Obama Asserts Executive Privilege On Fast And Furious Documents

[Littlewon]

155. Yes thanks M - I understand these concepts. It is more accurately a 'Minority statement' ...

EC himself makes many statements, as ranking member, that are not official output of the minority body. Thanks but not seeking a lesson on how the gov carries on it's business. That said, Intrade has the odds of Democrats retaking the House at about 17%. I would suggest it's unlikely EC is to become ranking majority leader, nor do I believe that's a good thing.

So which of the points, including from the entire Minority document, would you like to discuss?

Citing 'numerous commentator's call it partisan' is not an argument along the lines of reason and logic, otherwise I would write a statement that 'many of my friends believe M owes me money' ... and expect support in a court or in in the public.

I see some things that may be true, but not that really bare on the facts.

I am not a lawyer and can not comment on approved wire taps and whether they can be unsealed in an oversight investigation. For example, criminal records can be sealed, however they are unsealed under certain circumstances if they become relevant. But I can grant you that. And it's fine. Certainly it is not a crime to demand them in an investigation.

The Oversight committee will have a lot of mud on their faces if they are shown to have issued a contempt order for not providing documents already protected by law. Further, EP does not protect Holder from the contempt vote.

Wiretaps are a subset of what's Oversight asks for. What's in the rest of the documents?

Holder (like Zimmerman) has given people like me reason to believe his word can not be trusted. That is to say, documented lies.

Why are they holding back. Why don't things add up.

That's what I and the public is asking.

We are not asking 'Is Issa politically motivated' because we already know he is.

I am trying to sniff out facts and the truth. You seem merely to be trying to out yell the other side.

My basis for saying that is that you have not answered a single question I have asked. I think I've yet to dodge anything. I think you are dodging facts.

How about this. Let's make a 5$ bet that says: 1. It's a partisan investigation (agreed) 2. The administration is covering something up, not just 'asserting itself.' We already know it was botched. No reason then, to conceal documents anymore. Except that there are some wikid bizzah, as we say in MA, stubborn, stubborn facts. I can't reconcile them, even though Issa is a self-seeking partisan, otherwise know as a politician.

"Game, set, match."

I don't think we're a match, but I'm flattered you find me cute. Thanks for talking.