response has been coy, dissembling and now, with counteraccusations of racism, deflective — in short, incoherent. Don’t the American people — Republicans, Democrats and independents alike — deserve to know who authorized this deadly and deeply flawed gambit? Exactly what was the attorney general’s role?

What about the Internal Revenue Service targeting groups with a conservative pedigree? Doesn’t the attorney general owe truth — the whole truth and nothing but the truth, so help him God? Is that not what his prosecutors ask others every day, and what witnesses before the U.S. Congress must swear to tell? Is this really too much to ask?
Apparently, it is. Instead of respecting the age-old prerogatives of Congress, including compliance with subpoenas seeking material facts, the attorney general and White House have decided to default to charges of racism, seeking to deflect or perhaps silence those who publicly raise noncompliance with that critical subpoena and the subsequent contempt vote.
Result? This demeans the attorney general and the noble institution he represents, as well as demonstrating — again — his contempt for Congress and those of us represented by the institution. Without congressional oversight of the executive, there is no balance of power. Congress is the people; the attorney general is a mere appointee.

For him to say to Congress, as he so brashly did, “Don’t go there, buddy” is tantamount to playground bullying, disinterest in Congress’ institutional rights. Is that how we expect the nation’s top law enforcement officer to address Congress on any issue?
Mr. Holder’s attempted sleight-of-hand is more egregious. He undermines the law. The Department of Justice models and inspires respect for law; it should not disparage it. Transparency and trust are central. To throw up a smoke screen of racism in order to avert personal charges of contempt is itself contemptible.

His bluster undermines all who work in the department and the law itself, dangerously dividing two institutions from one another on very personal grounds. By implying that congressional oversight is unworthy, or should be stopped or ignored, he may think he has cleverly advanced some political or personal agenda, but the real victim is respect for law.
Instead of more self-serving trash talk and pique, Mr. Holder should take this moment to seek permanent accommodation on all documents behind that contempt vote, and let disgorgement of these documents lead investigators where it may. By doing so, he would shock his critics. He would demonstrate real leadership, restore respect for law, honor the centuries-old oversight prerogatives of Congress, and confirm the people’s “right to know.”

Robert Charles is a former U.S. Court of Appeals clerk, civil litigator and counsel to a congressional oversight committee.


Saturday, April 19, 2014


Dear All,


It has been noticed that there have been more than a few visits to the "The Truth and Nothing but the Truth" from the Citizens of the Ukraine, over the last week. 


For this reason, I am posting this recent "Press Release" by US Senator John McCain for consideration by the readers in the Ukraine. 


Just so the Ukrainians know, Americans are very concerned for your country and what the "Bully-Putin" is up to.  


Americans overwhelmingly support the Citizens of Ukraine and we fully expect that the Obama Administration and the European Union will take all necessary steps to bring pressure to bear on Russia's Dictator (Vladimir Putin) to cease and desist; leaving you and your leaders to seek peace, freedom, democracy, and a co-existence with your neighbors in the European Union to improve and enjoy the economic freedom and prosperity that democracy and capitalism provides. 


"May God Bless the Citizens of the Ukraine"


Ron Kirkish, Citizen of America

Apr 16 2014
Permalink: http://www.mccain.senate.gov/public/index.cfm/2014/4/mccain-remarks-on-ukraine-and-russia-in-Lithuania

Washington, D.C. ­– U.S. Senator John McCain (R-AZ) today delivered the following remarks on Ukraine, Russia and European security at an event sponsored by the Ronald Reagan House and held at Vilnius University in Vilnius, Lithuania:

We are here to take your questions and have a discussion.
But first, I would like to make a few words on geopolitics and security, and then invite each of my colleagues to make some remarks.
We come to Lithuania after visiting Norway, Estonia and Latvia.
We have had good discussions in those countries with government, military, and parliamentary leaders, just as we have today in Lithuania.
On our way to Vilnius, we also had a chance to visit NATO's Baltic Air Policing Mission, which is being flown out of northern Lithuania.
Tomorrow we will travel to Moldova.
We are visiting the Baltic countries this week to consult with our allies about how we must respond together to Russia's illegal annexation of Crimea, its ongoing military intervention in eastern Ukraine, and its other efforts to pressure its neighbors, including in this region.
We see the ongoing crisis in Ukraine as you and our other Baltic allies do: It means the United States, Europe, and NATO cannot continue with business as usual.
All of us had high hopes for our relationship with Russia after the Cold War.
We provided billions of dollars of assistance to help Russia's transition from communism.
NATO stated in the 1997 NATO-Russia Founding Act that it had ‘no need, no intent, and no plans’ to deploy any significant military capability onto the territory of new NATO allies in eastern and central Europe, even as we enlarged the alliance.
So today, while NATO's membership has grown significantly over the past 16 years, the presence of U.S. and NATO forces in Europe has barely changed.
All of these actions reflected the U.S. and European desire to build a constructive and cooperative relationship with Russia, and a new, inclusive security order to sustain our vision of Europe whole, free, and at peace – a vision that we always believed, and still do believe, would benefit Russia, and that we consistently invited and encouraged Russia to join.
Unfortunately, it should now be clear to all of us that Russia under President Putin has taken a very dark turn, and our highest hopes for our relationship with Russia have not borne out.
This should have been clear, and was clear to many of us, the first time President Putin invaded and dismembered a sovereign country – Georgia in 2008.
It should definitely be clear now in light of Mr. Putin's military intervention in Ukraine.
We need to recognize reality, and make our policies on this basis: President Putin, and his desire to restore a kind of imperial dominance over Russia's so-called near abroad, poses a geopolitical challenge not only to Russia's neighbors but to our entire vision of Europe whole, free, and at peace.
This does not mean a return to the Cold War.
But it should mean that we need to prepare, despite all of our best efforts and intentions since 1991, for a more competitive relationship with President Putin's Russia.
This demands more from all of us. It means that all of us in NATO should re-commit ourselves to the alliance's core missions of deterrence and collective defense.
The United States is committed to our obligations to the collective defense of our NATO allies.
It is one thing to say that.
It is quite another to have the allied forces and capabilities present in this part of Europe, on a persistent basis, to deter aggression and demonstrate NATO's resolve and ability to meet our defensive commitments if called upon.
That is what is needed now.
NATO must shift its force posture toward a more even distribution of our presence and capabilities across the alliance, including here in Lithuania and the other Baltic countries.
We are taking some modest steps in this direction.
And that is good.
But this shift cannot be tactical and temporary.
It must be strategic, sustainable, and enduring.
For NATO to do more for its members, its members must do more for themselves and for our alliance.
I understand that economic times are still tough.
And we in the United States, including those of us in the Congress, have our own work to do to reverse the harmful effects of recent cuts to our defense spending.
That said, considering what President Putin is doing right now in Ukraine, it is more important than ever for every NATO ally to spend at least 2 percent of its GDP on defense.
I'm pleased that Lithuania has pledged and is planning to do this, and the sooner you follow through on that commitment the better.
At the same time, we and Lithuania's leaders agree that European countries need to increase their efforts to diversify their supply of energy, as Lithuania is taking the lead in doing.
As Senators Hoeven and Barrasso will explain, the United States can be an important part of that solution in Lithuania and Europe.
Finally, the United States, the EU, and NATO must do more to support Ukraine, Moldova, Georgia, and other European countries that aspire to be part of our Transatlantic community.
We cannot bar the doors to a Europe whole, free, and at peace, leaving an unfortunate few outside to be hunted and harassed.
That means the West must provide far greater diplomatic, economic, and military support to Ukraine – including a long-term program to assist them in reforming and rebuilding their armed forces.
We need to provide similar support to Moldova.
We must show all of these countries that, as long as they meet the rightfully high standards for membership, the doors to NATO and the EU remain open, and the fundamental choices about their future foreign policy are for them to make – no one else.
In the last century, the United States always supported the captive nations here in the Baltic region.
I still remember as a boy seeing the flags of Lithuania, Latvia, and Estonia proudly carried in our Fourth of July parades.
And we would ask what they were, and our parents would tell us about the captive nations, and why your struggle was also our struggle.
All of us must do the same now for Ukraine.
We cannot, we must not, give up on Crimea, or any other part of Ukraine or other sovereign country that Mr. Putin seeks to claim by force.
This kind of aggressive, neo-imperial behavior is fundamentally at odds with our vision of Europe whole, free, and at peace – and indeed, to core principles of the post-war international order that all of us have sacrificed so mightily to build.
We did not seek this challenge from Mr. Putin's Russia, nor did we deserve it.
But we must rise to it all the same – for the interests and values of our Transatlantic community depend on our resolve.




Thursday, April 17, 2014

Robert "Bobby" Charles: THE NEW IRON TRIANGLE

April 17, 2014


Today, we face a strange, new “iron triangle,” one that our Founders may not have foreseen -- but one that we must understand -- and break by voting in November. 

The carefully designed “checks and balances” bequeathed to us by those who wrote the U.S. Constitution are stuck on this triangle.

The U.S. Constitution created co-equal “branches” of government. 

We all know them, the Executive, Legislative and Judicial. 

The Founders strived to put in place “checks and balances,” imagining their constitutional construct would stand the test of time. 

They sought to anticipate all possibilities, and discussed them in The Federalist Papers.  

To their eternal credit, these efforts have guarded our God-given liberties for more than 225 years. 

Today, however, we confront a new configuration of leaders and behaviors, some of which may go beyond what the Founders foresaw. 

The new burden is on us.

Before reviewing facts, here is a refresher on “checks and balances” -- how they work to assure accountability. 

Article II, Section 2, gives the president the power to “appoint … officers of the United States.” 

In the event that a sitting Attorney General fails to perform his constitutional duties in ways that lack transparency, truthfulness, integrity or conformity with prevailing laws, the Constitution provides a President with full power to remove him. 

Likewise, a sitting President must abide the law. 

Since we expect the Attorney General to uphold his Oath, if a president’s truthfulness comes into question on issues of national security or domestic law; if there are questions about his abuse of office for political purposes, the Attorney General is expected to investigate. 

Assuring checks and balances – until 1999 – we also had an Independent Counsel Act. 

That act allowed appointment of an independent prosecutor to investigate high-ranking officials, beyond politics. 

How else can we keep a President or Attorney General accountable? 

Under Article II, Section 4, if an offense by a cabinet member or president is grave enough, the offending official can “be removed from office on impeachment” by Congress. 

That procedure requires the U.S. House to vote articles, and a trial convened in the U.S. Senate. 

Of course, short of impeachment, the accused official could resign. 

President Nixon took that route. 

To secure impeachment, the Senate Majority Leader must take that issue to the Senate floor for trial and vote.  

So, here is the way it is supposed to work:  These “checks and balances” keep an errant Attorney General “checked” by the President and Congress – assuming the Senate Majority Leader will convene an impeachment vote, if needed.  

The President is “checked” by an honest Attorney General, sworn to uphold the U.S. Constitution and honest Senate Majority Leader. 

Finally, an errant Senate Majority leader – or any member of Congress – is “checked” by an Attorney General who, if he suspects criminality, investigates and prosecutes.

So, what is all this “iron triangle” business?  

Consider the current twist of history, one in which we are all stuck. 

What if the Senate Majority Leader acts contrary to law and the Attorney General refuses to investigate him, recognizing that this could open a counter-measure, namely impeachment? 

What if that same Attorney General’s actions warrant impeachment, but the Senate Majority Leader refuses to act – since this could place him in jeopardy of investigation? 

What if a President -- who hires and fires Attorney Generals – is suspected of abuse, for example: persecuting opponents through the Internal Revenue Service, suppressing material facts on national security (such as Benghazi and information collection), or clamping down unconstitutionally on individual liberties – but the Attorney General allows such abuses to slide, protecting his own job? 

You have an “iron triangle” of unaccountability.

What would the Founders say about the possibility of “criminal equipoise” among top government actors? 

They would be dismayed. 

What would the Founders say about an Attorney General who takes no action against a Majority Leader allegedly giving $16,000 dollars in campaign money to a relative, and then separately taking campaign money from companies under criminal investigation? 

Instead of following facts, this Attorney General halted FBI involvement in the investigation of the Majority Leader.  Why?

What would the Founders say about a Majority Leader who telegraphs that he will take no action against that same Attorney General for activities that should put impeachment in play? 

What would the Founders say about a President who feels no constitutional burden to inquire further into these actions – and, coincidentally, has a number of potential abuses of his own to explain? 

They would recognize the “iron triangle” of unaccountability – an unbreakable and indefensible chess move, clever and illegitimate – and they would be chagrined.  

The U.S. Constitution – and Founders who designed it – assumed a modicum of integrity and commitment to the Constitutional Oath they insisted high officers swear. 

They assumed a degree of honor. 

The President and Attorney General take an Oath to uphold the Constitution in Article II, Section 1, the Majority Leader from Article VI, Section 3. 

Yet today, the very officials meant to check each other appear to be covering for each other.

So, what is the answer? 

The only answer is, for better and worse, found in the U.S. Constitution. 

The U.S. House of Representatives can – with reluctance– commence impeachment proceedings against the U.S. Attorney General, pressuring the Senate to step forward. 

The U.S. Attorney General could reopen FBI involvement in the case involving the Majority Leader, perhaps also accommodating concerns of Congress which produced the contempt vote against him. 

The President could suggest that the Attorney General step down, encouraging a new Attorney General to allow FBI participation in the Majority Leader’s case. 

Probably, however, the only way “We the People” will restore accountability is at the ballot box. 

Thus, we must resolve to vote out this Senate leadership, and vote in a new U.S. Senate, one that cares about fidelity to law and the U.S. Constitution. 

This November, we will have that chance – and we must not forget. 

This is not the end of wisdom, nor the beginning – but perhaps, borrowing from Churchill, the end of the beginning. 

Our Founders expected one other thing – they expected U.S. to care, even so many years later, and to help them get it right.  

Robert Charles is a former U.S. Court of Appeals clerk, civil litigator and counsel to a congressional oversight committee, who taught Government Oversight at the Harvard Extension School, and now leads a Washington DC consulting group.