The Buenos Aires National Wildlife Refuge is three counties deep, and 80 miles into America — including portions that extend north of Tucson. Obama has, effectively, ceded the entire National Park to illegal aliens. And, to help ensure the park’s transfer to illegal aliens, and according to Sheriff Paul Babeu of Pinal County, Obama suspended the fence construction on the park’s border with Mexico.

The park is now a protected freeway for illegal aliens, whose numbers include many Mexican para-military units and potential terrorists from mid-Eastern countries. And, Obama refuses the use of America’s military to help prevent the invasion, despite repeated requests by Arizonans, led by Governor Jan Brewer and Senator John McCain.

Instead of addressing the invasion, Obama has placed warning signs around the park to advise Americans not to enter this now-protected invasion trail. As Sheriff Paul Babeu explains,

“It’s shameful that we, as the most powerful nation on earth, can win wars and liberate countries throughout our history, yet we cannot even secure our own border and protect our own families. And, this is why crime in Arizona literally is and has been among the highest in the nation. And we need help!”

Refusal to protect our border in times of military invasion, a Constitutional obligation of the President, is an impeachable offence. From Wikipedia — the definition of High Crimes and Misdemeanors:

The charge of high crimes and misdemeanors covers allegations of misconduct that do not fall under a more clearly defined impeachable offence; e.g., high treason. This charge occurs only in cases of parliamentary impeachment and is unrelated to any offence in criminal law.

The hint of a White House bribe helped U.S. Rep. Joe Sestak in the Democratic primary for the Pennsylvania US Senate seat. But it will be a liability in the general election.

In an environment of massive anti-incumbent sentiment, it was advantageous to Sestak to differentiate himself from the self-serving Arlen Specter, who had switched parties to gain Obama’s sponsorship in hopes of saving his place in the Senate. One does not reach a high level in the military without being socially and politically prudent, and Sestak rose to the rank of three-star Admiral. He was also street-savvy enough to win two terms in Congress after that. Yet one can understand how he was tempted to let the story of the White House job offer, purportedly made last July, slip during the taping of a mid-February public affairs television show.

U.S. Rep. Joe Sestak … stands behind his contention that the Obama administration offered him a federal job if he would back away from a Democratic primary race against Sen. Arlen Specter.

“Yes, I was offered a job,” Sestak said….

Sestak said top party officials urged him to abandon his Senate bid when Specter joined the Democratic Party….

“Look, I am comfortable that I answered honestly,” Sestak said. “I said I would never agree with the type of deal that was done with Specter, so I would never go for a deal for myself.”

As early as last June, establishment Democrats were lining up against his then unannounced candidacy.

The public mulling of a Senate bid by Sestak – a retired admiral who’s just begun his second term in the House – is giving heartburn to many influential Democrats in Washington and in the Keystone State. Democratic leaders painstakingly worked to recruit Specter, potentially the Democrats’ filibuster-breaking 60th vote in the Senate, under the assumption that the former Republican would be able to coast through his adopted party’s primary on his way to another term.

Pennsylvania governor Ed Rendell personified the great disconnect between Democratic incumbents and public sentiment, and proved himself a dismal prognosticator, when he assumed a loss for Sestak last June:

Gov. Ed Rendell (D) offered especially blunt words against a Sestak candidacy, telling MSNBC that “Joe should not run for the Senate in the Democratic primary. He would get killed. … [If] Joe Sestak runs against Arlen Specter, he is out of the Congress after just two short terms. We will lose a terrific Congressman and when he loses to Arlen, he fades into political obscurity.”

Now Sestak has handily won the primary, and the spectre of Specter has instead faded into political obscurity. Within Democratic circles, Sestak is diametrically opposed to the incumbent administration. He was a Hillary Clinton supporter. And there is a more painful fact, one that most political pundits overlook — Obama’s minion Admiral Michael Mullen, currently Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, was responsible for ending Sestak’s 31-year naval career.

Sestak’s Navy career ended in a less-than-ideal fashion. In July 2005 – within a week of Adm. Michael Mullen’s swearing-in as chief of naval operations – Sestak was dismissed as deputy chief of naval operations due to a “poor command climate,” according to the Navy Times…. The ouster represented a stunning (albeit temporary) reversal of fortune for Sestak.

In fact, Mullen fired Sestak his first day on the job, so it most likely was a political move, and not based on performance.

So much for the machinations of the Democratic primary. The story of the job offer, potentially a bribe intended to interfere in the electoral process, has taken on a life of its own. The White House denies it, but Sestak is sticking by his story.

Democratic Senate Nominee Sestak Repeats Claim: White House Offered Him Job to Drop Out of Race Against Specter
Friday, May 21, 2010

Rep. Joe Sestak, the Democratic nominee for Pennsylvania’s U.S. Senate seat, said again this week that the White House offered him a job to keep him from challenging Sen. Arlen Specter in the Democratic primary.

Darrell Issa, a Republican Congressman from California, wants to find out whether Obama committed an impeachable offense.

Rep. Joe Sestak’s allegation that the White House offered him a job to drop out of the Pennsylvania Senate primary race against Arlen Specter is a crime that could lead to the impeachment of President Obama, Rep. Darrell Issa said….

Issa, R-Calif., is one of many inside and outside Washington who want the Democratic Senate primary candidate to explain in detail what offer the White House made.

“It’s very clear that allegation is one that everyone from Arlen Spector to Dick Morris has said is in fact a crime, and could be impeachable,” said Issa, who is threatening to file an ethics compliant if Sestak doesn’t provide more details about the alleged job offer.

….Sestak, a former vice admiral in the Navy, first alleged in February that the White House offered him a high-ranking position in the administration last summer if he would sit out the primary against Specter, who won the backing of the White House and state Democratic leaders for switching parties.

If this event happened as described, here is the legal basis for impeachment:

U.S. Constitution Article II, Section 4 – Disqualification – The President, Vice President and all civil Officers of the United States, shall be removed from Office on Impeachment for, and Conviction of, Treason, Bribery, or other high Crimes and Misdemeanors.

And here is the definition for impeachment:

Impeachment – Impeachment, in the U.S. and Great Britain, proceeding by a legislature for the removal from office of a public official charged with misconduct in office. Impeachment comprises both the act of formulating the accusation and the resulting trial of the charges; it is frequently but erroneously taken to mean only the removal from office of an accused public official. An impeachment trial may result in either an acquittal or in a verdict of guilty. In the latter case the impeached official is removed from office; if the charges warrant such action, the official is also remanded to the proper authorities for trial before a court.

An article in the Washington Examiner details the dilemma facing Sestak in the general election:

During his bid for the Democratic nomination for the U.S. Senate in Pennsylvania Sestak claimed that he was offered a job in the Administration if he would agree to drop his bid to challenge the incumbent, Arlen Specter.

This is a felony according to the law.

The U.S. Code specifically forbids anyone from seeking to tamper with an election by offering a bribe or anything else of value or substance to a candidate. This is known as ‘quid-pro-quo.’ And it is a serious offense for which a person who is convicted of the crime could spend up to 5 years in prison….

How could the White House claim that nothing inappropriate took place when the very fact that Sestak was engaged in conversations with Administration officials during a hotly contested campaign is a highly suspicious act in and of itself?

Why would the White House even wish to talk to Sestak at all when it had clearly thrown its support to Specter?

Someone in this sordid mess is lying. And there are only 2 choices–Sestak or Robert Gibbs at the White House, who as press secretary must state to the public whatever he is instructed to say by the President and his advisers.

If Sestak is lying and the entire story is bogus, then his chances of beating the Republican in the Fall will drop like a lead balloon. But if he is telling the truth and continues to refuse to name the parties at the White House who offered him this deal, then he is protecting a felon. Either way Sestak loses.

Judicial Watch President Tom Fitton issued the following statement:

This latest bribery allegation reflects a disturbing pattern by the Obama White House. We still don’t have all the details about involvement of Obama administration officials in the sale of Obama’s former Illinois U.S. Senate seat by Rod Blagojevich. And we still don’t have answers about the charge that Obama Deputy Chief of Staff Jim Messina offered a federal job to Colorado Democratic Senate candidate Andrew Romanoff to keep him out of the Senate race. There is also the report that President Obama tried to push disgruntled White House Counsel Greg Craig out of the White House by offering a federal judgeship on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit. And now we have Joe Sestak.

The Chicago Machine has truly come to Washington.

Other than impeachment, other parts of the law might be relevant, according to Judicial Watch:

According to Judicial Watch, the following laws (among others) may have been violated in the Sestak matter: 18 USC 210: Offer to procure appointive public office; 18 USC 211: Acceptance of solicitation to obtain appointive public office; 18 USC 595: Interference by administrative employees by Federal, State or Territorial Governments; and 18 USC 600: Promise of employment or other benefit for political activity.

That legal opinion is reinforced by Jay Sekulow of The American Center for Law & Justice, who said in an interview:

Well, article 2, section 4 of the Constitution is there for a reason. And … this is spinning out of control, as far as the White House is concerned right now. This is getting big coverage and it’s getting big coverage because something’s wrong here. It’s undercutting democracy if, in fact, offers were made to have someone not run.

And it’s not just one or two sections of federal law that’s been violated here. We’ve done an analysis of this. There could be four or even five sections of the federal criminal code that was violated….

These are serious allegations here. …. I understand why Mr. Sestak is trying to not say anything right now because he’s now obtained the nomination and he may want the White House support. But the reality is, somebody’s going to have to speak. And if, in fact, it is established that an offer of employment was made so that he would not run, that is interference with a political campaign, it’s interference with elected office, it’s the promise and solicitation of a job opportunity in order to forego something. That violates … not only the Constitution, it violates federal law….

The opinion by most legal observers seems to be that Obama must have known if a job offer was made, but that someone else in the administration will take the fall for it. We, as ordinary citizens, watch this play out and have to decide who is not telling the truth — a high ranking military officer or a community organizer from Chicago. Hard choice that!

Related:

Michelle Malkin — Obama responds to Sestak scandal: Just trust me

Dick Morris.com — PENN AG TOM CORBETT SHOULD EMPANEL GRAND JURY IN SESTAK AFFAIR

Hyscience — Just ‘trust him’

UPDATE, May 28 3PM: I can’t do any better than this. Go visit The Right Side of Life to read Phil’s excellent compendium detailing the progress of the White House spin machine. They have elected to throw Bill Clinton and Rahm Emanuel under the bus on this one.

This whole affair stinks like a pile of rotting dead fish. The preposterous story being put out by the White House may prevent a legal challenge, but the whole mess will probably hurt the Dems in the general election. By saving Obama’s bacon, they have damaged their candidate and made him look like a liar.

All three of the presidential front-runners are, in my opinion, dismal choices. In a large and diverse nation so full of talented statesmen, it should be possible to do better. But one of the three stands out as much more dishonest than the two others. And two widely read Blogosphere columnists are devoted to documenting her “mis-speaks.” I was inspired to write this article by John Stephenson, who published the other bookend for this piece.

Dick Morris has compiled a list of Hillary Clinton’s lies:

Admitted Lies

• Chelsea was jogging around the Trade Center on Sept. 11, 2001. (She was in bed watching it on TV.)
• Hillary was named after Sir Edmund Hillary. (She admitted she was wrong. He climbed Mt. Everest five years after her birth.)
• She was under sniper fire in Bosnia. (A girl presented her with flowers at the foot of the ramp.)
• She learned in The Wall Street Journal how to make a killing in the futures market. (It didn’t cover the market back then.)

Whoppers She Won’t Confess To

• She didn’t know about the FALN pardons.
• She didn’t know that her brothers were being paid to get pardons that Clinton granted.
• Taking the White House gifts was a clerical error.
• She didn’t know that her staff would fire the travel office staff after she told them to do so.
• She didn’t know that the Peter Paul fundraiser in Hollywood in 2000 cost $700,000 more than she reported it had.
• She opposed NAFTA at the time.
• She was instrumental in the Irish peace process.
• She urged Bill to intervene in Rwanda.
• She played a role in the ’90s economic recovery.
• The billing records showed up on their own.
• She thought Bill was innocent when the Monica scandal broke.
• She was always a Yankees fan.
• She had nothing to do with the New Square Hasidic pardons (after they voted for her 1,400-12 and she attended a meeting at the White House about the pardons).
• She negotiated for the release of refugees in Macedonia (who were released the day before she got there).

Christopher Hitchens has elaborated on just one great big Hillary Clinton lie:

There are two kinds of deliberate and premeditated deceit, commonly known as suggestio falsi and suppressio veri. (Neither of them is covered by the additionally lying claim of having “misspoken.”) The first involves what seems to be most obvious in the present case: the putting forward of a bogus or misleading account of events. But the second, and often the more serious, means that the liar in question has also attempted to bury or to obscure something that actually is true. Let us examine how Sen. Clinton has managed to commit both of these offenses to veracity and decency and how in doing so she has rivaled, if not indeed surpassed, the disbarred and perjured hack who is her husband and tutor….

….many Bosnians were enthused by Bill Clinton’s pledge, during that ghastly summer [1992], to … come to the defense of the victims of ethnic cleansing….

….Note the date of Sen. Clinton’s visit to Tuzla. She went there in March 1996. By that time, the critical and tragic phase of the Bosnia war was effectively over, as was the greater part of her husband’s first term. What had happened in the interim? In particular, what had happened to the 1992 promise, four years earlier, that genocide in Bosnia would be opposed by a Clinton administration?

In the event, President Bill Clinton had not found it convenient to keep this promise….

Hitchens goes on to explain that Hillary persuaded Bill to stay out of Bosnia so as not to distract attention from her health care initiative. He quotes from For Love of Politics, a book written about the Clintons by Sally Bedell Smith:

Taking the advice of Al Gore and National Security Advisor Tony Lake, Bill agreed to a proposal to bomb Serbian military positions while helping the Muslims acquire weapons to defend themselves—the fulfillment of a pledge he had made during the 1992 campaign. But instead of pushing European leaders, he directed Secretary of State Warren Christopher merely to consult with them. When they balked at the plan, Bill quickly retreated, creating a “perception of drift.” The key factor in Bill’s policy reversal was Hillary, who was said to have “deep misgivings” and viewed the situation as “a Vietnam that would compromise health-care reform.” The United States took no further action in Bosnia, and the “ethnic cleansing” by the Serbs was to continue for four more years, resulting in the deaths of more than 250,000 people.

To these definitive accounts, I’ll add one more from an earlier ADMC article:

There’s the story about her experience with prejudice:

Another story from the book [Living History by Hillary Clinton] talks about how Hillary is at a race-relations conference in Boston with some teenagers, and she claims that she was on the soccer team, and a player from the opposing team told her that she hated her kind, and Hillary said — “You don’t even know me,” to which the girl replied — “I don’t have to know you to know I hate you.” An attempt to try to make the kids believe she knew exactly where they were coming from, and from personal experience at that! Too bad this is almost surely a lie, since there were no girl’s soccer teams at her high school in the 1960’s when this supposed event took place.

And, of course, there’s Whitewater and Vince Foster.

Neither of these columnists has any kind thoughts for Hillary. Referring to the possibility of Hillary as president, Dick Morris said:

“I’m leaving the country if this happens.”

Hitchens was even more acidic:

It’s hardly necessary for me to point out that the United States did not receive national health care in return for its acquiescence in the murder of tens of thousands of European civilians. But perhaps that is the least of it. Were I to be asked if Sen. Clinton has ever lost any sleep over those heaps of casualties, I have the distinct feeling that I could guess the answer. She has no tears for anyone but herself. In the end, and over her strenuous objections, the United States and its allies did rescue our honor and did put an end to Slobodan Milosevic and his state-supported terrorism. Yet instead of preserving a polite reticence about this, or at least an appropriate reserve, Sen. Clinton now has the obscene urge to claim the raped and slaughtered people of Bosnia as if their misery and death were somehow to be credited to her account! Words begin to fail one at this point. Is there no such thing as shame? Is there no decency at last? Let the memory of the truth, and the exposure of the lie, at least make us resolve that no Clinton ever sees the inside of the White House again.

Hillary Rodham was fired from her congressional job for unethical behavior when she was a 27 year old lawyer.

[Cross-posted from Stop the ACLU Blog]

Is this curtains for Hillary’s political future? We’ve all kinda built a callous up on the uncountable lies she’s been caught in. Jerry Zeifman, the man who served as chief counsel to the House Judiciary Committee during the Watergate hearings, may just be adding the garnish to her plate. How about a little unethical behavior for a cherry on top?

As Hillary Clinton came under increasing scrutiny for her story about facing sniper fire in Bosnia, one question that arose was whether she has engaged in a pattern of lying.

The now-retired general counsel and chief of staff of the House Judiciary Committee, who supervised Hillary when she worked on the Watergate investigation, says Hillary’s history of lies and unethical behavior goes back farther – and goes much deeper – than anyone realizes.

Jerry Zeifman, a lifelong Democrat, supervised the work of 27-year-old Hillary Rodham on the committee. Hillary got a job working on the investigation at the behest of her former law professor, Burke Marshall, who was also Sen. Ted Kennedy’s chief counsel in the Chappaquiddick affair. When the investigation was over, Zeifman fired Hillary from the committee staff and refused to give her a letter of recommendation – one of only three people who earned that dubious distinction in Zeifman’s 17-year career.

Why?

“Because she was a liar,” Zeifman said in an interview last week. “She was an unethical, dishonest lawyer. She conspired to violate the Constitution, the rules of the House, the rules of the committee and the rules of confidentiality.”

Wow! That’s some harsh fightin’ words. Will they stick? I mean, it isn’t news that she is a liar. Well, what exactly was it she did? Say goodbye to any true-hearted sincere liberal support. You say you wanna change the Constitution, well ya know….

How about trying to deny the right to counsel for Nixon?

After hiring Hillary, Doar assigned her to confer with me regarding rules of procedure for the impeachment inquiry. At my first meeting with her I told her that Judiciary Committee Chairman Peter Rodino, House Speaker Carl Albert, Majority Leader “Tip” O’Neill, Parliamentarian Lou Deschler and I had previously all agreed that we should rely only on the then existing House Rules, and not advocate any changes. I also quoted Tip O’Neill’s statement that: “To try to change the rules now would be politically divisive. It would be like trying to change the traditional rules of baseball before a World Series.”

Hillary assured me that she had not drafted, and would not advocate, any such rules changes. However, as documented in my personal diary, I soon learned that she had lied. She had already drafted changes, and continued to advocate them. In one written legal memorandum, she advocated denying President Nixon representation by counsel. In so doing she simply ignored the fact that in the committee’s then most recent prior impeachment proceeding, the committee had afforded the right to counsel to Supreme Court Justice William O. Douglas.

I had also informed Hillary that the Douglas impeachment files were available for public inspection in the committee offices. She later removed the Douglas files without my permission and carried them to the offices of the impeachment inquiry staff — where they were no longer accessible to the public.

Hillary had also made other ethical flawed procedural recommendations, arguing that the Judiciary Committee should: not hold any hearings with – or take depositions of — any live witnesses; not conduct any original investigation of Watergate, bribery, tax evasion, or any other possible impeachable offense of President Nixon; and should rely solely on documentary evidence compiled by other committees and by the Justice Department’s special Watergate prosecutor.

Yikes! This is a big deal, and hopefully the media will not ignore it. If this gets legs, Hillary is done, in my opinion. It’s pretty damning stuff and it will be fun to watch her spin on it.

Ed Morrissey notes:

The right to counsel is considered one of the inviolable tenets of our justice system. It doesn’t speak well of ambitious attorneys working on a highly-charged political investigation that she wanted to deny someone the right to an attorney. Small wonder Zeifman questioned her ethics.

If all she did was to propose that as a tactic, that would not make it terribly concerning — but she did much more than just spitball ideas. When informed that public evidence showed a precedent for the right to counsel, she absconded with the files to eliminate the evidence. Does that remind anyone of later incidents in the Clinton narrative, such as the billing records for the Rose Law offices and the 900+ raw FBI files on political opponents of the Clintons?

Also see Rhymes With Right.

Addendum by ADMC editor from an archival forum at Free Republic:

Previously published in the NEW YORK POST
August 16. 1999

HILLARY’S WATERGATE SCANDAL
By Jerry Zeifman

IN December 1974, as general counsel and chief of staff of the House Judiciary Committee, I made a personal evaluation of Hillary Rodham (now Mrs. Clinton), a member of the staff we had gathered for our impeachment inquiry on President Richard Nixon. I decided that I could not recommend her for any future position of public or private trust.

Why? Hillary’s main duty on our staff has been described by as “establishing the legal procedures to be followed in the course of the inquiry and impeachment.” A number of the procedures she recommended were ethically flawed. And I also concluded that she had violated House and committee rules by disclosing confidential information to unauthorized persons….

Tail wag: Rhymes With Right