cudjo Posted June 23, 2012 Share Posted June 23, 2012 What the.....? It's almost like they are saying "we don't want you to talk to anyone who had anything to do with this." That is what they are saying Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pollyannaish Posted June 23, 2012 Share Posted June 23, 2012 And you know... When my kids used to do that, I believed there was nothing to worry about. Ha! What the.....? It's almost like they are saying "we don't want you to talk to anyone who had anything to do with this." That is what they are saying Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Draggingtree Posted June 23, 2012 Share Posted June 23, 2012 June 22, 2012 12:00 A.M. May Obama Claim Executive Privilege? In any case, justice requires answers about Fast and Furious. By Fred Thompson The investigation into Operation Fast and Furious by the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee has resulted in President Obama’s invoking executive privilege for the first time. Attorney General Eric Holder has been waltzing the committee around, producing only selected documents about the botched Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives (ATF) gun-running operation, and (you guessed it) blaming the Bush administration for having knowledge of similar activities. This charge was so clearly erroneous that Holder later withdrew it. The showdown between Holder and the committee culminated on Wednesday in a vote to hold Holder in contempt. Shortly before the vote, Obama claimed executive privilege in order to prevent the production of the subpoenaed documents. Issues as to the proper use of presidential executive privilege have arisen many times, since almost every modern president has used it at one time or another. Interestingly, no mention of executive privilege is found in the Constitution, and neither is any of the right of Congress to investigate. But the Supreme Court has recognized both as implied powers, inherent in the powers that are given to both branches by the Constitution. With regard to executive privilege, the courts have recognized a qualified privilege to protect communications between the president and executive officials, as well as deliberations that go into advice given to the president. George W. Bush successfully claimed the privilege with regard to matters pertaining to presidential adviser Karl Rove, White House counsel Harriet Miers, and Vice President Dick Cheney. Presidents have, on occasion, cast an even wider net over executive-branch action, but I am not aware of any court case that has upheld the right to treat communications between people who work in a department, such as Justice, as privileged. In fact, recently the D.C. Court of Appeals held just the opposite. Nevertheless, I believe these intra-department communications are Read More http://www.nationalreview.com/articles/303695/may-obama-claim-executive-privilege-fred-thompson Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Draggingtree Posted June 23, 2012 Share Posted June 23, 2012 June 23, 2012 Masked and Spurious D.L. Hammack Within what used to the hallowed and respected halls of Congress...there amongst the current representatives of the people, are housed the memories of past leaders - the ghosts of the founders of our great country. While it is certain that none of them could call themselves "angels" or "100% pure," it's a safe bet that if any one of them had partaken in events, let alone even contemplated them, similar to those now being perpetrated by the Department of Justice and the ideologically motivated Attorney General, either a firing squad would have been convened or the gallows would have been set up and a pine box would be under construction. Isn't it bad enough that he has chosen which laws to enforce and which to overlook? If justice is blind, then why is it that this man sees crime in two colors: black and white? The murder of an American citizen was committed using a weapon that was supplied - to members of one of the most notorious drug cartels - by this government...OUR government and yet we're being told that there's nothing here to see...just keep moving! As his testimony would have you believe; He didn't know anything about F &F (for the benefit of the AG and to clarify; F & F refers to Fast And Furious) until he heard about it on the news. He would have us believe that subordinates of his, far down the chain of command, acted on their own volition and created a program that traversed the borders of a neighboring country...without so much as a nod from their superiors or a phone call to Mexican officials? And, to top it all off, after all of these acts of what could be construed as treason (providing either intelligence or the means to kill a uniformed American officer), nobody has been fired or brought up on charges? Mr. Holder, this is America-not Venezuela! Since the House subcommittee hearings won't be persuaded to go away with the specious stories told by this cabinet member, he now has called in his hole card: The President of the United States. We are now being sold on this bill of goods: The AG didn't know anything about this operation, nor did the President. Yet, it has been deemed necessary and the call has been harkened for these documents to be protected from prying eyes due to Executive Privilege. Let me get this straight: 1) Neither of these (snip) Read more: http://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2012/06/masked_and_spurious.html#ixzz1ydyDPFBY Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Valin Posted June 23, 2012 Share Posted June 23, 2012 June 22, 2012 12:00 A.M. May Obama Claim Executive Privilege? In any case, justice requires answers about Fast and Furious. By Fred Thompson Nevertheless, I believe these intra-department communications are precisely the kind of documents that Obama is claiming are privileged. If in fact the documents, or some of them, were sent to the president or his White House aides, then the president’s claim would be stronger. But it would also mean he or his staff was much more involved in Fast and Furious than anyone knew. The money quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Valin Posted June 23, 2012 Share Posted June 23, 2012 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Valin Posted June 23, 2012 Share Posted June 23, 2012 Bill Maher explains it all to you...or something like that Maher on GOP’s Fast and Furious crusade: ‘Republicans don’t care about dead Mexicans’ Jeff Poor 6/22/12 On Friday’s “Real Time with Bill Maher” on HBO, panelists debated the relevance of the Fast and Furious gunwalking scandal and the competence of Attorney General Eric Holder. Maher assumed much of his audience was unaware of the details about the scandal, so he gave them a refresher before unloading his own opinion. “[House oversight committee Chairman] Darrell Issa says this is a giant scandal,” Maher said. “I’ve heard on Fox News this week it’s worse than Watergate because 200 Mexicans have died. First of all, let me just say Republicans don’t care about dead Mexicans, A. And B — I think those 200 dead Mexicans would be dead even if we hadn’t sold them guns. They would have gotten the guns somewhere else. So is it really a scandal?” (Snip) (Video at link) Then Rachel 'the smirk queen' Maddow gives we the great unwashed the benefit of her incredibly deeply informed take on this. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eugYzlzFycs Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Valin Posted June 24, 2012 Share Posted June 24, 2012 Another view.... Power Line: Was Fast and Furious intended to promote gun control? Paul Mirengoff 6/23/12 As John notes here, Bill Whittle is arguing that the Fast and Furious program was an effort by the Obama administration to increase bloodshed in Mexico and thereby lead to tougher gun control regulation in the U.S. This theory has been around for a while, and may receive a wider hearing now that Obama has asserted a weak privilege claim to prevent the disclosure of some Fast and Furious documents. The theory cannot be ruled out. However, I don’t find it persuasive. (Snip) But what about the cover-up, including the assertion of a weak executive privilege claim? Bill Whittle says that to understand it, we should follow the ideology. In reality, cover-ups typically stem from a quintessentially non-ideological motive – the desire to escape blame and stay out of trouble. (Snip) (As always the comments are enlightening) So Plot or Screw Up..or a combination of the two? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Valin Posted June 24, 2012 Share Posted June 24, 2012 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Draggingtree Posted June 24, 2012 Share Posted June 24, 2012 Saturday Night Card Game (MSNBC Swarm attack in effect) Posted by William A. Jacobson Saturday, June 23, 2012 at 6:10pm Whenever military operations are non-linear, dispersed, and decentralized, swarming is an effective tactic….Swarming occurs when several units conduct a convergent attack on a target from multiple axes. Attacks can be either long range fires or close range fire and hit-and-run attacks. Swarming can be pre-planned or opportunistic. Swarming usually involves pulsing where units converge rapidly on a target, attack and then re-disperse.” “When a predator strikes a school of fish, the group is capable of scattering in patterns that make it almost impossible to track any individual. It might explode in a flash, create a kind of moving bubble around the predator, or fracture into multiple blobs, before coming back together and swimming away.” (snip) See The Six Videos at link below http://legalinsurrection.com/2012/06/saturday-night-card-game-msnbc-swarm-attack-in-effect/ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Valin Posted June 25, 2012 Share Posted June 25, 2012 Issa: No evidence of White House coverup WASHINGTON, June 25 (UPI) -- The House has no evidence the White House was involved in a coverup of a botched U.S. gun-trafficking operation, a Republican lawmaker leading the probe said. The acknowledgment by House oversight committee Chairman Darrell Issa, R-Calif., differed from a statement by House Speaker John Boehner, R-Ohio, who alleged Thursday President Barack Obama's decision to invoke executive privilege over documents related to the committee's probe of the gun-tracking operation, known as "Operation Fast and Furious," indicated top administration officials were involved in withholding information. "The decision to invoke executive privilege is an admission that White House officials were involved in decisions that misled the Congress and covered up the truth," Boehner told reporters. When Issa was asked on "Fox News Sunday" if the committee had evidence White House officials knowingly misled Congress or were involved in a coverup, he said, "No, we don't." (Snip) I guess this is supposed to mean something...what that is I'm not sure. Also the question is still to be answered...Why did Obama do this? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Valin Posted June 25, 2012 Share Posted June 25, 2012 @Draggingtree Good thing there's no coordination or anything. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NCTexan Posted June 25, 2012 Share Posted June 25, 2012 Both statements can be factual and not in conflict.... The House has no evidence the White House was involved in a coverup of a botched U.S. gun-trafficking operation, a Republican lawmaker leading the probe said. May be true that they currently have no evidence that the WH was involved in the ongoing coverup that was being investigated. "The decision to invoke executive privilege is an admission that White House officials were involved in decisions that misled the Congress and covered up the truth," Boehner told reporters. An admission of guilt by actions in not necessarily evidence in the legal sense of the word... but probably a good indication that can be inferred from Barry's actions. This may be an action to prevent the committee from actually obtaining evidence. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nickydog Posted June 25, 2012 Share Posted June 25, 2012 Both statements can be factual and not in conflict.... The House has no evidence the White House was involved in a coverup of a botched U.S. gun-trafficking operation, a Republican lawmaker leading the probe said. May be true that they currently have no evidence that the WH was involved in the ongoing coverup that was being investigated. "The decision to invoke executive privilege is an admission that White House officials were involved in decisions that misled the Congress and covered up the truth," Boehner told reporters. An admission of guilt by actions in not necessarily evidence in the legal sense of the word... but probably a good indication that can be inferred from Barry's actions. This may be an action to prevent the committee from actually obtaining evidence. My thoughts as well, but far better expressed than what my pea brain was able to put together. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Valin Posted June 25, 2012 Share Posted June 25, 2012 @NCTexan I have no doubt that Rachel Maddow is even as we speak gathering her facts and applying the awesome power of her intellect and her devastating smirk to crush your argument! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cudjo Posted June 25, 2012 Share Posted June 25, 2012 Both statements can be factual and not in conflict.... The House has no evidence the White House was involved in a coverup of a botched U.S. gun-trafficking operation, a Republican lawmaker leading the probe said. May be true that they currently have no evidence that the WH was involved in the ongoing coverup that was being investigated. "The decision to invoke executive privilege is an admission that White House officials were involved in decisions that misled the Congress and covered up the truth," Boehner told reporters. An admission of guilt by actions in not necessarily evidence in the legal sense of the word... but probably a good indication that can be inferred from Barry's actions. This may be an action to prevent the committee from actually obtaining evidence. My thoughts as well, but far better expressed than what my pea brain was able to put together. sounds like a little obstruction of justice going on Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nickydog Posted June 25, 2012 Share Posted June 25, 2012 @NCTexan I have no doubt that Rachel Maddow is even as we speak gathering her facts and applying the awesome power of her intellect and her devastating smirk to crush your argument! Oh, yes. But on the other hand, how many will see the result of her efforts? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Valin Posted June 25, 2012 Share Posted June 25, 2012 @NCTexan I have no doubt that Rachel Maddow is even as we speak gathering her facts and applying the awesome power of her intellect and her devastating smirk to crush your argument! Oh, yes. But on the other hand, how many will see the result of her efforts? 3 times as many as watch Crazy Ed...If this is good or bad, I'm not quite sure. I must Share The Pain....Bet you can't watch the whole thing. Before clicking I highly recommend a large glass the whiskey Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nickydog Posted June 25, 2012 Share Posted June 25, 2012 @NCTexan I have no doubt that Rachel Maddow is even as we speak gathering her facts and applying the awesome power of her intellect and her devastating smirk to crush your argument! Oh, yes. But on the other hand, how many will see the result of her efforts? 3 times as many as watch Crazy Ed...If this is good or bad, I'm not quite sure. I must Share The Pain....Bet you can't watch the whole thing. Before clicking I highly recommend a large glass the whiskey I couldn't click on it. Even whiskey would not have cut the pain. I absolutely cannot stand Rachel. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Casino67 Posted June 25, 2012 Share Posted June 25, 2012 She is busy collecting all of those 'disparate facts'; then spinning them to adhere to her agenda. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NCTexan Posted June 25, 2012 Share Posted June 25, 2012 @NCTexan I have no doubt that Rachel Maddow is even as we speak gathering her facts and applying the awesome power of her intellect and her devastating smirk to crush your argument! @Valin I withdraw my argument... as I cringe in fear of the high testosterone wrath of Rachel MadCow. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Valin Posted June 25, 2012 Share Posted June 25, 2012 @NCTexan I have no doubt that Rachel Maddow is even as we speak gathering her facts and applying the awesome power of her intellect and her devastating smirk to crush your argument! @Valin I withdraw my argument... as I cringe in fear of the high testosterone wrath of Rachel MadCow. LOL!!! I think I just hurt myself! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Valin Posted June 25, 2012 Share Posted June 25, 2012 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=T_bLPNsMVso Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Valin Posted June 25, 2012 Share Posted June 25, 2012 @NCTexan I have no doubt that Rachel Maddow is even as we speak gathering her facts and applying the awesome power of her intellect and her devastating smirk to crush your argument! Oh, yes. But on the other hand, how many will see the result of her efforts? 3 times as many as watch Crazy Ed...If this is good or bad, I'm not quite sure. I must Share The Pain....Bet you can't watch the whole thing. Before clicking I highly recommend a large glass the whiskey I couldn't click on it. Even whiskey would not have cut the pain. I absolutely cannot stand Rachel. Oh come on click it...it'll be fine really.....Would I lie about something like this? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nickydog Posted June 25, 2012 Share Posted June 25, 2012 @NCTexan I have no doubt that Rachel Maddow is even as we speak gathering her facts and applying the awesome power of her intellect and her devastating smirk to crush your argument! Oh, yes. But on the other hand, how many will see the result of her efforts? 3 times as many as watch Crazy Ed...If this is good or bad, I'm not quite sure. I must Share The Pain....Bet you can't watch the whole thing. Before clicking I highly recommend a large glass the whiskey I couldn't click on it. Even whiskey would not have cut the pain. I absolutely cannot stand Rachel. Oh come on click it...it'll be fine really.....Would I lie about something like this? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now