Most Read
Image 01 Image 02 Image 03

Congressional Investigation Coming for Obama Shutdown of Hezbollah Investigation

Congressional Investigation Coming for Obama Shutdown of Hezbollah Investigation

As it should

https://youtu.be/PXpYASOVcDw

Politico’s bombshell report is leading to a Congressional investigation, reports the Washington Free Beacon.

According to the Politico report, Obama allowed Hezbollah to run cocaine through the U.S. as a bargaining chip to secure the awful Iran deal. Professor Jacobson covered the story extensively here.

Wednesday, the Free Beacon reported a Congressional investigation was imminent:

Lawmakers are launching an investigation into Obama-era efforts to thwart a longstanding U.S. investigation into the Iranian-backed terror group Hezbollah, according to multiple congressional officials and insiders who spoke to the Washington Free Beacon.

The Obama administration worked behind the scenes to thwart a decade-long Drug Enforcement Agency investigation into Hezbollah and its highly lucrative drug trade in Latin America, according to a report in Politico. These officials are believed to have run interference on the investigation in order to avoid upsetting Iran and jeopardizing the landmark nuclear accord.

Senior Obama officials in the Treasury and Justice Departments are said to have undermined the DEA’s investigation at multiple junctures in order to avoid angering Hezbollah’s patron Iran, which could have jeopardized the landmark nuclear agreement.

Congress is now taking steps to formally investigate the reports, which multiple sources described to the Free Beacon as part of a larger Obama administration effort to overlook Iran’s global terror operations in order to cement the nuclear deal.

Despite the report’s implications, most major media outlets have ignored the story.

DONATE

Donations tax deductible
to the full extent allowed by law.

Comments

Obama will go down in history as the most corrupt, incompetent, venal and anti-American chief of state.

I thank God every day that hillary is not our President. MAGA.

Q: Is Obama terrified of getting convicted for actions he took during his administration?

A: Nah, Obama can handle getting convicted. What would really terrify “O” is if Trump pardons him.

#LockHerUp! 😎

I wonder if he got a cut of the action also…sort of a middle man fee.

If true I can’t see how Obama could stay out of jail? Although are Presidents immune from prosecution for their actions while in office?

He couldn’t even argue he did this for the benefit of America because having drugs in your communities and and nuclear armed Iran in no ways benefits America!!

    alaskabob in reply to mailman. | December 20, 2017 at 7:16 pm

    Is that, in part, why Dems this go around were pushing for reduced sentences for cocaine trafficking?

    From the ny slimes, aimed at Donald Trump.

    Let’s turn that turret to barack hussein obama:

    Can the President Be Indicted? A Long-Hidden Legal Memo Says Yes:
    https://www.nytimes.com/2017/07/22/us/politics/can-president-be-indicted-kenneth-starr-memo.html

    Milhouse in reply to mailman. | December 20, 2017 at 8:57 pm

    Presidents are certainly immune from civil suit for their official acts. (One can sue the office of the president, but not the president himself.) They’re certainly not immune, either from suit or prosecution, for personal acts that they happened to commit while in office. But I’m not aware of anything addressing whether they’re immune from prosecution for official acts that are now alleged to have been criminal.

    My gut feeling is that by definition a crime cannot be an official act, and therefore if the act is determined to have been criminal then the president was ultra vires and can be prosecuted and sued for it. But how do you determine this without first holding a trial?

      DaveGinOly in reply to Milhouse. | December 21, 2017 at 1:07 am

      We come back, again, to the definition of “treason” in the Constitution. Hezbollah is an enemy of the United States. Assisting Hezbollah in any way (interfering with an ongoing investigation into its drug trafficking, a crime by itself) constitutes giving “aid and comfort” (even if the drugs weren’t coming here).

        Milhouse in reply to DaveGinOly. | December 21, 2017 at 2:32 pm

        And you’re still wrong. Giving an enemy aid and comfort, out of some motive other than adherence to his cause, is not treason. This is not my opinion, it’s settled law.

        Milhouse in reply to DaveGinOly. | December 21, 2017 at 2:35 pm

        Also, the president by definition can’t “interfere” in an investigation; the investigators work for him, and he has the right to direct them to lay off, just as Trump would have had every right to outright order Comey to lay off Flynn, had he wished to do so.

    Firewatch in reply to mailman. | December 21, 2017 at 10:30 am

    He was just supporting small startup
    businesses.

None will call it treason.

    It’s treason.

    Barry Soetoro aka Barack Hussein Obama, is a traitor.

      I don’t think it is, but only because the framers defined treason too narrowly, because it never occurred to them that 0bama’s form of non-treason could exist. They could easily imagine someone who so loved an enemy of his country that he would turn traitor to help that enemy. But they couldn’t imagine someone motivated solely by hatred for his own country, helping its enemies for no other reason than that they are its enemies.

        DaveGinOly in reply to Milhouse. | December 21, 2017 at 1:14 am

        What? The definition of treason says nothing about motive. Someone who owes allegiance to the United States, who “adheres” to one of its enemies by giving “aid and comfort” has committed treason, period. A person’s motive is not relevant.

        You’re saying it’s treason to assist an enemy you love more than your own country, but it’s not treason to assist an enemy because you hate your own country? A person with the former motivation could assist an enemy without intending to harm his own country, but a person with the latter motivation is certainly acting with the intent to do harm to his own country. And you say that’s not treason?

          mailman in reply to DaveGinOly. | December 21, 2017 at 10:57 am

          I think you are getting yourself caught up in your own word games Milhouse.

          Your definitions have no difference between each other. Both persons end up providing aid and succour to the enemy.

          Milhouse in reply to DaveGinOly. | December 21, 2017 at 2:36 pm

          I don’t say it, it’s the law.

          Milhouse in reply to DaveGinOly. | December 21, 2017 at 2:38 pm

          Mailman, “providing aid and succour to the enemy” is not treason unless it’s motivated by support for the enemy’s cause. I don’t say that, the constitution does.

        regulus arcturus in reply to Milhouse. | December 21, 2017 at 3:42 pm

        It’s treason, though slightly indirect:

        1. Hezbollah is a terrorist org, against whom we are effectively at war (see also: Taliban, though no formal declaration)
        2. Allowing Hezbollah to traffic drugs resulted in the deaths of US citizens

        Obama is in very serious trouble here, as is Ben Rhodes. This is not idle threats – they are staring at possible treason charges now, among other things (including seditious conspiracy).

        I’m hearing that even more is about to be revealed.

          Again, it can’t be treason unless it’s motivated by adherence to the enemy. If it was done for domestic political reasons then it’s not treason.

Fear not. The media will take notice once the Congressional investigation begins.

So they can call it, “a politically motivated investigation,” of course.

This is the only way the media covers stories that are negative about Obama: so they can defend him.

This helps explain Ben Toady Rhodes’s twitter mute on this. Other than complaining that Politico had joined the VRWC, he’s said zotz on the particulars of Meyers’s piece. Unusual because the Toad is usually “the first with the mostest” whenever any ill wind blows on our former Dealer in Chief.

Maybe the Toad is lawyering up.

Obama’s Presidency was called scandal free by media types. Truth is, it was one continuous scandal.

OleDirtyBarrister | December 20, 2017 at 7:49 pm

Mark Levin had a caller recently that purports to have knowledge of the facts underlying the curtailed investigation. His remarks were interesting and sound convincing. Scroll up to the 30 minute mark:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AJccsIVnLt8

Humphrey's Executor | December 20, 2017 at 7:53 pm

It will be hard to prove because the modus operandi was inaction.

If you have not watched msnbc in a while, you owe it to yourself to tune in for about 15 minutes. You will not believe what comes out of people’s mouths. Really – you wouldn’t believe it if you didn’t hear it for yourself.

Well worth doing: you need to know how either deranged or fascist these people are, and the depths they are willing to stoop to achieve their goals against us.

    That comes under the general heading of “Know Your Enemy”. A failure to do this usually results in a bloody gruesome loss.

    Good god, I’ve been on one of the elliptical machines at the gym recently for 45 minutes at a time, and one of the TVs in front of me has MSNBC on it. Forty-five straight minutes of Trump-bashing and nothing else. When they reported today on some Republicans calling the Russia investigation a “witch hunt,” they left it at that and tried to make them look like the aluminum foil hat brigade – there was no attempt to explain the reasons why some are expressing that sentiment. Every time it seemed they were going to be fair about something (literally a single sentence here an there), it was just a set-up for more bashing.

    And Trump’s poll numbers are relatively low? That’s not surprising considering that 90% of the coverage of his presidency is negative. It’s actually amazing that his poll numbers are so high.

DouglasJBender | December 20, 2017 at 8:26 pm

Probably Obama’s goal was to get cocaine legalised like marijuana, so he could have had a “Coke Summit” at the White House to celebrate with Iran’s leaders when the Iran Deal was finalized.

Oh great, a CONGRESSIONAL INVESTIGATION.

Because, you know, those are always so fantastic at producing results.

Where the hell is Sessions and the DOJ. They should be the ones investigating this.

He is in Honolulu now. Looking for lobster and sushi high-end menu items. He is confident that the corrupt FBI, DOJ and Judiciary will protect him.

Congressional investigations never seem to result in any actual action.

How about a Special Prosecutor instead?

The NAACP and the United Negro College Fund will be co-hosting an awards dinner in January, 2018, at which St. Obama the Infallible will be presented with the the Left’s coveted “Urban Communities’ Cocaine Importer of the Year” award, for his stalwart efforts in facilitating an Islamic terrorist group’s sophisticated U.S. dope-peddling scheme and the inundation of urban communities and black families with cocaine, by stifling a DEA investigation that would have severely compromised this scheme, all in the name of promoting his vanity-driven, self-congratulatory Iran capitulation.

Now we know why he insisted on (illegally) giving them a billion $ in unmarked bills.

No paper trail for his kickback.

One of those skids of cash ended up in the (gated and fenced off) Obama hacienda in DC.

He may have helped Hezbollah a terrorist organization sell more cocaine in USA, but at least he got poor Iran, a sponsor of terrorism $150 BILLION dollars. What could possibly go wrong?

Obama is a drug dealer, just as we suspected.

Font Resize
Contrast Mode
Send this to a friend