Over the weekend, I watched a clip of Bill Maher's recent show. He said he'd never even heard of Operation Fast and Furious until, gosh, maybe yesterday? Hmm, I thought. Hmm.
Could it be that a TON of people -- maybe even most people? -- have never heard of this ATF operation? Maher is nothing, if not supremely well-informed.
So I dutifully searched the web for an unbiased source to inform you. An unbiased source you would believe. A source that -- oh, hell, who am I kidding? The Daily Show is clearly biased, but damn it, Jon Stewart can be good.
Now then. If you're wondering why you haven't heard about this operation before from, say, Diane Sawyer in her soothing tones, or Rachel Maddow in her breathless ones, it's probably because the whole thing was so inexplicably and utterly dumb. So preposterous, in fact, that you can't even mention it at cocktail parties. People look at you like you're crazy. Try it some time.
Though perhaps now, you'll believe me when I tell you, Fast and Furious is not just a conservative histrionic fit. No, it's a dumb-ass, incredible, flying saucer of sh#t. Which would explain why, when Congress first asked him about it, Attorney General Eric Holder said "Who are you creeps, anyway? What on earth are you talking about." I know nothing!
But, alas, CBS broke the story -- a month after Holder's indignant denials -- ultimately bringing about a formal retraction, thousands of golf holes later.
So now I give you Jon Stewart who, on June 21, 2011, lo those twelve months ago, explained the logistics of the Operation:
Ahem. You can see why it was doomed to fail. As can the purring cat sitting at my feet as I type this. Didn't, couldn't, never would. HAHAHAHA. Work. Not one iota. Ever.
(Executive summary: ATF's mission: figure out where Mexican drug lords are getting their weapons by giving them our weapons. But, umm, don't track our weapons. And for God's sake, don't tell the Mexican government what the hell we're doing. It's just too embarrassing. And brilliant.)
Alrighty then. So from June, 2011, through June, 2012, the media literally pulled the curtain on Fast and Furious coverage. Oh, all except for those crazy pajama-clad, conservative bloggers and . . . well, Comedy Central.
So here again is Jon Stewart, on June 21, 2012, fully twelve months later, explaining Operation Fast and Furious -- if ever it could be -- and how Obama's invocation of executive privilege is
Mediaite broke it up into two segments:
Just why, you may be asking, are Democrats calling the Congressional inquiry into this swirling madness a witch hunt? After all, 300+ Mexicans died, along with two US government agents. Congress's outrage and investigation seem warranted, no?
Then again, is Darrell Issa some kind of feral hunting wildebeest? Is he really going to hold Eric Holder in contempt for not producing every double-sided page of every single phone book that ever crossed White House thresholds?
Short answer: Holder and DOJ categorically, unequivocally, and repeatedly denied any knowledge whatsoever of Operation Fast and Furious. Their retraction only came months after CBS found hard evidence showing they knew precisely what was going on.
So don't be fooled by the wildebeest press. The contempt citation is quite narrow: did you lie or were you really golfing and utterly unaware that your ATF was handing over thousands of guns to Mexican drug cartels? Either way, give us the documents, please.
Meanwhile, back at thefarm White House garden, Michelle Obama enthralled a nation as she harvested arugula and exotic beets, grown from seeds donated by Jefferson's Monticello. God, I miss Downton Abbey.
So don't be fooled by the wildebeest press. The contempt citation is quite narrow: did you lie or were you really golfing and utterly unaware that your ATF was handing over thousands of guns to Mexican drug cartels? Either way, give us the documents, please.
Meanwhile, back at the
Anyway, some ten distraction-filled months later, DOJ and Holder said, err, um, well, crap. Yes, there was such an operation. But, uh, we thought you were asking about an operation under President Bush's administration that went by an entirely different name. Crikey!
Now, and understandably so, Congress wants to know how in hell Holder and the DOJ could have been horrifically clueless -- assuming they were truthfully invoking the clueless privilege -- or instead, pathologically duplicitous.
Because seriously, with a bogey that big, how confident can we -- or Congress? -- be that that Holder and DOJ were telling the truth in the first place? Documents, please, under either scenario.
Holder's response: No effing way, you despicable, fraudulent-vote-suppressing, Wiccan hunting weirdos.
Holder's response: No effing way, you despicable, fraudulent-vote-suppressing, Wiccan hunting weirdos.
Accordingly, Congress is poised to issue a criminal contempt citation against Holder for flat-out refusing to provide documents that establish he was either (1) lying and knew about the ridiculous operation all along or (2) not lying -- he simply had no idea the Fast and Furious killing-machine was going on under his watch.
So you see, unpalatable as it all is, it's pretty simple.
But now Obama has invoked the "executive privilege" to make sure Holder doesn't have to explain his cluelessness. Or, in the alternative, explain why he wasn't clueless at all, but lied and said he was, anyway.
One big hole in Obama's "executive privilege" claim is that he maintains no one -- no one in the White House -- knew about the operation. Which is fine and dandy except -- poof !! -- there goes the privilege. Because poof, there go the executives.
I've never heard of a presidential peon privilege before, but please, by all means, let me know if there is such a creature.
One big hole in Obama's "executive privilege" claim is that he maintains no one -- no one in the White House -- knew about the operation. Which is fine and dandy except -- poof !! -- there goes the privilege. Because poof, there go the executives.
I've never heard of a presidential peon privilege before, but please, by all means, let me know if there is such a creature.
To be sure, there is a "deliberative" privilege. It's a weaker privilege but it does falls under the umbrella of executive privilege. But the deliberative privilege only makes deliberations about policy privileged, and even then, it only covers deliberations that took place before the policies were implemented.
The deliberative privilege in no way shields conversations -- or, to be fancier -- deliberations about what to do after lies have been told.
The deliberative privilege in no way shields conversations -- or, to be fancier -- deliberations about what to do after lies have been told.
Simply put, communications and documents about how to cover up lies are, well, UNPRIVILEGED. Surely you remember Richard M. Nixon?
As I said, it's really not complicated. So as we round the home plate, it's a swing and a miss, strike three.
Copyright © 2012, www.lawyermommusings.blogspot.com. All rights reserved.
Posts
1 comment:
Bill Maher is an abject, abysmal liar. As is every libtard in the DC Beltway who "never heard of Fast 'n Furious".
Post a Comment