Because I’m sure the intention of the Founding Fathers was to protect bureaucratic party hosts from testifying before Congress in regards to a massive security breach at the home of the president of the United States.

I believe it was Madison who said, “Freedom, true freedom, requires that the White House Social Secretary be protected from Congressional inquiries. Anything less constitutes tyranny.” And then a bunch of other founders agreed with him and the separation of powers was born.

How unbelievable is it that the Obama Administration would claim Desiree Rogers is exempt from testimony under this excuse? Even committed liberal legal experts are calling bullcrap.

[I]t is literally inconceivable that anyone drafting the Constitution would have imagined the position of White House Social Secretary, paid for with taxpayer funds, and that the majesty of separation of powers rhetoric would apply to a situation like this…. This is simply yet more evidence that all presidents, regardless of political party and ostensible commitment to “transparency,” take on royalist airs when taking their oath of office.

Rogers is being protected for one reason and one reason only: She’s a reliable crony to Barack Obama and Valerie Jarrett.

She and her ex-husband bundled hundreds of thousands of dollars for the Obama campaign last year. Said ex-husband also happens to be a friend of Michelle Obama’s family.

So clearly Crony Rogers can’t be held accountable for her actions (or lack thereof). That would put an Obama financier in a tough spot and we can’t have that. It’s not the Chicago way.

This is hope and change?