GOP Oversight Chair Admits There Is No Evidence Of White House Involvement In Fast And Furious

[babylonsister]

Yet this truth won't get out, will it.


http://thinkprogress.org/justice/2012/06/24/505180/gop-oversight-chair-admits-there-is-no-evidence-of-white-house-involvement-in-fast-and-furious/

GOP Oversight Chair Admits There Is No Evidence Of White House Involvement In Fast And Furious

By Josh Israel on Jun 24, 2012 at 9:38 am


Last week, Speaker of the House John Boehner (R-OH) claimed that the White House decision to invoke executive privilege to prevent the release of some documents related to the “Fast and Furious” investigation indicated some sort of admission of a White House cover-up. Today, pressed by Fox News Sunday host Chris Wallace, House Oversight Committee Chairman Darrell Issa (R-CA) admitted that there is absolutely no evidence to back up Boehner’s allegation:

WALLACE: Do you have any evidence that White House officials were involved in these decisions, that they knowingly misled Congress, and are involved in a cover-up?

ISSA: No, we don’t. And what we are seeking are documents that we know to exist, February 4 to December {2011} that are in fact about {murdered Border Patrol agent} Brian Terry’s murder, who knew, and why people were lying about it…

WALLACE: I want to be clear, because we’ve got to get out, no evidence that the White House is involved in the cover up?

ISSA: And I hope they don’t get involved.

Watch the video @ link~

Given that Boehner was first elected to Congress in 1990, he should certainly know better than to infer that “executive privilege” has to involve White House officials. Every administration over his lengthy Congressional tenure has asserted “deliberative process privilege” and as recently as 2008, Bush administration Attorney General Michael Mukasey rejected congressional subpoenas for reports of Department of Justice interviews with the White House staff regarding the Valerie Plame Wilson identify leak investigation citing the same privilege.

[BumRushDaShow]

1. What happened to Chris Wallace?

His father dies (and actually, this started a bit before that), and he finally grew a bit of a spine?

It's probably more that Faux snooze wants a scoop to run with and one tiny tiny faction of them wants just a hint of plausibility before they go full bore Obama-bash.

[ProgressiveEconomist]

8. Issa today revealed EXACTLY what he's fishing for in DOJ documents--

I think it was on FNS with Wallace but I can't be sure because every time I dialed another station this morning there Issa was again.

Anyway, Issa IMO confirmed that Rachel Maddow had it exactly right in a show last week. This whole contempt imbroglio is seeking material to animate the NRA and other hysterical "second Amendment rights" advocates. Issa said that some DOJ aide MIGHT have suggested to Holder (these are NOT Issa's exact words but rather IMO what he meant), "Hey, this Bush gunrunning idea still being carried out by rogue ATF agents from Phoenix is nuts. But maybe we can USE this publicity about Bryan Terry's death and massive armed cartel violence in Mexico to help bring back the Assault Weapons ban that sunset in 2004 after 10 years of suppressing production of military-style wapons and high-capacity magazines."

[cstanleytech]

10. That plus it helps them rally their base around the opinion of Obama

that they planted and have been nurturing since he won the Democratic nomination nearly 4 years ago of him being corrupt.
Then again maybe they are right and Obama is corrupt after all they do have alot of experience with corruption in the office of the president from Nixon, to Reagan on to Bush sr and recently with Bush jr.

[Ilsa]

11. And it's working.

My best friend thinks this is going on. She's a member of the NRA and has been trying to turn me against Obama for the last six months. She's been reading survivalist blogs and she's turning right wing extremist. I'm trying hard to dismiss her paranoia, but it gets aggravating. Only time will prove to her that the nutjobs are wrong.

[coalition_unwilling]

12. Not trying to be snarky but why in the world would your best

friend be a right wing extremist? Does your friendship's emotional payoffs supercede the political 'ugh' factor?

Color me confused. As soon as I know someone is a rightwing extremist, I stop communicating with them at all.

[Ilsa]

14. I'm sorry. I didnt mean

to say she's one, but I know she's reading stuff on these blogs.
But she is interested in preparedness and reads survivalist blogs. I'm concerned she might be drinking their koolaid; not thinking critically about what she is reading or taking in.
She's been my friend and a very reasonable person for over 25 years. I'm not going to drop her if her ideology shifts one way or the other unless she becomes intolerable. I may have to avoid politics with her. I'm afraid I offended her years ago over religion, so we discuss that subject rarely and delicately.

[coalition_unwilling]

15. Again, not trying to be snarky but 'preparedness' for what exactly? I'm

assuming your friend is not in or of the 1%, so what exactly does she worry about? (The 1% have to constantly worry that the 99% will wake up and set aside their petty intra-class differences in going after the 40% of the wealth controlled by that self-same 1%, so they do have reason to 'prepare'

[Ilsa]

16. No, she's not a 1%-er.

She is concerned about both natural disasters or economic ones that could cause food shortages or disruptions in distribution. (An example of a natural disaster would be a solar flare that brings down our electrical grid. An economic disaster would be one on the level of The Great Depression.)

I don't have an issue with her level of preparedness, although I think she goes overboard. Her preparedness doesn't cost me anything.

Her mindset about political issues tends to self-correct over time. It has in the past, anyway.

She and I have been through a lot together. And I don't quit on my friends easily.

[coalition_unwilling]

17. Ah! Those are both valid concerns, as Katrina and its aftermath should have demonstrated

to all but the most obtuse. I've seen a fairly credible report elsewhere that most American cities have at best a 7-day food supply. So any type of significant natural disaster could quickly push a city to go 'feral'.

I've never read a 'survivalist blog,' because I'm not sure I would want to survive. I would simply say that, had I the secrets to surviving some catastrophe, I highly doubt I would be blogging about them. (Same insight applies to 'get-rich-quick' newsletters, I would suppose

I wonder if her interest in this survivalist strand of Americana is a mask for some deeper insecurity that she perhaps cannot yet give voice to. Just idle speculation from your friendly armchair shrink

[JayhawkSD]

2. Executive priveledge covers only one person, the President

It protects the President's ability to collect free and frank advice from his advisors and other sources, and in that form I fully support it. It does not protect anyone under his command who are acting with or without his knowledge, when they are not interacting with the President.

If the President was not involved in "Fast and Furious" then how can executive priveledge apply? It is not intended to be used as a shield to protect the entire executive brance from misbehavior..

[ProgressiveEconomist]

3. Incorrect. In its most thorough analysis of the issue, the USSC noted

"the valid need for protection of communications between high Government officials and those who advise and assist them in the performance of their manifold duties" and that "[h]uman experience teaches that those who expect public dissemination of their remarks may well temper candor with a concern for appearances and for their own interests to the detriment of the decisionmaking process."

See the description of "US v. Nixon" at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Executive_privilege .

[BumRushDaShow]

4. And if the "free and frank" advice or discussion

involves names of active under-cover operatives tied to or who perhaps worked with the agent who was killed, then you want their names out there in the Chicago Sun-Times or other M$M like what happened to Valerie Plame?

Remember that Issa went further than others have by demanding everything unredacted and DUers of late seem to prefer RW talking points that help to throw federal employees under the bus.

[JDPriestly]

5. It also covers the President's ability to obtain free and frank information

from his staff (including the AG) regarding their conduct.

Bush did not want to disclose what the communications he had from Mukasey. Similarly, Obama does not want to disclose communications from Holder. The similarities continue to include all kinds of inter-departmental communications. I'm not sure I agree with this idea, but it is the same concept used under other presidents.

[Aerows]

13. There is a major reason why this information needs to be protected

It can identify undercover operatives, and potentially threaten the safety of both them and civilians. Don't you think it's a good idea to also protect the identity of those gun dealers that were cooperating with the ATF? I think it isl

[Iliyah]

6. Doesn't matter what he says now

its out there via rw news coverage that Pres O is involved and is covering up. By mistake I just heard Gov. Perry telling Schrieffer that the President is covering up something in F&F. Thats there talking point and they are sticking with it.

My conclusion is if you have a D or I by your name, pursuant to Issa you are dead meat. What the GOparty want is a one party system run by corporations, ie, fascism and or worst, a dictatorship, or worse - Nazi system.

[cstanleytech]

9. Well Doh.

"What the GOparty want is a one party system run by corporations, ie, fascism and or worst, a dictatorship, or worse - Nazi system."
Next you will be telling us that the sky is blue
And yes I am joking with you and yes I also agree with you that is what it seems like the GOP is becoming more and more like in their extremism.

[jwirr]

7. Is this old news? The Century Link headlines is saying the opposite? Just wondering.