This is factually untrue.
Anwar al-awalaki was a Yemeni National with a fake US passport obtained in 1993 by fraud and was a CIA Agent.
He has two Yemeni Parents and filled out a form for official purposes in 1993 that stated
PLACE OF BIRTH: Yemen.
His son IS an American Citizen, born in 1996 in Colorado, was never targetted for killing by drone strike and is alive.
Fast and Furious is a Bush era program and a stay-behind initiated in Summer 2008 - in Summer 2009, it changed it's name to "Fast and Furious" and therefore left an administrative footprint suggesting it has been an Obama era initiative.
BATF is a revenue enforcement agency, not a law enforcement agency and thus comes under Treasury, not Justice.
Congress has held up comfirmation of a new BATF Director for NINE YEARS....
Unsurprisingly, no-one much wants the job.
No one in the Obama Administration conceived of it or approved of it, either before or after the fact.
Because its completely stupid.
The Supreme Court has already ruled on this and it is a closed matter.
This has been done since time immemorial and is standard practice.
The Warren Commisson, for instance, were all Czars.
Czars do not act on behalf of the Federal Government and are not agents or representatives of it, they act on behalf of the Executive with the Presidential Imprimatur, using the borrowed powers of delegated authority.
It was HOW they were enforcing Federal Law, not the fact that they were doing it, as was upheld by the Supreme Court.
Racial Profiling is a violation of Equal Protection and constitutes Unresasonable Search and Seizure.
The Constitution grants the President the powers of Pardon and Clemency, and all Presidents (to date) have exercised it.
Ford extended partial amnesty to Vietnam draft dodgers and Carter made it a blanket, total amnesty.
The Executive has the power to direct Agencies of the Federal Government in certain matters.
Whether or not this is an over-extension of executive power would be a matter for the Supreme Court, but the chances of it finding against the Executive are zero.
The Compromise of 1877 at the end of Reconstuction left the powers of enforcement of voting rights and federal civil rights legislation and the provisions of the Fifteenth Ammendment in the hands of the several states.
This is a matter of State Law to investigate - not a matter for the DoJ.
If there is to be a legal challenge in any such case, it would have to be made by a party that has standing - someone who had a case to prove (or argue) that their civil rights and voting rights had been impinged or threatened by the alleged actions of the alleged New Black Panther Party members
(if that is indeed who they are - this has yet to be established).
The Constitutionality of DOMA is in severe doubt, as then is any action taken taken to enforce it.
A direct challenge is said to be on the Supreme Court docket waiting a direct hearing.
Certainly, it presents a severe challenge to the notion of Equal Protection, being as it is, a revival of the concept of "Separate But Equal".
Action in Libya to intervene in the ongoing Civil War was authorized by the Security Council of the United Nations and is therefore a limited enforcement action with a strictly limited mandate, which later expired.
Not a war against a sovereign government.
Even if it were, there is clear impeachment precedent - of the four draft articles of impeachment put to a committee vote against President Nixon, the only one rejected by the House Committee was for ordering the secret bombing of Cambodia.
The Head of State of Cambodia at the time had asked Nixon to bomb his country to clear out the VC from the Ho Chi Minh trail in his mountainous border regions, beyond the reach and authority of his government, so it hardly qualifies as an act of war - if you are requested to do so by the country concerned the notion is ludicrous.
The same applies, by the way, to US drone strikes in Yemen, Waziristan and elsewhere - the Pakistani government has no control over its Afghan border regions and no feasible means to reach and clear out insurgent base camps and thus is more than happy for the US to do its dirty work in that regard.
Benghazi was a failed Coup d'état intended to unseat the Obama Presidency.
The US Military throughout Europe and Africa was in mutiny on the evening of 9/11//12, culminating in the relief of General Carter Ham, Commander of AFRICOM, by his number two, General Rodruigez of his command at gunpoint on a direct order from his Commander in Chief once President Obama learnt that Carter Ham's strip-ready air-cover never took off from Sigonella Naval Station in Sicilly to aid the Ambassador when the panic button was pressed in Benghazi because that afternoon, General Ham had ordered them all to take off and fly 1000 miles North to Germany for no good reason and undergo unnecessary maintainace - a violation of standing orders and an act of Treasonous Sedition, punishable by up to 10 years in the stockade at Fort Bragg.
Hilary, Susan Rice and the President said it resulted from a YouTube video because that's exactly what the CIA was telling them was the cause.
This was a lie.
It was also NOT what they told the Romney-Ryan campaign - they were told that it was a terrorist attack and that Hillary Clinton was going to deny it was for PR purposes and blame it on an Internet video.
Again - the Executive is empowered (and expected) to issue directions and instructions to the Executive heads (Directors) of Federal Agencies such as the FBI and the BATF (when there IS a Director of the BATF).
This is kind of what his job actually IS.
Monicagate was not an impeachable matter and only became so under a lame duck Congress as an act of political spite intended to reduce the dignity of the Presidency by humbling the Commander in Chief and dragging the office though the gutter - the matter was clearly resolved in the subsequent Senate Trial, which came no-where close to conviction.
There were no misdemenours at issue - the "high crime" was a crime, only in technicality.
An untruthful statement made during a 3 hr video deposition to a court case that was never heard and thrown out by a Judge for being frivolous.
That was technically perjury. Perjury is a crime - it was not held in this instance, in the Senate Trial, to be a "High Crime".
The High Crimes of President Nixon were never tested in a Senate Trial, Nixon's resignation negated that process.
The High Crimes were largely concerned with Obstruction of Justice, something that Nixon was heard on the taping system to acquiesce to at the suggestion of White House Counsel Howard Dean, now widely understood to be a CIA mole - while it is almost certain that Nixon would have been convicted and removed from office on at least some of the charges, we will never know for sure.
In any case - Nixon was ALMOST impeached. He never actually was.
Only two presidents have - Clinton and Andrew Johnson.
Neither one was ever removed from office following conviction in the Senate trial.
That is simply unprecedented.
The fact is, impeachment is often an act of political harassment, not a deterrent or a punishment, and understood as such.
It has never yet resulted in the removal of a sitting President.
Nor, on the strength of the above trivia, would it ever.
