Quantcast

President Obama caught in a lie yet again....

BrianD3 2012/06/20 16:14:23
You!
Add Photos & Videos
Several months ago we were told that President Barak Obama had no knowledge of the operation called "Fast and Furious." He and his staff swore on a stack of Bibles as tall as Michelle that he was not involved in and had no knowledge whatsoever of such an operation and yet, today, he has proven what we already knew. It was all a lie.

Today he has claimed executive privledge to protect documents related to the "Fast and Furious" operation. Why would he claim executive privledge for something he allegedly had no knowledge of or involvement with??



President Obama is claiming executive privilege in refusing to give certain documents to Congress concerning the "Fast and Furious" operation.


The Justice Department requested that Obama assert the privilege regarding documents concerning the botched gun-smuggling operation.


The news comes as House Republicans consider holding Attorney General Eric Holder in contempt over the Fast and Furious dispute.


In a letter to Rep. Darrell Issa, R-Calif., chairman of the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee, a Justice Department official said executive privilege applies to documents that explain how the department learned of problems with the investigation.


"I write now to inform you that the President has asserted executive privilege over the relevant post-February 4, 2011, documents," writes Deputy Attorney General James Cole. "We regret that we have arrived at this point, after the many steps we have taken to address the Committee's concerns and to accommodate the Committee's legitimate oversight interests regarding Operation Fast and Furious."


Republicans said they are stunned by the president's move, while Democrats on the Oversight committee accused GOP lawmakers of carrying out a political witch hunt.


"The president's assertion of executive privilege creates more questions," said Rep. Dan Burton, R-Ind. "That brings into question whether Eric Holder knew about it and how much the president knew about it."


In a letter written to Obama written on Tuesday, Holder said he was "very concerned that the compelled production to Congress of internal Executive Branch documents generated in the course of the deliberative process concerning its response to congressional oversight and related media inquiries would have significant, damaging consequences."


The White House made the move after Issa and Holder met late Tuesday evening for about 20 minutes in an unsuccessful, last-minute effort to head off today's hearing to consider whether to hold Holder in contempt. Holder told reporters following the meeting that he offered to provide the documents on the condition that Issa gave his assurance that doing so would satisfy two committee subpoenas and resolve the dispute.


Issa is particularly interested in seeing documents that shed light on why the Department of Justice decided to withdraw a February 2011 letter sent to Congress denying allegations of gunwalking.


Elijah Cummings, D-Md., the ranking member of the committee, noted that the Justice Department had already turned over more than 1,000 pages of documents and questioned Issa's motives.


"It seems clear that you had no interest in resolving this issue, and that the Committee planned to go forward with contempt before we walked into the meeting with the Attorney General," Cummings said.


The investigation into the operation was spurred after Sen. Charles Grassley, R-Iowa, inquired into whistle-blower allegations that the government had allowed the transfer of illegally purchased weapons that were found at the scene of the murder of U.S. Border Patrol Agent Brian Terry.


Grassley slammed the White House on Wednesday for the move.


"How can the president assert executive privilege if there was no White House involvement?" Grassley said in a statement. "How can the president exert executive privilege over documents he's supposedly never seen? Is something very big being hidden to go to this extreme?"

Read More: http://content.usatoday.com/communities/theoval/po...

Add a comment above

Top Opinion

  • TruBluTopaz 2012/06/20 16:21:52
    He is a clumsy liar
    TruBluTopaz
    +13
    "How can the president assert executive privilege if there was no White House involvement?" Grassley said in a statement. "How can the president exert executive privilege over documents he's supposedly never seen? Is something very big being hidden to go to this extreme?"

    He can't. So my assertion yesterday that Holder is holding out because Obama was involved from the beginning is now becoming far more likely. While Nixon just transgressed by trying to snoop on opponents, Obama has now involved himself in a programs that cost a federal agent his life and has hundreds of Mexican citizens their lives. Frankly if I was Pres. Calderon I would be demanding reparation and a public apology.

Sort By
  • Most Raves
  • Least Raves
  • Oldest
  • Newest
Opinions

  • jeane Jeremiah 2012/06/27 00:41:41
    jeane
    Jeremiah - I don't claim to know you at all but I have never seen you refute facts. You usually ignore them or complain about the writer or source.
  • Jeremiah jeane 2012/06/29 00:05:37
    Jeremiah
    Again, that is because you offer blogs as facts. Blogs are what they are, which is opinions. Opinions can be disagreed with, but not refuted.

    I usually disagree with the opinions in the blogs you post. They are not even your opinions, but I am expected to debate someone who is not here.

    Are you happy with today's Supreme Court ruling?
  • jeane Jeremiah 2012/06/29 01:41:08
    jeane
    The opinions on are ON the facts as you well know Jeremiah. I ask you about the "facts" put forth - not the opinion of the blogger. If the information did now match my "opinion" I would not offer it. (Why do I think you already know that?) As usual - you complain about the source and answer no questions. You seem to be good at ignoring and/or deflecting direct questions.

    No I am not happy with the ruling (surprise, surprise). I have a problem with people being "ordered" to purchase a product. The decision enables the federal government to levy tax penalties on individuals who do not have health insurance.Trying to implement this ruling is going to be a logistical nightmare and very costly to the government as well as the American people.

    The flip side of this "victory" is that it seems to be galvanizing a lot of people.
  • Jeremiah jeane 2012/06/29 04:27:27
    Jeremiah
    That will die down soon enough. This is a major victory for Obama leading into the election, and next year we might finally get a public option so we can begin to catch up with the rest of the world.

    Have you noticed how many show up at the free clinics because they have no access to health care? In the richest country in the world? That is a disgrace.
  • jeane Jeremiah 2012/06/29 04:32:42
    jeane
    Jeremiah - wake up - we are the biggest debtor nation in the history of the world. What a disgrace!

    Pretty soon we will all be going to free clinics
  • jeane Jeremiah 2012/06/29 04:33:48
    jeane
    That will die down soon enough? What planet are you on?
  • Jeremiah jeane 2012/06/29 04:37:25
    Jeremiah
    You must not have much experience in observing political trends.
  • jeane Jeremiah 2012/06/29 04:38:40
    jeane
    Our nation is in a crises not a trend.
  • Jeremiah jeane 2012/06/29 05:06:03
    Jeremiah
    A crisis not of Obama's making. He is pulling us out of it, and he will be around until January 2017. So go the political trends.
  • jeane Jeremiah 2012/06/29 04:41:06
    jeane
    Today at 10:56 PM Comment
    Romney Uses Anti-Obamacare Sentiment to Spark Fund-raising Spike
    By Brett Smiley


    Elect me and I will repeal it!
    In the less than twelve hours after the Supreme Court delivered its landmark ruling Thursday upholding President Obama's Affordable Care Act, the Romney campaign raised $3.2 million and counting in donations through its website, according to Romney spokeswoman Andrea Saul. Buzzfeed reports that the donations poured in from more than 30,000 individual donors. Compare that with 27,661 individual donations Romney's campaign received during the entire month of May.
    Romney's campaign spurred the outpouring Thursday with a letter to supporters seeking to capitalize on ill-feelings toward Obamacare and the Supreme Court's decision. It's worth noting that the letter didn't specifically mention the individual mandate (an element of Romneycare) that Chief Justice John Roberts surprisingly backed along with the more liberal justices. The letter reads in part:
    "It was always a liberal pipe dream that a 2,7000 page multi-trillion-dollar Federal Government takeover of our health care system actually could address the very serious problems we face with health care. With Obamacare fully installed, government will reach fully half of the economy — that is the ...
    Today at 10:56 PM Comment
    Romney Uses Anti-Obamacare Sentiment to Spark Fund-raising Spike
    By Brett Smiley


    Elect me and I will repeal it!
    In the less than twelve hours after the Supreme Court delivered its landmark ruling Thursday upholding President Obama's Affordable Care Act, the Romney campaign raised $3.2 million and counting in donations through its website, according to Romney spokeswoman Andrea Saul. Buzzfeed reports that the donations poured in from more than 30,000 individual donors. Compare that with 27,661 individual donations Romney's campaign received during the entire month of May.
    Romney's campaign spurred the outpouring Thursday with a letter to supporters seeking to capitalize on ill-feelings toward Obamacare and the Supreme Court's decision. It's worth noting that the letter didn't specifically mention the individual mandate (an element of Romneycare) that Chief Justice John Roberts surprisingly backed along with the more liberal justices. The letter reads in part:
    "It was always a liberal pipe dream that a 2,7000 page multi-trillion-dollar Federal Government takeover of our health care system actually could address the very serious problems we face with health care. With Obamacare fully installed, government will reach fully half of the economy — that is the recipe for a struggling economy and declining prosperity.
    Pro-Romney super-PACs have made a splash so far with massive contributions from rich guys, but this is a moment where the Romney campaign itself really captured the enthusiasm of regular conservative folks that may have been on the sidelines thus far, and turned it into cash.
    (more)
  • Jeremiah jeane 2012/06/29 05:04:29
    Jeremiah
    Electioneering blather. He will have to explain why he passed virtually the same law in Massachusetts.

    The debates should be fun. Mr. Smooth against Mr. Wooden.
  • jeane Jeremiah 2012/06/29 21:35:08
    jeane
    Yep you got that right SMOOTH!! SMOOTH OBAMA
  • jeane Jeremiah 2012/06/27 00:26:51
    jeane
    Then why ask me for my source if you already know?
  • Jeremiah jeane 2012/06/27 00:37:47
    Jeremiah
    I usually know answers because I am constantly doing research. I keep many notes on a nice piece of software called nvALT.

    Take a look. You can thank me later.
  • jeane Jeremiah 2012/06/27 00:42:08
    jeane
    You didn't answer my question - as usual.
  • Jeremiah jeane 2012/06/29 00:06:58
    Jeremiah
    You would never be satisfied with any answer I could give.
  • jeane Jeremiah 2012/06/29 01:42:09
    jeane
    You never give an answer.
  • jeane Jeremiah 2012/06/22 06:23:56
    jeane
    Here I found this one (of many)

    http://sacramento.cbslocal.co...
  • Jeremiah jeane 2012/06/22 15:18:27 (edited)
    Jeremiah
    Did you happen to notice the header for that blog? It combined the Republican logo with the caption "The Right Politics." Scott Paulson is a RW blogger.

    Nice try, but don't you have anything not quite so partisan? See what Google has on page three.
  • jeane Jeremiah 2012/06/22 16:14:14 (edited)
    jeane
    Can you refute the information? - I know that you know how to complain about sources and are very good at ad hominem attacks on the writers. Can you REFUTE the information. You not liking the source of information is not enough of an excuse to not answer and that same excuse (like.... it is all Bush's fault) it wearing pretty thin.
  • Jeremiah jeane 2012/06/22 22:19:17 (edited)
    Jeremiah
    What do you mean, refute it? It was an opinion posted in a blog. He is entitled to his opinions, as you are to yours and I am to mine.

    I do not agree with his opinion. There, I refuted it.

    F&F; was begun during the Bush administration and was known as Wide Receiver. That is a fact. It might have been carried out by ATF without Bush's knowledge, and the same people could have continued it under a different name, also under the radar.
  • jeane Jeremiah 2012/06/27 00:22:17
    jeane
    Wide Receiver was VASTLY different and Bush is not being investigated - Obama and Holder are. Deflection again Jeremiah?
  • Jeremiah jeane 2012/06/27 00:43:44
    Jeremiah
    No, they are essentially the same program by the same people, with different names in different administrations.

    Did you really expect Darrell Issa to investigate Bush? When he assume the chairmanship, he made it his life's work to investigate the Obama administration, kind of like Henry Hyde and Clinton. He will be on his witch hunt until the Dems retake the House.
  • jeane Jeremiah 2012/06/27 00:47:47
    jeane
    DIFFERENT!

    The Difference Between Bush’s Wide Receiver and Obama’s Fast and Furious: The Short Version
    Posted by Harvey on June 24, 2012 at 1:44 pm
    [via Doug Ross]
    ______________

    “Wide Receiver [the Bush-era operation] was a gun smuggling interdiction effort that involved Phoenix-based ATF agents working in conjunction with Mexican law enforcement. It was a Phoenix border operation only. They were trying to build a case against a violent group of Mexican drug smugglers and the Mexican drug cartel to discover who they were and where they could be found. Wide Receiver began in 2005, involved 400 weapons, and all the weapons had RFID trackers installed in them. The Mexican government was informed and actively involved. The program was ended in 2007 when the drug dealers discovered the trackers that had been installed. No lives were lost.

    Fast and Furious was begun in 2009 by the Obama administration and was an unconstitutional effort to build a case against American gun dealers, American private gun owners, and the Second Amendment. The Mexican government wasn’t involved in Fast and Furious. Over 300 people were killed, including two Americans. Wide Receiver no longer existed; it had been shut down for two years. Fast and Furious involved over 2,000 guns. The Obama regime didn’t care w...
    DIFFERENT!

    The Difference Between Bush’s Wide Receiver and Obama’s Fast and Furious: The Short Version
    Posted by Harvey on June 24, 2012 at 1:44 pm
    [via Doug Ross]
    ______________

    “Wide Receiver [the Bush-era operation] was a gun smuggling interdiction effort that involved Phoenix-based ATF agents working in conjunction with Mexican law enforcement. It was a Phoenix border operation only. They were trying to build a case against a violent group of Mexican drug smugglers and the Mexican drug cartel to discover who they were and where they could be found. Wide Receiver began in 2005, involved 400 weapons, and all the weapons had RFID trackers installed in them. The Mexican government was informed and actively involved. The program was ended in 2007 when the drug dealers discovered the trackers that had been installed. No lives were lost.

    Fast and Furious was begun in 2009 by the Obama administration and was an unconstitutional effort to build a case against American gun dealers, American private gun owners, and the Second Amendment. The Mexican government wasn’t involved in Fast and Furious. Over 300 people were killed, including two Americans. Wide Receiver no longer existed; it had been shut down for two years. Fast and Furious involved over 2,000 guns. The Obama regime didn’t care where the weapons ended up. There were no tracking devices and no effort was made to track them. No helicopters. There was no on-the-ground surveillance of the straw purchasers. The guns were sold and then walked across the border, and that was it. Four federal agencies were involved in maybe as many as 10 cities in five states. Fast and Furious was Obama’s effort to gain false information so he could use the information to introduce his gun control bill.”
    (more)
  • Jeremiah jeane 2012/06/29 00:08:11
    Jeremiah
    +1
    The link please. I would never suspect you of editing, but I still prefer to see it for myself.
  • jeane Jeremiah 2012/06/29 01:43:33 (edited)
    jeane
    You know how to google it Jeremiah - and yes you would suspect me of editing.
  • Jeremiah jeane 2012/06/29 04:28:57
    Jeremiah
    Why not just supply the link? I am not going to go searching for your data when you have the link in your address bar.
  • jeane Jeremiah 2012/06/29 04:33:09
    jeane
    I think you are up to it.
  • Jeremiah jeane 2012/06/29 04:38:15
    Jeremiah
    Why not admit you don't have one?
  • jeane Jeremiah 2012/06/29 04:45:29
    jeane
    Come on Jeremiah you know it has to have one. Pretend you are researching.
  • Jeremiah jeane 2012/06/29 05:08:12
    Jeremiah
    Yes, it should have one. Where is it?

    On second thought, never mind. If you refuse to support your own data, I am no longer interested.
  • jeane Jeremiah 2012/06/27 00:23:18
    jeane
    If it is ONLY someone's opinion - why are you complaining about the source?
  • Jeremiah jeane 2012/06/27 00:44:26
    Jeremiah
    If you supply a slanted source, we will get a slanted opinion.
  • jeane Jeremiah 2012/06/27 00:45:35
    jeane
    Like yours. But facts are facts.
  • jeane Jeremiah 2012/06/22 16:17:13 (edited)
    jeane
    Nice try at what? Can you REFUTE the information! Is that your catch all excuse - you don't like the source? Got anything else?
  • Jeremiah jeane 2012/06/22 22:20:25
    Jeremiah
    I just said, it is an opinion on a blog. The only way to refute an opinion is to disagree with it, which I just did.
  • truthzx95 Jeremiah 2012/06/23 07:40:03
    truthzx95
    +1
    you never offer anything but your far-left OPINION. it's ALWAYS wrong. everyone knows.
  • Jeremiah truthzx95 2012/06/23 22:59:15
    Jeremiah
    Now you think you speak for everyone? I think they would beg to differ.
  • truthzx95 Jeremiah 2012/06/25 01:18:29
    truthzx95
    +1
    it's no different when you loons proclaim that "all economists", or "all scientists" agree with some leftist spew. i do guess that using everyone is wrong, there are many other loons out there who share your same twisted world view. i'll re-phrase it, all SANE people know you offer nothing but your far-left OPINION and they know it's always wrong.
  • truthzx95 Jeremiah 2012/06/21 04:44:45

See Votes by State

The map above displays the winning answer by region.

News & Politics

2014/08/01 12:00:37

Hot Questions on SodaHead
More Hot Questions

More Community More Originals