The Criminal Origins of Obamacare

Obamacare was a fraud from the beginning.

We've all heard about the disgraceful under-the-table politics that were associated with ramming Obamacare through the US Senate.  The "Cornhusker Kickback" and "Louisiana Purchase" whereby Yea votes were purchased from the Senators of Nebraska and Louisiana are among the many noxious aspects of Obamacare.  Thanks to alert bloggers, we didn't even have to wait until it was passed to learn about these foul deeds.

We weren't totally surprised when the Massachusetts legislature changed the rules for filling Senate vacancies so they could appoint a Democrat who would vote "Yea" without having read the new law or even been involved in the debates.  This got Obamacare through the Senate even though the law it passed was quite different from the House version.  When the Taxachusetts voters elected a permanent Senator who was not only Republican, but had run on the express platform of ensuring that Obamacare wouldn't become law, we thought that the electorate had finally killed the monster.

Instead of taking the hint, however, the Democratic leadership used a parliamentary maneuver to amend the bill that had already passed the Senate and have the House pass it.  This gave President Obama something to sign.  It remains one of the most divisive, contentious acts of our government, surpassing even Roe v Wade in terms of heated popular rejection and legal challenges by state governments.

The Back Story

Obamacare passed the Senate only because the Democrats had a veto-proof majority at the time.  They were unable to persuade a single Republican to support it, but they didn't need to.  Just one fewer Democrat in the Senate would have spared our nation enormous conflict.  We've discussed the vote fraud that put Sen. Franken (D) in office where he provided that crucial 60th vote.

Sen. Franken wasn't the only questionable vote for Obamacare, however.  In October 2008, just before the election, Alaskan Republican Sen. Ted Stevens was convicted of improperly accepting gifts from oil companies.  He narrowly lost the election to Mark Begich (D) who also provided a crucial 60th vote for Obamacare.

It soon turned out that the Justice Department attorneys committed "willful and intentional misconduct" during the trial.  A few months later, Judge Emmet Sullivan, who had presided over the trial, overturned the conviction when he found out about the misconduct.  He said from the bench, "I have never seen anything approaching the mishandling and misconduct that I have seen in this case."

Among other things, the prosecutors intentionally hid evidence proving Sen. Stevens' innocence and sat quietly in their seats while one of their witnesses gave damning testimony that they knew to be false.  Not even a sitting Senator can survive that sort of out-and-out government-sponsored fraud.

The Wall Street Journal reported that the special investigation Judge Sullivan ordered is complete.  The report has been delivered, but only a summary has been made public.

Judge Sullivan's special investigator, Washington lawyer Henry F. Schuelke III, found the prosecution was "permeated by the systematic concealment of significant exculpatory evidence" that would have corroborated the longtime Republican senator's defense, according to the judge's synopsis.

The government has more resources than any individual citizen, no matter how wealthy or powerful.  For that reason, prosecutors are required to give the defense any evidence that might serve to show that the defendant was innocent.

What's more, this so-called "exculpatory evidence" must be turned over in a timely manner.  Instead of turning over the evidence, the government's lawyers deliberately concealed it and submitted evidence they knew to be false.

Shockingly, the special investigator didn't recommend prosecution:

Nevertheless, Mr. Schuelke didn't recommend a criminal contempt prosecution because he said the attorneys never disobeyed a "clear and unequivocal" order by the judge.

In other words, even though the judge had scolded the prosecution repeatedly, he never gave them an explicit order to turn over any evidence they might have had.  The investigator argued that the miscreants ought not to be prosecuted because the judge didn't give them an individual and personal command to actually follow the law they were sworn to uphold.

What hair-splitting!  Shouldn't judges assume that the lawyers who're appearing in their courts have at lest some passing familiarity with the rules of evidence and understand their obligation not to promote perjury?  Shouldn't this be even more true of lawyers employed by our federal government's Justice Department?   Maybe it's time we changed its name to something more appropriate - the Ministry of Love, say.

Obamacare owes its existence to political payoffs to reluctant Senators, vote rigging in Minnesota, and "willful and intentional misconduct" during the trial of a Republican senator.  Is it any wonder that the American people want no part of it?  Yet there it sits, diabolically churning forward.  2012 can't come too soon for us.

Will Offensicht is a staff writer for and an internationally published author by a different name.  Read other articles by Will Offensicht or other articles on Partisanship.
Reader Comments

The article reminds me of what is "is"? I am here to tell you that our country was not invaded initially by the liberals but by the lawyers. Yes, we do indeed need laws so our government can insure our rights to life, liberty and property but not to make a mockery of these laws by feints and weaves and ducking the issues. If they were to try that with some of the people that I know they would be taken care of in a short order. The story of the Alaska situation is especially egregious. The prosecutors and the judge should both be made to do hard time, they ruined Senator Stevens and could possibly cost our country trillions of dollars if obamacare is allowed to stay on the books. This does not include potentially ruining our country economically.

How do we get rid of lawyers? Simple. We as taxpayers must insist on the rewriting of the rules that lawyers are allowed to bastardize in picking juries and allow for juries to use common sense in issuing guilty and innocent verdicts. If we can contain many of the law suits that are ambulance chaser, EPA, and every so called right that are not natural rights then we might be able to discourage people from going into the law profession. Right now all it takes is one huge case for a lawyer to be set for life. Take away that incentive and you will see less lawyers who produce less that the government workers.

It is up to us to see that these type demands are executed, a tea party for bringing sanity back to the courtroom is what we need.

November 28, 2011 9:53 PM

The Times didn't bother to note that this crime made Obamacare possible, of course.

The depth of prosecutorial misconduct in the 2008 trial of Senator Ted Stevens is shocking. An inquiry ordered by Judge Emmet Sullivan of Federal District Court in Washington has found “serious, widespread and at times intentional” concealment of evidence by the Justice Department that could have helped Mr. Stevens prove his innocence. The department has a separate inquiry that must point the way to repairing the public integrity section, which is responsible for prosecuting public officials.

The Alaska senator was convicted of failing to report a gift from an oil company executive and lost his bid for re-election shortly after. Mr. Stevens was killed last year in a plane crash, a year after an F.B.I. agent offered an affidavit asserting prosecutorial misconduct. Attorney General Eric Holder Jr. acted responsibly in setting aside the conviction. But the damage to Mr. Stevens was done.

Judge Sullivan presided at the trial and dismissed the senator’s conviction in 2009 and ordered an extraordinary investigation by an outside attorney into whether criminal contempt charges should be brought against the prosecutors. The judge cited the finding last week that the prosecution was “permeated by the systematic concealment of significant exculpatory evidence which would have independently corroborated” Mr. Stevens’s defense.

Despite those findings, no charges were recommended because, the investigation noted, Judge Sullivan did not specifically order prosecutors to turn over exculpatory evidence. This technicality raises questions of whether something more explicit may be required in evidence law.

The Stevens trial remains a tragedy that saw one of the prosecutors commit suicide. Judge Sullivan’s inquiry contributes significantly to a full airing of woeful misconduct, but the Justice Department must act forcefully to repair the damage.

December 2, 2011 5:27 AM

Obamacare is the worst thing I have ever seen happening in the USA. Phylosophy should trump Law in this regusrd. Death's are racking up all because of Obama. He already has blood on his hands and it's sad that no People will stand up to him. I have an MBA and I am very smart, so here it goes. It is hard to digest, but it is the truth if you ever have the strength accept it. "Barack Obama truly is an internal Terrorist. And he is disguising the Death's that he is causing. Stand up to him. And, if anyone will not act on this and you have the power, fire them , or give them a black- mark and never ever give them a Cent of your Money!"

March 6, 2014 10:26 PM
Add Your Comment...
4000 characters remaining
Loading question...