Obama Asserts Executive Privilege On Fast And Furious Documents

[Littlewon]

141. Accepted ...

1. He is a corrupt wimp - accepted.
2. His master is the NRA - accepted.
3. Out for himself - accepted
4. Needs a windmill, climbers need enemies - yep
5. Needs Obama to make it work - accepted.
6. Criminal - open to that - would need to know the charges.
7. Would screw Boehner's wife - probably already has.
8. I'll buy that too, don't know him personally.
9. Parisian - yes, but that goes to the entire party. It was a 23 - 17 vote. Yeah, he's partisan. As are the other 22.
10. People are noticing - They are.

Let's go back to the windmill.

A man who must find at windmill at which to tilt, is going to find SOMETHING. He may find a windmill - OR, as the saying goes "Even a blind squirrel can find an acorn." Meaning, even a lazy corrupt narcissistic partisan Boehner-wife-lusting slave can stumble upon, purely by luck, a windmill which is actually not a windmill, but the real thing.

In the realm of what we know, it's possible that a bad legislator has stumbled upon something real.

Nothing proves nor disproves that (we can say that Holder's already turned over a billion documents - but I could be a college professor, send you 99% of the video of the past year of my life, and still not send you the 1% where I standing in front of my class teaching.) In other words - it's a red herring to say 'dang it he's already provided them x Billion documents.'

So.
1. It's POSSIBLE it's a cover up.
2. It's POSSIBLE there is a reason behind holding back the remaining documents.

... of course it's also possible Obama and Holder are saying 'look, Isa-hole, we're drawing the line.' ... that we admitted it was a botched investigation, and you don't get to see emails and documents about DOJ debating how to handle the PR about a botched investigation. In other words, they could simply be saying 'There are boundaries, and your crossing it, and we're stopping you.'

I know where you stand, and I know where the far right stands. As for me - if I am to make the truth my master, I have to say "I ... don't ... know."

What's odd is that
1. DOJ did not put any tracking devices on the guns
2. DOJ did not alert the Mexican government they were letting the guns 'walk.'
3. US Agents were told to 'stand down' as the guns made their way from US to other destinations, Mexico being primary.
4. My understanding, although I'm willing to accept I'm wrong on this one, is that even ATF agents in Mexico weren't alerted to the 2000+ guns being released.

Given those things: Are we saying that THAT IS THE BOTCHED PART? Who knows - maybe they started the operation and then it just slipped through the cracks - at some point oversight/leadership of the operation slipped away - and after the guns were bought, there was no one to follow up with tracking them.

Don't you at least wonder WHY, not only was the tracking 'botched' ... but that tracking not only didn't exist ... that attempts to track were actively stopped.

There are claims that this was an inadvertently continued operation from the previous administration, however Wide Receiver and the dangerous practice of gun walking was shut down in 2007 (CNN), after:

1. 300 - 600 guns were involved.
2. They were all fixed with radio devices for tracking (essentially GPS but RFID)
3. The were actively tracked by humans but ...
4. Cartel found some RFID tags, ripped them out of the guns, and the signal was lost on some number of guns (30 - 50 I've read.)
5. The operation was called off in 2007.

And Twice the DJ has had to retract what they call 'inadvertent mistakes' made under oath that are hard to characterize as mistakes.

1. Why retracting statements?
2. Why is DJ claiming continuation of previous policy, when the practice was ceased.
3. Why not track the guns?
4. Why did holder say in 2011 'I've only known about this for a couple weeks' ... then later 'well maybe it would have been better to say 'a couple months'.

Whatever the party - isn't it reasonable, even if the head of the team looking into is a complete AHole, that they at least say 'hey, there have been what may be lies, something smells fishy.' In other words - yeah - Issa is taking advantage of a certain situation, but doesn't this windmill at least make you think 'well maybe there's more to this.'

The Washington Post takes primarily the viewpoint that this smells like a fishing expedition, but even they have said 'it's under congress' purview.'

Again - I DON'T KNOW. But I do think there is more to this - innocent or not. Otherwise, why protect documents about DOJ's 2 day internal debate about how to present the PR to the public and Congress? Why not just say 'Hey - we screwed this up, here's how.'

I STILL think that, granting every single negative thing about Issa.

At the least, it seems a political error by Obama/DNC to use EP - because it's making them look guilty, and in the past 2 days I've starting seeing legitimate news organizations (CNN, CBS, others hinting at this) ... starting to pick up on it.

So - OK - Issa is bad and wrong. But did ANYTHING worth investigating happen? Is there at least reason for a disinterested party (granting that Issa IS an interested party) ... is there at least reason for a disinterested party to say 'Hey - something's not quite right - maybe?''

I accept everything you say about the Rs and Issa - but the FACTS, the truth about what we do at least know, to me raise suspicion. Personally - I'm suspicious of all government, as I think we all should be. Dems, Rs, even Libertarians. Mankind has a history of bad habits when in power, so it is the responsibility of those who grant them that power to err on the side of investigating. Were it not for that spirit, Dems and Rs alike would run rampant over this country.

Thanks for listening ... apologies for any typos ... my editor is busy cleaning her fur
LW