…is still in jail:
The fast-tracking of Nakoula’s jailing was highly irregular. Among other things, I’d like to see the Congressional investigators get Nakoula’s prosecutor, Assistant U.S. Attorney Robert Dugdale — and perhaps his boss, U.S. Attorney André Birotte Jr. — under oath about communications from the White House or the Justice Department regarding this case.
Because what it’s looking like is that Nakoula was targeted and jailed so as to provide a scapegoat/villain in a politically motivated cover story that the White House knew was false. If that’s the case, it’s extremely serious indeed, and in some ways more significant than whatever lapses and screwups took place in Benghazi. I’d also be interested in hearing from Nakoula’s attorney, Steven Seiden, about any threats made by the government to secure a plea deal.
If there’s an impeachable offense anywhere in the Benghazi affair — and at this point, I’m not saying there is — it’s more likely in what happened with Nakoula than in the problems abroad…
Unfortunately, impeachable offenses,and high crimes and misdemeanors are in the mind of the beholder, and impeachment is ultimately a political, not legal act.
Our impeachment system is like putting Romeo on trial before a jury of Montagues and Capulets.
I’d like to know more about who ordered the original intel report (that correctly called this terrorism) redacted (which allowed the video to be blamed). If reports to congress were similarly redacted, that’s illegal, because congress (especially the intel committee) has a statutory right to be informed.
There’s also the mater of the survivors; were they threatened to keep them quiet? If so, that’s another illegal act. A highly illegal act.
It looks like someone did give a stand-down order, and though reprehensible, that’s not illegal. However, much akin to Nixon, where laws may well have been broken is in the coverup rather than in the act itself. (The Watergate burglary was of course illegal, but no one I’ve seen has claimed that Nixon even knew of it before the fact, thus he didn’t break any laws there, but he did in the coverup).
That there was a Benghazi coverup is beyond question; the administration’s pitch of that absurd “It’s all the video!” meme, something they knew wasn’t true, is the very definition of “coverup”. What remains to be seen is whether laws were broken in this coverup, and by whom. It looks to me like they were, but what’s needed is proof.
The point in the post is a good one; what was the administration’s involvement in the prosecution (or persecution) of the filmmaker? If the administration had any role at all (especially considering it was all based on what they knew to be a lie) than that’s obstruction of justice.
Oh, and one more thing; we have yet to be told the reason for the coverup. That’s needed too. I don’t mean an excuse, I mean the actual reason.
Now, an open question to those defending the administration on this; *if* laws were broken during the coverup (such as threats made to witnesses to keep them from testifying – that’s called extortion and witness tampering) do you agree that whomever ordered it should be impeached? (and/or prosecuted). And if the answer is no, why not?