Hmm. A criminal investigation on actions that were legal at the time they were done, but are made illegal now; so we’re going to go after these ‘perpetrators’ as criminals: there’s a term for that sort of action that I haven’t heard in a while. It’s called ex post facto law: in other words, judging someone retroactively using new laws that didn’t exist at the time the person ‘committed’ the so-called ‘crime’. It would be like your best friend Bob watching you go down the street to buy a Starbucks Frappacino, and then deciding that he’s going to make coffee illegal and throw you in jail for it.
That may sound like a silly analogy, but that’s a good, basic glimpse as to what ex post facto is.
And guess what? It’s illegal! In fact, it’s so illegal and un-American that the founding fathers put it in the Constitution itself:
Section 9:
...No Bill of Attainder or ex post facto Law shall be passed...
Oh, well, maybe Mister Holder forgot that. But wait a minute, he’s our Attorney General: certainly he must know about that clause?
What about the president? He’s backing Holder on this issue, and basically throwing the advice of seven former CIA directors out the proverbial window.
Why?
Another subject not being talked about very much is President Obama’s response when ACORN’s Federal funding termination was brought up in this interview, which aired on ABC this past Sunday:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uyMOHE8E7Ik&feature=related
You honestly didn’t know that ACORN was Federally funded? You were their attorney, Mister President. They helped get people to vote for you during the election. You honestly didn’t know? And, it’s not an important issue? Excuse me, but we’re talking about a lot of money going to a corrupt organization facing criminal charges. Mister President, I highly doubt that you knew less about this issue than your typical teenage high-schooler; please, don’t dodge the question, and just give us an honest answer.
The question remains: why isn’t he giving us an honest answer? Why is he letting Holder jeopardize the workings and efficiency of the CIA—and thus, the security of our nation—but turn a blind eye towards the criminal activities of an organization he was once a part of?
Or am I wrong on this whole issue? Let me know, tell me what you think; but please, be respectful, and use facts. Thank-you.
--Meghan H.
REformationHQ
