Video: Bachmann calls for probe into WH judicial appointment
posted at 1:40 pm on March 4, 2010 by Ed Morrissey
Via the Right Scoop, based on the rather, er, timely appointment of Scott Matheson to the 10th Circuit Court of Appeals at the same time Barack Obama hosted his brother, Rep. Jim Matheson (D-UT) at the White House to convince him to switch to a yes vote on ObamaCare. Alan Grayson calls this “weapons of mass distraction” and a “tangent” from the real issue, which is health care. But as Michele Bachmann says, corruption is never a “tangent”:
Besides, which candidate for President promised to change the way Washington works? Which candidate promised “Hope and Change,” and a new era of transparency? Which political party promised in 2006 to provide “Open, Honest Government”? Those weren’t “tangents” in 2006 or 2008.
That being said, the likelihood of an independent probe into this is about the same as Barack Obama suddenly announcing that he’s converted to supply-side economics and proposing the elimination of the Department of Education. The Department of Justice under Eric Holder will treat it with the same urgency as voter-intimidation tactics in Philadelphia, and the current Congress will get right on this obvious bribe immediately after looking into Nancy Pelosi’s power grab on Ways and Means.
Blowback
Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.
Trackbacks/Pings
Trackback URL
Comments
Comment pages: « Previous 1 2 3
I think crr6 proved his case. Obama = Nixon.
Chris_Balsz on March 4, 2010 at 3:33 PM
I see you have no answer then.
darwin on March 4, 2010 at 3:16 PM
I see you have no answer then.
crr6 on March 4, 2010 at 3:18 PM
————
Aaaaaaaannnnnd the debate is over when the liberal starts acting like a child.
fossten on March 4, 2010 at 3:36 PM
When doesn’t a liberal act like a child??
joejm65 on March 4, 2010 at 3:42 PM
crr6…Now sticking index fingers in ears, closing eyes and loudly screaming, “LALALALALALALALALA. I know I am but what are you? I know I am but what are you? I know I am but what are you?”
sdd on March 4, 2010 at 3:46 PM
I think its pretty appearant now what Obama’s “Plan B” really is now, isnt it?
Koa on March 4, 2010 at 3:56 PM
Got that in an e-mail. Hilarious! Drinking game?
katy the mean old lady on March 4, 2010 at 3:01 PM
katy the mean old lady: You is baaaad,tee-hee:)
canopfor on March 4, 2010 at 4:04 PM
I was going to say when their asleep, but I forgot about the rubber sheets.
MarkTheGreat on March 4, 2010 at 4:22 PM
Lies and deceptions plus bribes and payoffs are standard operating procedures for Chicago politics. ObaMao doesn’t have a clure that this is not acceptable to everybody because it is unethical if not illegal. Everybody must be stupid and not understand this is perfectly acceptable when you are just forcing things down the peoples’ throats. It must be hard to be the most intelligent person in a sea of morons.
volsense on March 4, 2010 at 4:23 PM
Don’t forget Walpin and the illegal firing to protect a campaign contributor and political ally.
But hearing Grayson lie about affordable healthcare and saying the corruption used to pass this crap sandwich is a tangent was worth a good laugh.
iconoclast on March 4, 2010 at 4:30 PM
Grayson’s Dem buddy’s need to chip in and have a proctologist remove that corn cob or just squirt him with some lime juice so he’ll scrunch up the rest of his face.
Speakup on March 4, 2010 at 4:34 PM
Bachmann knows Pelosi’s ‘swamp’ is over-crowded; it’s a pre-emptive strike. Good job, Bachmann!
TN Mom on March 4, 2010 at 4:44 PM
Coincidence, like Chris Dodd’s Countrywide loans.
Angry Dumbo on March 4, 2010 at 4:57 PM
To this breed of today’s Democrat, corruption is not a tangent, corruption is a strategy.
pjean on March 4, 2010 at 5:36 PM
When doesn’t a liberal act like a child… An insult to children.
elifino on March 4, 2010 at 5:44 PM
I thought jobs were the real issue, since the President was going to focus like a laser on them.
StevefromMKE on March 4, 2010 at 5:46 PM
Perhaps but It’s the “Appearance of impropriety”
Is there no one else in the 10th circuit who is also qualified?
Are we to believe that politics played no part in this political appointment?
Why didn’t he nominate him wayyyyyyyyyyyyyyyy back, like the other two Goodwin Liu and Judge Robert N. Chatigny he nominated on Feb, 24, 2010 or 8 days ago?
What changed from 8 days ago to today?
Hummmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm?
Oh wait, how bout health care reform!
It’s the “Appearance of impropriety”
DSchoen on March 4, 2010 at 6:11 PM
Michele Bachmann just opened up a can of whoopass on Alan Grayson
MCGIRV on March 4, 2010 at 6:22 PM
This IS a change from the way Washington worked! President Bush would never have sold judgeships.
When Obama said he was going to change the way Washington works, you have to remember that Bush, whatever his faults, was one of the most honest men to ever hold that job.
American Elephant on March 4, 2010 at 6:44 PM
Well it appears that the predictable has happened. Democrats have cover for their corruption with an endorsement from our favorite GOP Senator … Orin Hatch.
HondaV65 on March 4, 2010 at 6:48 PM
Which planet exactly have you been living on the past decade? Pelosi’s current majority came largely by attacking the Republican’s “culture of corruption” (while ignoring the equal cases of corruption on the Democrat side.) Yes, both sides are guilty of corruption at different times. But only the Democrats circle the wagons to support their cheaters.
didymus on March 4, 2010 at 6:49 PM
Your talking points are weak. Many of these were fired for not aggressively prosecuting voter fraud cases. Failure to perform is not technically “misconduct,” but it’s a perfectly valid reason to replace someone.
And given the epidemic of voter fraud we’re seeing over and over again, Bush was right to fire them, and all those trying to accuse him of something improper are at best* just trying to score cheap political points.
(* At worst, they want voter fraud.)
didymus on March 4, 2010 at 7:00 PM
Nope, but I fully agree that the President has the right to appoint any political lackies to political positions for political reasons. That’s kinda sorta why they are called “political appointees”.
However the political appointees Bush made to U.S. attorneys were NOT lifetime appointments, this one is.
This, unlike Bush, has a direct link, a Quid Pro Quo, as the reason for the Political appointment.
As with Bush, the left were NEVER able to come up with a Quid Pro Quo with respect to the political lackies he appointed.
If they had, they would have had a point, but as we all know they didn’t, thus could do nothing but whine.
As parallels go, yours is kinda weak
Lifetime vice till the next election.
A payoff to “buy” a political vote vice He likes Jim better that Bob.
DSchoen on March 4, 2010 at 7:06 PM
If the timing of this appointment is a coincidence (improbable, though I’ll allow it for the sake of argument), then Obama is dangerously dumb. Did he not realize how much pressure will be on Matheson to stick to his no vote? The appearance of trading a favor for a vote is blatant. Christ, I can’t wait for 2012 to come so we can vote this asshole back to Chicago.
Godzilla on March 4, 2010 at 8:07 PM
He should be impeached if this is the case. He placed his hand on Abe Lincoln’s bible, swore an oath to preserve, protect, and defend the constitution.
ARTICLE II
Section.4.
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.
jaboba on March 4, 2010 at 8:30 PM
Uh wrong again.
Clinton fired all 93 in one fell swoop as he took office. He fired or replaced 30 more over his 2 terms.
Basic math tells me that 123 U.S. attorneys were fired or replaced during Clintons 2 terms.
Basic math also tells me 30 is more than 7, would you like to challenge that?
BTW, firing ALL 93 U.S. attorneys in one fell swoop at the change of an admin is not the norm.
Think about it, some of these U.S. attorneys must be involved with cases, why would you fire the U.S. attorney in the middle of a case?
Reagan replaced 89 of Carters appointments over a 2 year period. Eventually all 93 were Reagan appointments.
Same with Bush 43, overtime all U.S. attorneys were either replaced or reappointed by Bush.
There is also no precedent for President to dismiss several U.S attorneys on Tuesday.
There is also no precedent for President to dismiss U.S attorneys after 11:28 AM.
There is also no precedent for President to dismiss several U.S attorneys on odd numbered months.
Fact is U.S attorneys work at the pleasure of the President.
Once the fact that 123 U.S attorneys had been replaced under Clinton over his 2 terms, this “Bush Scandal” was relegated to the lunatic fringe.
DSchoen on March 4, 2010 at 8:32 PM
There is No Such Thing as Coincidence
javamartini on March 4, 2010 at 8:39 PM
I wonder if it would be good to make more of Grayson’s appearance. It’s amazing, in a way, that men don’t draw weapons defensively when he comes near. I can’t recall having seen another American elected official who so routinely wears such an open expression of cold contempt.
Kralizec on March 4, 2010 at 8:55 PM
Obama, why don’t you just march the legislators over to the Treasury building, load up their cars with cash, and cut out the middleman. We’re paying for it either way.
These people need a big probe. Right where it hurts the most.
gordo on March 4, 2010 at 10:53 PM
Typical of Booby Hatch.
I understand from a caller in Utah to Hannity that Matheison’s vote is still NO.
onlineanalyst on March 4, 2010 at 11:04 PM
Those attorneys serve at the pleasure of the president, his call with no reasong needed.
iurockhead on March 4, 2010 at 1:58 PM
Right, and similarly, Obama has the power to appoint federal district court judges whenever he wants. So there’s no problem, right?
LOL.
His predecesor fired them all.
Don’t make me debunk this.
And I don’t recall any talk of any of the attorneys that Bush fired being replaced as payment for votes. Do you?
iurockhead on March 4, 2010 at 1:58 PM
Actually yeah, some were fired for failing to prosecute claims of election fraud that would hamper Democratic voter registration. It was directly related to “votes”.
crr6 on March 4, 2010 at 2:03 PM
So what you are saying is the US Attorneys were removed from office by the constitutionally accepted means for refusing to prosecute election fraud cases in which they had sympathies with the accused party.
They did not do their job to the satisfaction of the President. He is the their boss. They damaged the Justice Department more than the dog and pony show used to implicate the Bush Administration.
Let me know if you follow along with the words coming out of your own mouth.
Opportunity Costs on March 5, 2010 at 12:23 AM
Alan Grayson must go. He was more timid with Michelle Bachman because he knew she would kick his arse.
MsUnderestimated on March 5, 2010 at 12:36 AM
LOL!
daesleeper on March 5, 2010 at 12:39 AM
Judge Napolitano made an interesting point I wasn’t quite clear on.
He mentioned the ‘Honest Services Law’ which makes it a crime to do the right thing for the wrong reason – meaning Congressman Matheson has to vote ‘no’ or possibly be in violation of the law.
Mr Purple on March 5, 2010 at 7:54 AM
Wait until you read this from the blog Hillbuzz…but together by a group of Democrats who happen to HATE OBAMA’S GUTS! By the name of it you can tell these people are supporters of The Hildebeast. But this about Michele Bachmann, seems to be on target…
Bold—the thought of that sounds…intriguingly sexy!
BobAnthony on March 5, 2010 at 12:09 PM
Maybe she should straighten out Orrin Hatch ? Gawd , maybe she is as dumb as the rats say she is .
borntoraisehogs on March 5, 2010 at 7:52 PM
It never ceases to amaze me. Demoncrates claim anything with serious implications, on an issue they want passed so urgently to gain favor, is nothing more than a derogatory mis direction.
MSGTAS on March 6, 2010 at 10:15 AM
Comment pages: « Previous 1 2 3