In the grand scheme of things, a congressional committee’s vote to hold Attorney General Eric Holder in contempt of Congress for failing to turn over documents related to the failed and fatal Operation Fast and Furious gun-running scandal doesn’t amount to a hill of beans.And:
By now declaring executive privilege, the administration is legally stipulating that there was direct White House involvement. And it has placed itself in Catch-22 jeopardy: It was more intimately involved in Fast and Furious than previously stated and it has been involved in nothing less than a cover-up to prevent that public disclosure.By not stating all of the details, it's the Tribune-Review editorial board that's lying. Let's start with the second paragraph. Is the White House legally stipulating that there was "direct" involvement? In what? Fast and Furious?
Either the White House lied or the White House lied.
That's what Scaife's braintrust wants you to think.
However, when you look at what the DOJ asked the White House to assert Executive Privilege over, you'll see a different story. From the DOJ letter seeking executive privilege:
The [House Oversight] Committee has made clear that its contempt resolution will be limited to internal Department [of Justice] "documents from after February 4, 2011 related to the Department's response to Congress." Letter for Eric H. Holder, Jr., Attorney General, from Darrell E. Issa, Chairman, Committee on Oversight and Government Reform, U.S. House of Representatives at 1-2 (June 13, 2012) ("Chairman's Letter"). I am asking you to assert executive privilege over these documents. They were not generated in the course of the conduct of Fast and Furious. Instead, they were created after the investigative tactics at issue in that operation had terminated and in the course of the Department's deliberative process concerning how to respond to congressional and related media inquiries into that operation.Hmm. So the documents Issa's committee subpoenaed are not about Fast and Furious but about the internal administration discussions about it after the program was terminated.
Now go back and look at how Scaife's braintrust describes things. Surely they knew the truth and yet by leaving out enough of the truth they're asserting something completely different.
Who's lying now?