What Trey Gowdy Intends to Do About Benghazi Proves Why He’s a Great Leader

Perhaps the saddest part of Barack Obama’s presidency is that while most conservatives could easily see his promise of “hope’n’change” to be absolute malarkey, his willingness to betray the American public by operating as the most secretive president this nation has ever had has surely surprised even the most ardent conservatives.

In essence, while so many of us expected more of the same kind of covert governance, as president, Obama has operated more closely akin to Soviet-era officials than to anything remotely resembling a modern president.

Tea Party Congressman Trey Gowdy intends to upturn Obama’s apple cart by shining a spotlight on the Obama Administration’s failures with regards to Benghazi.

Obama could be remembered as “The Teflon Tyrant” as nothing appears to ever stick. With a complicit media coupled with a radicalized Democrat Party enjoying the full cooperation of the moderate faction of the GOP, the Obama Administration has had little reason to fear the public learning the truth about what happened in Benghazi, at the IRS, in Fast and Furious and a variety of other treasonous offenses.

All that is about to change if former prosecutor Trey Gowdy has his way.

After Congress returns from their recess, the investigative committee to learn the truth about Benghazi will be underway. Gowdy has already claimed that he will subpoena Hillary Clinton and while whether or not she will be forced to testify remains unclear, she is most-certainly unlikely to release her personal Benghazi notes without a fight.

Gowdy has also maintained that he will not be putting on a show, but will, in fact, be thorough in his investigation. According to The Hill:

Rep. Trey Gowdy (R-S.C.) on Tuesday laughed off the idea that the House select committee investigating the events surrounding the 2012 Benghazi, Libya, attack would finish its work before the midterm elections.

“No. Heavens no,” said Gowdy, who is chairman of the committee, in an interview with ABC News. “I have decided that I would rather be right than first. So we are going to do it methodically, professionally.”

Gowdy said the committee would hold its first public hearing in September, after members return from the August recess.
It will touch on the State Department’s Accountability Review Board recommendations, and how well they have been implemented in the wake of the attack that killed three Americans, including Ambassador Christopher Stevens.

Gowdy said there will be other public hearings, but the committee would do most of its work in private.

“I can get more information in a five-hour deposition than I can [in] five minutes of listening to a colleague asking questions in a committee hearing,” he said.

He added: “My view of public hearings — if there is a factual discrepancy, then the jury or our fellow citizens need to hear both sides, and they can determine where the greater weight or credibility is. But if there is a consensus on a point, there really is not any reason to litigate that in public.”

Democrats have tried to downplay the importance of the committee, but in truth, this is the first time a select committee has been appointed to investigate the terrorist attack that left four Americans dead and that was shrugged-off by the Obama Administration.

Gowdy doesn’t seem to care if people are heavily-invested in his committee or if he makes headlines.

“You want to get on the news, go rob a bank,” Gowdy matter-of-factly stated.

In May, Trey Gowdy shredded the mainstream media in their failure to properly investigate what should be an outrage. After scolding the press for several minutes, Gowdy reminded:

“Congress is supposed to provide oversight, the voters are supposed to provide oversight, and you were supposed to provide oversight. That’s why you have special liberties and that’s why you have special protections.”

[H/T TPNN]

House Floor – Congressman Goes Nuclear On Obama’s UnConstitutionality

(BeforeItsNews) – Today on the House floor, Rep Trey Gowdy, sponsor of the Enforce The Law Act went all nuclear on Obama when he read some past quotes in which he warned of the encroachment of the executive on the powers of the other branches of govt from the time when Obama was a Sen in Illinois.

Please remember that all these fiery speeches that congressman give is pure theater, no change will ever come, because when it comes to the destruction of our Republic, the Dems and the Repubs are on the same side.

 

[H/T Before Its News: Guerilla Girl Ashley]

Trey Gowdy: “Blank right! We’re Gonna Use The Power Of The Purse Against Obama” (Video)

(Western Journalism) — Barack Hussein Obama has spent 5 years ignoring both the law of the land and constitutionally imposed limits on the power of the presidency. So far, Republicans in both the House and Senate have done precious little to take this corrupt, Marxist plant to task on his countless abuses of executive authority.

But on Monday, during a segment with FOX News political analyst Jeanine Pirro, Congressman Trey Gowdy of South Carolina promised viewers that the House will use the “power of the purse” to end Obama’s obsession with rule rather than governance. When Pirro asked the congressman if House Republicans were actually going to DO it, Gowdy energetically responded “Blank Right!” (just in case his mother was watching.)

At last, conservatives have an honest to goodness promise from one of their congressional fellows, a promise that the contempt with which Barack Obama treats both the American people and the nation will be thrown back in his face.

Congressman Gowdy will have to PROVE it to me, and I would dare say to the vast majority of America’s conservatives, disgusted as we are with the perpetual cowardice of the GOP. Watch this brief interview and remember what the congressman has said. We’ll know very soon if it was another empty promise from yet another dishonest member of the DC ruling class.

[H/T Western Journalism]

Rep Trey Gowdy Doubles Down, Says Pelosi ‘Needs to Schedule an Appointment with a Mental Health Professional’

Whoa, God Bless Trey Gowdy!

Check this video out,

‘when you have a facts you pound the facts when you have the law you pound the law, when you don’t have either as does Speaker Pelosi does it then you make at home in an attacks then you play a the last chord and the deck or throw a Hail Mary pass which in this case is to accuse a some loss of racism.’

[H/T YouTube]

Gowdy Goes Ballistic: If You Were Taken Aback by Obama’s ‘Smidgen of Corruption’ Claim, Wait Until You Hear Trey Gowdy

http://static.c-spanvideo.org/assets/swf/CSPANPlayer.swf?clipid=4483686

Rep. Trey Gowdy (R-S.C.) on Thursday blasted President Barack Obama’s recent claim that there was “not even a smidgen of corruption” involved in the Internal Revenue Service’s alleged targeting of conservative groups.

“The president says there’s not a ‘smidgen’ of criminality or corruption,” Gowdy said during a hearing of the House Oversight And Government Reform Committee on the IRS scandal.

“Do either of you,” he said, addressing two Tea Party leaders who appeared to testify on their experiences with the IRS, “remember seeing a witness named Lois Lerner, sitting at the very table y’all are sitting at?”

Lerner, formerly in charge of the IRS’ tax-exempt organization division, ignited the scandal in May after she apologized for the agency’s handling of conservative groups. She later invoked the Fifth Amendment and resigned her post in September.

“Do you remember her invoking her Fifth Amendment privilege? The same privilege that she targeted some of your groups for trying to educate people about?” Gowdy asked. “Some of your groups just want to simply educate people about the Constitution — the one she availed herself of the very second she was exposed to criminal investigation.”

“So how can the president say there’s not a ‘smidgen’ of criminality when Lois Lerner invoked the Fifth Amendment? Forty-one witnesses haven’t been interviewed, including the two who are here right now!” he added. “How can he possibly draw that conclusion?”

Federal Judge Slams Obama’s ‘Cavalier Attitude,’ Orders Him To Release Sealed Documents

(Reagan Coalition) — Could this be a sign of things to come? A federal judge has slammed Obama’s “cavalier attitude” towards transparency with his decision making, ordering his administration to release a government-wide foreign aid directive that he wanted hidden from the public. A lawsuit had been filed by Washington, D.C. non-profit Center for Effective Government, which sought the release of the Presidential Policy Directive on Global Development.

The Obama administration had declined to make the document public under the “Presidential communications privilege,” but federal judge Ellen Huvelle declared the Obama administration’s argument of executive privilege was “troubling” and accused them of engaging in “governance by secret law.” The ruling comes on the heels of a report last month by the Committee to Protect Journalists, which concluded that Obama’s administration was the most secretive since the Nixon administration.

It also appears that the President could be brought to trial soon once again for his transgressions. South Carolina Rep. Trey Gowdy, who expressed outrage over the Obama administration’s “unprecedented level” of floating congressional law, wants to take the White House to court over executive outreach. Thirty Republican congressman are on board with this and Gowdy also said a House resolution has authorized a congressional lawsuit.

Speaking to Fox News, Gowdy explained that Congress could sue the Obama administration for ignoring laws passed by the legislation. “I don’t like running to the court. I’d rather use any other remedy other than going to the court,” he said. But our other remedies have not worked and the judicial branch is there for a reason. In certain circumstances Congress ought to be able to assert its standing, and I just think the pervasiveness of his ignoring of Congress has reached a point [that] we don’t have a choice.”

[H/T Reagan Coalition]

Video: Trey Gowdy: Obama’s Disregard Of Law ‘Has Reached An Unprecedented Level’

South Carolina Republican Rep. Trey Gowdy said Sunday that the Obama administration’s deliberate flouting of congressional law “has reached an unprecedented level,” claiming the time is now ripe for Congress to take the White House to court over executive overreach.

Trey Gowdy is most certainly one of the good guys, he demonstrates this day after day.

[H/T Western Journalism]

Trey Gowdy: Man Who Should be Attorney General Talks Benghazi

This is mildly dated (October 30) but we hadn’t seen it before it was sent to us by a reader. It is nearly three and a half minutes of pure righteousness on Benghazi from a man who would make an excellent Attorney General. The man speaking is none other than former prosecutor, Rep. Trey Gowdy (R-SC), who puts Eric Holder to shame when it comes to a blind Lady Justice.

It was Gowdy whose quick-thinking after Lois Lerner inexplicably invoked her fifth amendment right not to incriminate herself and the proceeded to plead her innocence, who caught her in a legal trapbefore she could escape. It was Gowdy – no one else – who took advantage of a very small window of opportunity to call her on it.

As can be gleaned from the looks on the faces of Reps. Jason Chaffetz (R-UT) and Jim Jordan (R-OH), who are seen standing behind Gowdy, his points are irrefutable, which is why no one ever tries to refute him.

NOTE: Pay attention to the man at the far left of the screen right before Gowdy speaks; it’s Senator John McCain (RINO-AZ). It’s quite amazing that he didn’t learn anything from Gowdy.

Obama Is The President The Constitution Was Designed To Prevent

[H/T Investors.com] — Executive Orders: A liberal constitutional scholar warns of the concentration of power not only in the hands of one branch of government but in a single man who ignores the Constitution and acts of Congress on a whim.

As the story goes, Benjamin Franklin emerged from Independence Hall at the close of the Constitutional Convention in Philadelphia on Sept. 18, 1787, when a woman asked, “Well, Doctor, what have we got, a republic or a monarchy?” Franklin is said to have replied, “A republic, madam — if you can keep it.”

The Founders designed a system of checks and balances among three branches of government that was based on the consent of the governed. The power grab that is ObamaCare, nationalizing one-sixth of the economy, is just the latest example of an increasingly imperial presidency that ignores the Constitution, the will of Congress, the laws sworn to be faithfully executed and the will of the people who never wanted it in the first place.

Rep. Steve King, R-Iowa, recently noted to Fox News’ Sean Hannity how President Obama “extended the employer mandate for a year, even though the law says ‘shall commence in each month after December of 2013.’ He extended the individual mandate, stretched that out and now the small-package plans. There’s at least three times that he’s violated the Constitution with ObamaCare.”

When confronted with his lies that under ObamaCare you could keep your plan and doctor if you like them, and millions were losing the coverage they liked, the president held a press conference where he decreed that insurance companies could violate the “law of the land” and reissue policies that did not contain Obama-Care’s 10 essential mandates, if only for a year.

This prompted Jonathan Turley, a liberal law professor at George Washington University and supporter of the Affordable Care Act, to tell the House Judiciary Committee at a Dec. 3 hearing, titled “The President’s Constitutional Duty to Faithfully Execute the Laws,” that Obama’s abuse of executive power has grown to the point that “he’s becoming the very danger the Constitution was designed to avoid.”

Turley cited the “radical expansion of presidential powers” and the rise of what he termed the “fourth branch” of government — massive federal departments and agencies that can write regulations that have the effect of law written by unelected bureaucrats often contrary to the will of Congress and the American people.

Indeed, how can the governed give their consent when they don’t know what they’re consenting to? Philip Klein of the American Spectator counted 700 references in ObamaCare to the secretary “shall,” 200 to the secretary “may” and 139 to the secretary “determines.” That would be HHS Secretary Sebelius, for whom no one voted.

“That is a very dangerous sort of thing for the president to do, to wantonly ignore the laws,” Michael Cannon, Cato Institute’s director of health policy studies, also testified on Tuesday, “to try to impose obligation upon people that the legislature did not approve.”

In 2012, Judge Andrew Napolitano, a constitutional scholar and Fox News commentator, raised the danger of Obama’s shredding of the Constitution and his assault on the authority of the courts in a second term free of electoral restraints.

“I think the president is dangerously close to totalitarianism,” Napolitano opined. “A few months ago he was saying, ‘The Congress doesn’t count, the Congress doesn’t mean anything, I am going to rule by decree and by administrative regulation.’ Now he’s basically saying the Supreme Court doesn’t count. It doesn’t matter what they think. They can’t review our legislation. That would leave just him as the only branch of government standing.”

Yes, we were left with a republic. But whether we can keep it under this president is becoming increasingly uncertain.

Congressman Trey Gowdy: Fears Third Term for Obama, ‘If He Can Suspend Mandatory Minimum and Immigration Laws, Why Not Election Laws?’

[H/T Info Wars] — Rep. Trey Gowdy (R-S.C.) fears that the Obama administration’s refusal to enforce immigration laws could lead to Obama himself failing to enforce election laws, a concern voiced amidst calls by some for Obama to run for a third term in office.

During a House Judiciary Committee hearing yesterday, Gowdy asked Simon Lazarus, senior counsel to the Constitutional Accountability Center, “If the president can fail to enforce immigration laws, can the president likewise fail to enforce election laws?”

Lazarus responded “no,” to which Gowdy shot back, “Why not? If he can suspend mandatory minimum and immigration laws, why not election laws?”

“Because we live in a government of laws, and the president is bound to obey them and apply them,” Lazarus answered. Gowdy responded by reiterating that Obama was not applying immigration and marijuana laws, a stance with which Lazarus disagreed.

Gowdy subsequently asked George Washington University Law School Professor Jonathan Turley what the likelihood of the administration suspending election laws was, to which Turley responded, “I think that some of these areas I can’t imagine to be justified through prosecutorial discretion. It’s not prosecutorial discretion to go into a law and say, an entire category of people will no longer be subject to the law. That’s a legislative decision.”

Turley added that the country was currently embroiled in “the most serious constitutional crisis in my lifetime” and that Congress was becoming increasingly irrelevant.

Concern about the Obama administration’s failure to enforce election laws arrives in the aftermath of a Washington Post editorial by Jonathan Zimmerman, a professor of history and education at New York University, which caused controversy by advocating that Obama run for a third term in order to avoid being made a scapegoat by critics within his own party.

Despite acknowledging Obama’s record low approval ratings, Zimmerman asked, “If Obama could run again, would he be facing such fervent objections from Sens. Charles Schumer (D-N.Y.) and Robert Menendez (D-N.J.)?”

“Probably not. Democratic lawmakers would worry about provoking the wrath of a president who could be reelected. Thanks to term limits, though, they’ve got little to fear,” he added.

Under the 22nd Amendment to the Constitution, a President is limited to two terms in office.

Zimmerman’s argument caused understandable consternation amongst conservatives, some of whom expressed the fear (which is somewhat routine when any president is coming to the end of his term), that the stage was being set for some kind of engineered crisis that would be exploited to justify a third term for Obama.