What Fresh Hell Is This?

June 22, 2012

The Trib Lies. AGAIN.

From today's op-ed page where they're discussing "Fast and Furious" and the recent evocation of Executive Privilege by the Obama Administration:
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.
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.

Either the White House lied or the White House lied.
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?

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?


Heir to the Throne said...

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 Davyvoe/DOJ is being misleading here.

The Documents requested are of internal administration discussions between the time the DOJ sent a false letter (lied) to Congress claiming the ATF does not gunwalk and the DOJ retracting that letter as inaccurate (Complete lying CYA BS).
Who's lying now?
The DOJ/Eric Holder have a track records of lying to Congress 3 times.
The ATF does not gunwalk in a letter to Sen. Grassley (retracted by the DOJ)
Holder only knew about gunwalking for a few weeks (Revised to a few months)
Bush AG knew about gunwalking. (retracted by the DOJ)

BTW The Nixon Tape/Cheny Energy Task force are internal administration discussions. Have you changed your mind about Congress subpoenaing them?

Please Democrats keep defending Fast and Furious and the DOJ coverup of it.

Anonymous said...

Nixon allowed Haldeman and Ehrlichman to listen to the tapes, to prepare for their testimony before Congress, "after" they had been fired. It was impossible for Nixon to say that a duly formed committee of a co-equal branch of government could not listen to the tapes, but that private citizens could.

Cheney also was communicating with private citizens in those Energy Task Force meetings.

No one has asserted that the Holder stuff is anything but purely internal DOJ work product. The very stuff that Executive Privilege is meant to cover. (And, Congress has the same privilege, covering their internal work, btw.)

Heir to the Throne said...

Haldeman and Ehrlichman...but that private citizens could.

Looked them up on wiki. A White House Chief of Staff to President Richard Nixon is not in Government and just at private citizen?

EdHeath said...

HTTT, perhaps this will demonstrate why the Trib's editorial is badly misleading. And why, by defending them, you are also being misleading.

If, as gtl says, Haldeman was fired, wouldn't he be a private citizen? Not that I know anything about it, but that's how gtl presented the facts.

And anyway, Cheney was still talking to private citizens, n'est pas?

Anonymous said...

You could have saved yourself the trouble of looking it up on wiki.
As I said, Nixon allowed Haldeman and Ehrlichman to listen to the tapes after they been fired.

While they were formerly the WH Chief of Staff, and Domestic Policy Advisor to the President, they were both just private citizens when they sat down to hear the tapes, and prep for their testimony.

Anonymous said...

Haldeman and Ehrlichman resigned, April 30, 1973.

Haldeman listened to the tapes, in his home, a few days prior to his Senate testimony, in late July, 1973.