We are developing the social individualist meta-context for the future. From the very serious to the extremely frivolous... lets see what is on the mind of the Samizdata people.

Samizdata, derived from Samizdat /n. - a system of clandestine publication of banned literature in the USSR [Russ.,= self-publishing house]

You have to wonder when, not if, Obama is arrested

This story, via that well-known extreme rightwing news outlet, Associated Press (sarcasm alert) ought, given the enormity of what is stated, surely lead to former President Barack Obama having his collar felt by the Feds. But he won’t of course because he was “hope and change”:

WASHINGTON (AP) — After striking an elusive nuclear deal with Iran, the Obama administration found itself in a quandary in early 2016: Iran had been promised access to its long-frozen overseas reserves, including $5.7 billion stuck in an Omani bank.

To spend it, Iran wanted to convert the money into U.S. dollars and then euros, but top U.S. officials had repeatedly promised Congress that Iran would never gain access to America’s financial system.

Those assurances notwithstanding, the Obama administration secretly issued a license to let Iran sidestep U.S. sanctions for the brief moment required to convert the funds through an American bank, an investigation by Senate Republicans released Wednesday showed. The plan failed when two U.S. banks refused to participate.

Yet two years later, the revelation is re-igniting the bitter debate over the nuclear deal and whether former President Barack Obama was too eager to grant concessions to Tehran.

All those friends of mine on the libertarian side who rightly get annoyed by Donald Trump will, I trust, be equally oxidised about what the Obama administration has got up to. The situation is shocking because, in recent years, dozens of foreign banks have been punished by US authorities for breaching sanctions against countries including Iran. The most egregious breach was by French banking group BNP Paribas, paying a fine to the US totaling $8.9 billion. (One wonders if President Macron of France will lobby Donald Trump to refund some of this cash to France, if the previous administration was crapping on its own rules about sanctions.)

Here is Ben Shapiro going into the increasingly unhinged one-sided media coverage of US public affairs.

Back to the original article, it seems important to me that it is AP, not just a blog or some YouTube commentator, that has spelled out in devastating detail the dishonesty of the Obama administration over Iran. I recall (yes, I am that old), how White House shenanigans over Iran (the 1986 Iran-Contra scandal) nearly brought down Ronald Reagan and led to multiple hearings, firings and resignations. Obama may now hope that, as a former POTUS, he can relax, do his netflix thing, play golf, give socialist speeches for big bucks, and occasionally vent on how terrible it is that Biff is reversing some of his policies.

But I do wonder. What powers, exactly, exist to bring a former Prez. to book for what appear to be lies on an epic scale, on matters affecting national security? OK, I do doubt that it could happen against the first non-white man to be elected to the office, but if there is any justice in this world, Obama should be contemplating life behind bars or at least, being made to sweat under intense questioning. The man is a snake and yet far too many intelligent people treat him as a sort of secular saint. It is nauseating.

36 comments to You have to wonder when, not if, Obama is arrested

  • Mr Ed

    The US President would have issued a licence to Iran under the Royal Prerogative, er, Executive Privilege. It’s a useful concept allowing His Imperial Modesty to do whatever suits at the time, especially if he has a ‘D’ after his description.

  • Johnathan Pearce (London)

    Mr Ed, well how jolly conveeeeeeenient.

  • PapayaSF

    That’s yet another scandal for Obama, but not the one that will destroy his reputation and put him in legal jeopardy. What’s going to do it is Spygate: the use of the intelligence apparatus (FBI, CIA, DNA, NSA, etc.) to illegally spy on Trump (and possibly other Republican candidates) and to fix the investigations into Hillary’s crimes. This is shaping up to be the most massive scandal in American history, far worse than Watergate. The mainstream media is reluctant to cover it because they are deeply complicit. (Notice who now employs Brennan, Clapper, and other of the plotters.) But it will all blow up in the coming months.

    Here’s one aspect that has not gotten enough attention: Samantha Power masking hundreds of names: https://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2018/06/ignoring_the_samantha_power_bombshell.html

  • Snorri Godhi

    This sort of things could have been predicted when it became known what sort of church the Obamas were attending; but apparently most people, including too many Americans, are unaware of how unhinged the American “left” has become in this century.

  • lucklucky

    This don’t surprises me at all, it is part of Marxist-Islamist Axis.

    “increasingly unhinged one-sided media coverage of US public affairs.”

    It is not only US, it is about everywhere and everything. Marxist media.

  • AlexB

    PapayaSF: There were no scandals during Obama’s presidency. It was the only scandal-free administration ever. I know this, because people who are not likely to frequent sites like this told me so, multiple times.

    I have a feeling that, for these people, no scandal on earth would count against him.

  • PapayaSF

    AlexB: Lots and lots of people are in for some very nasty shocks in the coming months. The question will be: “What did Obama know and when did he know it?” It will be an unavoidable conclusion that either Obama was running the whole illegal operation, or he was a total fool who didn’t know what all his top people were doing.

  • bobby b

    “What powers, exactly, exist to bring a former Prez. to book for what appear to be lies on an epic scale, on matters affecting national security?”

    Hopefully, we never enter an era when every president gets to face a prosecutorial gauntlet upon leaving office. Once we go down that route, we’re finished – every US president will face prison for any decisions of note. Half the world still ignorantly thinks Bush lied about WMD in Iraq – should he face prison for that bullshit? Either nothing will ever be done by a president again, or everything will be done in complete and unbreakable secrecy.

    It’s enough if the past president suffers the loss of reputation and respect that Obama is currently facing. Imprison him, and he’s a martyr to half the country. Denigrate him, and he diminishes.

    I’m actually hoping that Trump signs a blanket pardon for Obama. The investigation of all of his (and his minions’) misdeeds will be easier at that point, as the impulse of many to protect the ex-king will recede, and no one will get too upset when it’s just the minions who face punishment. Plus, his minions will sing much more quickly, knowing they won’t be the traitor placing the beloved O in prison. It’ll just be minions protecting or blowing up each other.

    But the minions – they ought to be facing serious consequences.

  • Gene

    Au contraire, PapayaSF. Hundreds of millions of Americans will find it quite easy to “avoid” any such negative conclusions about Obama. This story will die the same mushy death that every other allegedly devastating anti-Obama fact has so far.

  • Snorri Godhi

    Hopefully, we never enter an era when every president gets to face a prosecutorial gauntlet upon leaving office. Once we go down that route, we’re finished – every US president will face prison for any decisions of note.

    Indeed, that would be the first-order unintended consequence.

    The second-order unintended consequence would be that future US Presidents would make a much better job than Obama did, at making sure that their party keeps winning elections, by fair means or foul.

    I second the idea of a blanket pardon for Obama — perhaps not immediately: let him sleep fitfully for a while.

  • Paul Marks

    Yet again I bitterly regret that Ted Cruz is not President – had he been nominated he would have been elected (a ham sandwich would have defeated Hillary Clinton), and his first act would have been to clear out the “Justice” Departments and replace the leftists there with his own people.

    Instead we get “tweets” from the President asking why the Justice Department is not doing anything about the crimes of Barack Obama and co.

    And an Attorney General, Jeff Sessions, who “recuses” himself from everything of importance – and might as well be a cardboard cut out.

  • PapayaSF

    bobby b: I’m not in favor of prosecuting ex-Presidents except under extreme circumstances… like trying to fix an election. I don’t think it’s necessary that Obama end up in Leavenworth, but I want him named and shamed at the very least.

    Gene: One of Trump’s books has a whole chapter on revenge (he’s for it). Obama will have die-hard supporters, but Trump knows he can destroy Obama’s reputation, and he will.

    Paul Marks: I’m somewhat of a Ted Cruz fan, but no, he’d have lost to Hillary. He doesn’t have the master persuader/chaos magician skills that Trump has. As for Sessions, he was known as the “silent executioner” as Alabama AG for quietly building devastating cases. That’s what’s happening now. Trump’s complaints about him are just strategic deception. I predict we’ll see this in the coming months.

  • bobby b

    “I don’t think it’s necessary that Obama end up in Leavenworth, but I want him named and shamed at the very least.”

    Amen. Obama is nothing but pure ego. I can’t think of a more devastating punishment for him than to be outed as the anti-American scam artist he truly is. His “legacy” is almost gone – now for his reputation amongst his worshipers.

  • jsallison

    PapayaSF @ 7:52

    It’s called plausible deniability, dudes. Rock on! 😎

    I know, how about if Trump pardons all past presidents for anything and everything under the sun. Now would that set a precedent, or what?

  • Roué le Jour

    Two banks refused to participate? I was assured all bankers were in league with the devil.

    Yes to the pardon, after his duplicity has been fully exposed. Let Trump be seen to be magnanimous in victory.

  • PapayaSF

    It’s called plausible deniability, dudes.

    But Trump now has all the official records, plus all the unofficial records the NSA has scooped up. Obama will be without plausible deniability, like Bart Simpson and the yo-yo.

  • Julie near Chicago

    Johnathan,

    The man is a snake and yet far too many intelligent people treat him as a sort of secular saint. It is nauseating.

    Truer words were never.

    .

    bobby, Gene is right. It’s hard to believe, but I know people who still think the snake is a peach.

    And I haven’t seen Slick Willy suffering denunciation by a lot of people who ought to know better…(we deplorable folks call him’n’her the Clinton Crime Family). Nor from anorexia of the wallet, either.

  • Nicholas (Unlicensed Joker) Gray

    Presidents simply don’t get arrested.
    I don’t think any President has ever spent time in jail. Nixon might have been going to jail, except the next President pardoned him.
    And when will Hillary be put in jail? Trump promised it in his campaign.

  • Eric

    They will never put Obama in jail. It would cause riots throughout the country. The most they can do is try to besmirch his reputation.

  • PapayaSF

    I guarantee you that Hillary (and Obama) and crew are all sweating and talking to lawyers right now. The top people have numerous underlings who will want to spill all the beans to reduce their own sentences.

    And there are many investigations that we know of, any one of which could be a bombshell in and of itself: Awan Congressional IT scandal. Project Cassandra (Obama overlooking Hezbollah drug and weapons smuggling for the sake of the Iran deal). The Hillary email server investigation reopened. A few more I’ve forgotten.

    I’m telling you, things are shaping up for an epic political shitstorm and realignment. Trump will use this to win the midterms, win a second term, and cripple the Democrats.

  • Mr Black

    bobby b, I think the US political situation is so corrupt and dysfunctional that it’s actually time for a little chaos to shake things up. Business as usual got them into this mess because everyone assumed that their crimes were unpunishable. That’s (kind of) forgivable if it’s small balls like the President accepted a work of art from a foreign government or gave a construction contract to his brother, not so much when he attempted to conduct a secret coup. The entire government needs to be torn to pieces and everything laid bare. Having the government continue like this when half the nation thinks they are a mortal enemy and the other half lusts for the power to crush their opponents is going to lead to a much worse result than a few show trials.

  • Trump staying calm (in his actions) while the deep state and PC Media try to frame him has in the end (AFAICS, so far) worked out fairly well for him. They scream he’s guilty and then a lie in their case emerges and they have time to go on record denying it before (in Andrew Breitbart style) some confirming details emerge, and then another lie emerges and the cycle repeats, all of it culminating nicely in time for the mid-terms – while Trump’s restraint makes the “he’s Hitler” claims (even more) implausible.

    As usual with Trump, it’s hard to be sure whether it is luck or judgement – or the luck of enraging his inept foes so much that they mess up because they want it too much (a mix of all three is my guess – FWIW).

    Trump should get his revenge – should get it hardcore. He should punish the conspirators, up to and including Hillary and Obama. I’m doubtful of the suggestion that ex-Presidents should be above the law in general, but in this particular case I think it is wholly wrong-headed. They tried to do this to Trump. They planned to punish Trump – by an obvious, crude frame-up. That is a key distinguishing precedent in this case. All the arguments that arresting an ex-president would set a precedent have a mirror image in this particular case – that not punishing would encourage a repeat even more than punishing would. (And as for the arguments against arresting former presidential candidate Hillary, Trump is a former presidential candidate too – I never heard Mueller say he was calling it off because of that.)

    If Trump has a sane (and therefore long-term) plan for getting his revenge, its next step is to survive/win the mid-terms and to establish Trump as the target of an obvious frame-up, both in legally-provable fact and in the minds of enough voters. Things can then get on.

  • Obama has the media to vouch for him, so he’ll be all right. Amd the media have Obama to vouch for them, so their word can be trusted.

  • Surellin

    Obama will be safely dead before these questions are answered. The Jimmy Saville of American politics.

  • Runcie Balspune

    Whilst we all take the p*ss when “robot” Zuckerberg sips water from a glass and mull on his antics in the data privacy arena, let’s not forget that F*cebook pales in consideration of the mass data slurping operations of PRISM et al all commanded over by Obama, but I doubt he’ll ever get in front of a committee hearing.

    To be honest, it’s not that you don’t expect Presidents to play fast and loose with these kind of things, it’s literally a requirement of the job to be underhand and economic with the truth, the problem is Obama was so hypocritical in doing it, by projecting a “nice guy” in a “clean suit” image of goodness and purity, he wasn’t referred to as the Obamessiah for nothing, both he and his cheerleaders were nothing short of the pigs in the farmer’s house.

  • terence patrick hewett

    I love Trump: he could have leapt from the pages of Mark Twain’s Huckleberry Finn, the screen of Deadwood or the pages of George MacDonald Fraser. He is a General Patton, a General Montgomery and a Robert E Lee. Like Alf Garnett, Archie Bunker, Colonel Blimp, Al Swearengen and Don Corleone they started off as villains and ended as heroes.

  • Flubber

    “I love Trump: he could have leapt from the pages of Mark Twain’s Huckleberry Finn, the screen of Deadwood or the pages of George MacDonald Fraser. He is a General Patton, a General Montgomery and a Robert E Lee. Like Alf Garnett, Archie Bunker, Colonel Blimp, Al Swearengen and Don Corleone they started off as villains and ended as heroes.”

    Its also why the evangelicals love him; he’s the “prodigal son” renouncing his life of sin, and taking on the biggest nest of vipers the world has ever seen.

  • Rich Rostrom

    I would like to see Clinton, Obama, et al indicted. The violations of law concerning classified information are a slam dunk for this.

    That would of course produce utter hysteria among the Right People. Trump should should let the screaming continue for a week, then pardon them all. With language in the pardon message that basically copies the language of Gerald Ford’s pardon of Richard Nixon.

    terence patrick hewett: Trump is aggressive, but completely lacks the dignity of the generals mentioned. One doesn’t have to be passive to avoid the petulance and childish language that Trump wallows in: Churchill was savage with his enemies.

  • Gavin Longmuir

    Not so long ago, there was a discussion on these very pages that centered on the assertion that “Justice is Blind”. But everything about Barry Soetero and Hillary Rodham Clinton demonstrates that Justice is NOT blind. There are protected individuals who can break the law with impunity.

    What’s to be done?, as Lenin was wont to say. Perhaps some of the erudite commentators on this site can help with a vague memory — Some of the ancient Greek city states supposedly had a system where the retiring leader could be exiled by a vote of the population, if they were disappointed with his performance in office. Hillary could be sent back to Europe, and Barry to Africa. Some might see that as benefitting both the US and the World.

  • Hillary could be sent back to Europe, and Barry to Africa. Some might see that as benefitting both the US and the World. (Gavin Longmuir, June 9, 2018 at 1:49 am)

    I’m not seeing the benefit to Europe and Africa. 🙂

    You are right that a recent discussion recommending that Dame Justice be blind would seem to imply that she should not notice whether a particular offender were an ex-president, or an older ex-president, or his presidential-candidate wife.

  • Snorri Godhi

    Actually, the sensible thing to do might be to send Obama to Europe, and Hillary to Africa. That way:
    the Europeans would realize that Obama is the kind of politician that they have recently been voting against;
    and Hillary should be happy to be away from the White men and White women who cost her the Presidency.

    I am in 2 minds about pardons for the above: it is important not only that justice be done, but also that it is seen to be done. If popular opinion turns against one or both of them (i.e. if more people start seeing things the way i see them), then i’d certainly support sending her* or both to jail.

    * I assume that, if it turns against one of them, it would be Hitlery.

  • Gavin Longmuir

    I have heard people who are breaking some minor law (like speed limits) jocularly say that they are claiming the “Hilary Exemption”.

    Which leads to the thought that what is really important to a working society is the Rule of Law. Not Democracy — one man, one vote, once in a while, for a politician whose words can not be trusted. But the Rule of Law applies to everybody, every day.

    By exempting themselves from the Rule of Law, as Hillary & others have done, they have really knocked out the foundations of a functioning society. A dictatorship which subjected itself equally to the Rule of Law would be preferable to a democracy where certain individuals are exempt from the Rule of Law.

  • Snorri Godhi

    Gavin: when Comey effectively proclaimed that Hillary was above the Law, i started appreciating the ancient Romans, in spite of slavery and crucifixion.
    Why? because the Romans assassinated Caesar, not for violating the Law (which Hitlery did), but for nothing more than having risen above the Rule of Law.

  • bobby b

    “Why? because the Romans assassinated Caesar, not for violating the Law (which Hitlery did), but for nothing more than having risen above the Rule of Law.”

    Having watched Hillary and her followers melt down since she lost, I’m convinced that they all would have preferred that she had been assassinated. She could have ended on her assumed note of nobility. Instead, she’s fairly well destroyed the whole noblesse oblige mythos.

    For me, her defeat gave us unlimited opportunity for her unmasking. Schadenfreude really IS the gift that keeps on giving. Here’s to a long life for Obama!

  • Dr. Weevil

    Though I would like to see Obama and both Clintons go to jail, there is one point in favor of pardoning them. My understanding is that a U.S. presidential pardon may be accepted or rejected by the person pardoned, and that accepting it is a confession of guilt. That’s said to be why General Flynn hasn’t been pardoned and won’t be: the charges against him were all bullshit, and he will be exonerated completely in the next month or two.

    I wouldn’t mind seeing Obama and both Clintons pardoned if that meant that they had to hand over their ill-gotten gains, past and future, including any future book royalties, give up their presidential and senatorial pensions and Secret Service protection, and lose the right to vote or run for office. If Trump could not only cancel all federal contributions to the Obama Presidential Library, and maybe even cancel its construction entirely (even if private citizens were willing to contribute to construction costs), that would also be just. (It’s probably too late to tear down the Clinton Presidential Library. Oh, well.) If they ask how they are supposed to spend the rest of their lives, he could recommend that they follow the example of John Profumo.

  • bobby b

    “My understanding is that a U.S. presidential pardon may be accepted or rejected by the person pardoned, and that accepting it is a confession of guilt.”

    Without going into far too much boring legal detail, let me just throw out for consideration that this is a hotly-debated assertion. The case that established this principle – Burdick v. U.S., 236 U.S. 79 – was decided back in 1915, long before the US Supreme Court established the existence and propriety of the “Alford plea” (which is, in essence, “I’m innocent, but acknowledge that the prosecution can likely win its case against me.”) A guilty plea no longer must contain acknowledgment of guilt – and so acceptance of a pardon can likewise be undertaken without acknowledging guilt.

    (Note that this is my bare assertion of the legal argument. No USSC case has agreed with me – but none has disagreed with me. It has simply never come up.)

Leave a Reply

You can use these HTML tags

<a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <s> <strike> <strong>