Executive Privilege? Or MurderGate Coverup?

We’re to believe that Eric Holder and Obama had no first-hand knowledge of the disastrous Fast and Furious debacle carried out by the Bureau of Alcohol, Tax, and Firearms (BATF); that the congressional investigation spearheaded by Rep. Darryl Issa is nothing but a “political witch-hunt”; and that consequently Obama was perfectly sound in his assertion of executive privilege in blocking the release of all the documents subpoenaed by Issa’s committee.

We’re also to believe, according to leaks published in the media last week that apparently originated high up in the White House, that Obama is an absolute military stud who personally makes command decisions on an ongoing basis as to specific military and intelligence targets and operations worldwide.

Well… which is it? Stud or ignoramus? If he’s the “man with the plan” who oversees all these field operations like MacArthur reincarnated, how come he didn’t know anything about Fast and Furious? And if he was ignorant of that particular operation, why is there a need to assert executive privilege at all?

Enquiring minds want to know.


© Brian Baker 2012


88 comments on “Executive Privilege? Or MurderGate Coverup?

  1. Hardnox says:

    My thoughts exactly. It’s not possible that Bat-Ears didn’t know about it. In March 2009 at the WH, Gibson announced F&F at the direction of the president. – CHECK MATE.

    He needs to invoke Executive Privilege since he’s up to it to his neck. He and Holder need to be frog-marched out of office.

    I did a piece on it yesterday: http://hardnox-in-virginia.blogspot.com/2012/06/one-congressmans-rant-on-fast-furious.html

  2. captbogus@yahoo.com says:

    Either way you look at it Holder is toast.
    1. Obama didn’t know anything about it in which case Executive Privilege doesn’t apply and the courts will order all documents be turned over to Congress;
    2. Obama did know in which case Holder is charged with perjury.

    • BrianR says:

      Oh, yeah. Holder’s history. It’s only a question of how far the fallout’s going to reach.

      That’s what screwed Nixon: the coverup, not the Watergate breakin. Same thing with Clinton’s impeachment; it was the perjury, not the blowjob.

      I’d bet they’re STILL scrambling around trying to find someone to fall on their sword for them. Good luck on that.

  3. clyde says:

    NO NO NO NO,you don’t get it. IT WAS ALL BUSH’S FAULT !!!!! Also shows a WHOLE lot of absolute incompetence,along with the lies. The R’s should be ALL OVER this,ie;campaign ads.Didn’t see where Issa was serving up Amnesty Pie to go with the lie.

    • BrianR says:

      Believe me, they tried the “blame Bush” tactic, but it didn’t work.

      • clyde says:

        No,for once,that tired out mantra has no legs. Not surprised they tried,however.

      • BrianR says:

        Oh, hey, you know how it is.

        They’re like Pavlov’s dogs hearing the bell.

        In their case, the first response is alwys “blame Bush”… other than for getting bin Laden, the ONE thing he actually DOES deserve some credit for.

  4. Gunny G Alz says:

    Good essay. NO DOUBT Obama was in the know. He told Sarah Brady that they were working on gun control under the radar! He knew full well and if he didn’t, then he is at fault for being negilgent about WTF goes on under HIS command.

    • BrianR says:

      Yep, Guns, I agree. He knew. Now he needs someone to step up and face the firing squad for him, and that’s where he’s run into a problem.

      It’ll be interesting to see if Holder takes the bullet for his ObaMessiah or not.

  5. thedrpete says:

    I thought it was a great way to fulfill the promise to get rid of “assault weapons” in America. Ship ’em all across the border in dark of night.

    • BrianR says:

      Then complain that those guns going across the border justify more restrictive gun laws. A two-fer.

  6. captbogus@yahoo.com says:

    Now comes the really evil part of the gun running. They WANTED dead Mexicans. As a matter of strong possibility dead Mexicans probably was the main objective of F&F. Lots of dead Mexicans killed by American guns would be the “proof” they needed to destroy the Second Amendment.
    Two dead American agents were a monkey wrench in the machinery.
    That should be enough for Mexico to recall their ambassador.

    • BrianR says:

      I agree, Buck. That IS the evil bottom line. Dead Mexicans due to our “lax” gun laws = more gun control here in the US. It backfired on them. But that’s the true secret they can NEVER admit.

    • Mrs. AL says:

      And I think the one thing I want to know even more about is why Mexico isn’t raising public h e double hockey sticks about this. Don’t know as that has any impact on this mess, but I just find the “silence” almost deafening.

      • BrianR says:

        Well, as I mentioned in reply to Buck’s comment, why would they do that? They LIKE Bat Ears; he’s their “bud”.

  7. captbogus@yahoo.com says:

    Mexico might consider such revelation as act of war.
    The only way to get out of that is for Mexico to request an extradition of the principals and for us to honor the request.

    • BrianR says:

      Well, that’s never going to happen.

      First, they don’t even know who to charge or extradite. Then there’s the issue of how to extradite anyone. It’s not like they can charge in and take anybody, like we did to Noriega in Panama. And there’s no way Holder/Obama are going to allow it to happen through the court system. Talk about rats deserting the sinking ship, if someone thought they were going to be extradited to Mexico, you’d see EVERYBODY wanting immunity to talk to Congress and our own courts.

      Then, of course — and MrsAL, this addresses your comment, too — there’s the fact that the Mexican government is so thoroughly corrupt, and they like Bat Ears. He’s their one chance to get immunity for all their citizens illegally in THIS country so that THEY don’t have to deal with them. Why would they want to upset Bat Ears’s apple cart?

      • Mrs. AL says:

        I don’t know, BrianR, there is something else hinky going on, IMO. This is their chance to bleed us dry monetarily and why aren’t we hearing all kinds of stuff about that? Sorry to be dense.

    • BrianR says:

      Not at all! But I’m not exactly sure who you’re referring to when you talk about “they”.

      Assuming you mean the Mexican government, a couple of things are in play, I think. First is the illegal alien situation, as I said.

      But I don’t think the other shoe has dropped yet, either. I think THEY’RE also waiting to see the full scope of what happened. If the case is successfully made that Holder and/or Bat Ears personally approved this thing, I think they’ll raise holy hell.

      Let’s remember that as of right now, NOBODY has yet been named as the person who aporoved this program. No one. That’s why in my last essay I referred to “gremlins” and “Santa’s Helpers” as the ones who approved this thing.

      The Mexicans are easily as smart as I am, and they know this scandal isn’t anywhere near over. It’s just now finally really getting going. They can sit back and wait as long as they want for the facts to come out and for the scandal to grow, and THEN pop out with a money demand for “damages”. That’s what I’d do if I were them.

      • Hardnox says:

        I’m not a betting man but I’d bet that you were absolutely spot on with your analysis. Time will tell. Naturally the monies will be distributed to those that were not damaged.

        This whole mess is so much bigger than Watergate as is the cover-up. Heck, the press is even beginning to report on it as if it happened last week.

      • BrianR says:

        LOL, Hardnox!

        Yeah, they finally can’t ignore it anymore. The MSM is a complete joke.

        Thanks for the kind words.

  8. jevica says:


    Great post;
    “Obama asserts executive privilege over ‘Fast and Furious’ documents”

    From, “. . . Sen. Chuck Grassley of Iowa . . . ”

    ““How can the president assert executive privilege if there was no White House involvement? 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? The contempt citation is an important procedural mechanism in our system of checks and balances,” he said.”

    Now something a little off topic.

    “The federal government owns and manages a full third of the United States’ surface area. The Department of Interior entities responsible for stewarding said land, including the NPS, the BLM, and the Forest Service, can all boast of cringe-worthy backlogs of deferred maintenance in the billions of dollars.” “. . . The feds often prohibit logging, grazing, and other thinning activities on its forest lands, ostensibly to protect the endangered spotted owl. The result is unhealthy forests with much higher tree and undergrowth densities than there should be, and in the already arid western states, this both puts a stress on the water supply and creates veritable tinderboxes just waiting to explode into catastrophic wildfires. (Meanwhile, the federal government is also busily engaged in subsidizing windmills, which kill birds — like spotted owls. . . .”

    • BrianR says:

      Thanks, Jev.

      Looks like Grassley read my blog!

      As to the forests: oh yeah. I read an article a while back that also said that constantly putting out all the forest fires is another contributing factor to unhealthy forests, with too much undergrowth, etc.

      It seems that occasional fires are a part of the natural cycle of forest health.

      Waaaaay too much tree-hugging a-goin’ on ’round heah!

      • jevica says:


        Yes, big time, the undergrowth problem and the natural cycle of fires making for a healthy forest, etc., is now well known, at least to me it is.

        BTW I believe I read that the high speed rail is dead, is this true?

      • BrianR says:

        I wish it were! Not a chance. Moonbeam and his minions are pushing it like crazy, while lying through their teeth about it. It’s still going full steam ahead (pun intended). Sadly.

        What a boondoggle! Has to be the biggest one in history.

  9. jevica says:


    More about F&F and BHO.


    “. . . in order to make the claim stick, the White House will have to produce a “privilege log” that describes each document they shield through the privilege claim for a court to assess, so we’ll know who was involved in the conversations even before a court rules on the privilege claim itself.”

    “. . . it was a deliberate attempt to hype the supposed dangers of gun sales and push public opinion into renewing Bill Clinton’s assault-weapons ban and other gun-control measures. Bill also believes that the hundreds of dead in Mexico from these weapons weren’t an unforeseen and tragic consequence, but part of the strategy all along — and that may be what Barack Obama and Eric Holder are hiding in their claim of executive privilege ‘

    What a bunch, they have to go down. Got this from someone close, he can’t vote for Romney because he doesn’t know about what it’s like to be him. I made the point that BHO sure does not. I didn’t want to get into politics at that time but this might be a point that has to be addressed. BTW Romney is not the one I wanted but I’ll have to see how I can come around.

    • BrianR says:

      Jev, I fully agree with the assessment of F&F. Check out Hardnox’s blog (it’s on my Blog Roll). He has an excellent Bill Whittle video on the topic.

      As to Romney: yeah, he’s certainly “not the one”, but I can take him … marginally. Even last time, I said that I could hold my nose for him.

      Your buddy has to look at F&F, and the idea that the next Prez will probably get to replace Ginsburg and maybe Breyer. Two lefties. Just think of the implications if there are only 2 socialists (Kagen and Sotomayor) left on SCOTUS.

      • Nee says:

        The Whittle Video ended up on one of my favorite blogs ThisAin’tHell…http://thisainthell.us/blog/?p=30513
        We love us some Bill Whittle!! 🙂

      • BrianR says:


        Did you send it to them?

      • Nee says:

        Of course…he’s excellent. My kids like him because I “use” him to help them learn about politics. It’s interesting to see how they turn the thoughts over in their heads. The easiest tool to teach them the difference between liberalism and conservatism is….MONEY!!
        Kid one is currently working in a restaurant. They have a system where every one benefits equally even though there is always one waitress who is better and more efficient than the rest…and she can tell it to you!! 🙂

      • BrianR says:

        Yeah, my daughter’s half-brother (my ex’s son) works in a restaurant, too, and they pool their tips. I can kinda understand the thinking — some stations are better than others, some servers handle more parties in an evening, etc. — but it still strikes me as kind of socialist in nature.

  10. CW says:

    Nancy Pelosi says Congress is picking on Holder to interfere with his important work of battling the Right’s evil scheme to suppress the minority vote. I think she’s onto something. What do you think?

    • BrianR says:

      Oh, yeah, CW. I think Nancy the Red has it pegged. Absolutely. There’s no doubt the whole idea of investigating F&F and the deaths of over 300 Mexicans and one Border Patrol agent and contempt of Congress and investigating presidential corruption is all an evil scheme to pass Voter ID to suppress minority voting in the south.

      Gaaaaaaawd… she must really be insane. Literally! Only in a one-cell brain could such an idea germinate.

      Again, I refer you to Hardnox’s blog, where he’s got an excellent video posted on exactly that topic.

      Pelousy is an absolute moron.

      (Great… now I have to spend my weekend seeking out and apologizing to actual morons everywhere…. I hate it when that happens….)

  11. CW says:

    “seeking out morons…”

    I know where you can find a couple.

  12. captbogus@yahoo.com says:

    Brian, Jev
    I think I have the solution to the problem.
    Let’s go eradicate the spotted owl.
    No more owl,
    No more problem.
    That’s the way Pol Pot would’ve done it so why would the left bitch????

  13. jevica says:


    “Missing the point on Fast and Furious”

    “. . . has been some sadly predictable tongue clucking and accusations from the anti-gun lobby on the Left. ”

    It’s just those evil, bad GOPers going after the Democrats. They just want to do the bidding of the NRA and not get those evil guns off the streets.

    • BrianR says:

      Great article. He really illustrates the hypocrisy of the socialists.

      It’s interesting that they squawk about “conspiracy theories” and completely ignore Nancy the Red’s insane babbling about the F&F investigation somehow being about suppressing minority voters in the south. The usual idiotic double-standard in play.

      And then the typical “blame Bush” blather, when in reality Operation Wide Receiver operated VERY differently, didn’t lose ANY guns, had the knowledge of the Mexican government, and was terminated after a very short period of time anyway. They’re trying to compare apples and cod fish.

  14. jevica says:

    Brian from the New Republic, claim that BHO has to get about only 40% of the “white” vote, due to the increase in minority population [those that can vote]

    “The Obama campaign’s recent decisions to endorse gay marriage and end deportations while offering work authorization to certain young undocumented immigrations appear aimed at re-energizing young and Latino voters.”


    “Depending on the exact non-white turnout and vote, Obama could require between 37 and 40 percent of the white vote to win a plurality of the national popular vote (in 2008, the magic number was 38.5 percent).”

    Will the non-whites turn out in big numbers and vote for BHO again? Will whites stay home in enough numbers to elect BHO again?

    • BrianR says:

      Jev, this is the wishful thinking that’s all that’s left for the socialists. Re-read “My Mom, Political Bellwether”.

      His base is very unmotivated; the anti-Obama faction is VERY motivated. Look at the 2010 election results.

      I mean, this is like saying “all he needs is for a meteor to fall from the sky and hit Romney”; it’s just ridiculuous. You can make up any scenario you want to create any result you want. “If all white people stay home, Obama could win”… yeah, okay. So what?

      Also, minorities — particularly Hispanics — have a very poor record of actually showing up at the polls. And his “limited amnesty” ploy is having only mixed results even in THAT voting bloc. A LOT of them don’t like it. After all, THEY did everything right and legally.

  15. captbogus@yahoo.com says:

    The thing I just don’t get is why don’t conservatives remind the American Hispanic (uh…hyphenated crap) community that the illegals steal their jobs as well as the jobs of the Anglos, the blacks, Jews, Asians and anyone else’s job they can steal.
    They seem quite timid when it comes time to remind the Americans of Mexican descent that they are not after them. They are after law breakers. Criminals. People who have no respect for our laws, our customs or our borders.

    • BrianR says:


      Well, two things at work, I think. One is the “hyphenization” of America. That’s always been very bad news, and the Dems play on that like beating a borrowed mule.

      The other thing is that a lot of minorities are on some kind of welfare, so they’re just naturally gonna vote Dem anyway.

      But it doesn’t work as well for Bat Ears as apprently he hoped it would. The support for his “not an amnesty” order isn’t as strong in the Latino community as you’d think, ESPECIALLY among LEGAL Latinos; the guys who played by the rules, are actually working for their money… and can actually LEGALLY vote.

      It doesn’t really matter what the “Hispanics” in general think; it ONLY matters what the LEGAL Hispanic citizens think, because they’re the only ones who can actually vote on anything.

  16. Gray Ghost (Mississippi) says:

    Again, due to my vacation, I am late to the party. But I would like to toss in my two cents. I believe that there is more to the “executive privilege” than meets the eye. Brian, we both know that Obama knew about and endorsed the “Fast and Furious” operation (to damage the 2nd Amendment). We both know that Obama would throw his children under a bus to protect himself. And I do not believe that the Mexican government was informed of this operation.

    Question: Could Obama and his advisors have connections to the Mexican gangs and drug cartel?

    We know that Obama received a large amount of campaign funds in 2008 from foreign sources. Could one of those foreign sources been the Mexican gangs and drug cartel? Could “Fast and Furious” not only have been planned to damage the 2nd Amendment but also to pay back the Mexican gangs and drug cartel?

    • BrianR says:


      I don’t think that’s the case; it would entail too many people knowing about it and keeping silent about such a grotesque case of corruption. I have no doubt the 2nd Amendment aspect is certainly true; that’s what they’re all scrambling to keep hidden. It was, essentially, a conspiracy to rationalize policy through this utterly incompetent program.

      But being bought off by the cartels? Corruption of that nature would make the Mexican government itself look squeeky clean by comparison.

  17. Hardnox says:

    A bit off topic but pertinent. Congressman Trey Gowdy of SC has some choice words for Nutsy Pelosi. I am REALLY liking this guy. I know you visited on the first post but thought to share it with your readers.

    1st post: http://hardnox-in-virginia.blogspot.com/2012/06/my-new-favorite-congressman.html

    2nd post: http://hardnox-in-virginia.blogspot.com/2012/06/more-from-my-favorite-congressman.html

    Trey Gowdy and Allen West would make a great team. Now for 433 more!

  18. clyde says:

    I don’t think the cartels would want this bunch. THEY also know how incompetent the fools are. Any surprise at the SCOTUS ruling on Az. immigration case? I was surprised at 2 things. 1. Scalia reading his dissent from the bench. That don’t happen often. 2. Roberts essentially overruling a states’ right to enforce laws,let alone the feds not enforcing them. Since I’m not legally sharp,is there any way a state could sue over a decision that IMO pretty much overrides 10th Amend?

    • BrianR says:

      Well, Gray and I discussed this, too. The heart of the case was the power for local cops to check immigration status, and that’s the part SCOTUS upheld.
      Don’t forget, that’s what all the ruckus was about when the law was enacted, and all the other states’ laws subsequently, and THAT part’s the part that was upheld. The other stuff wasn’t all that important. So, “a states’ right to enforce laws” actually is still in effect, and that part was essentially decided 8 – 0.

      A state can’t sue once SCOTUS has decided. That defines the issue; the Fat Lady has sung. There’s no one left to file a lawsuit with, and you can’t sue SCOTUS on their decision. Who would you do that with? There’s no one that can overrule them.

      As to the cartels: 😀

  19. captbogus@yahoo.com says:

    Who would you do that with?…. Why, the UN, naturally.

  20. captbogus@yahoo.com says:

    Lenin said, “When it comes time to hang the capitalists they will vie with one another to sell us the rope.”
    Why do we continue to support the UN. It is nothing more than a hotbed of dictators, petty tyrants and other One Worlders.
    Believe me if they top of the UN figured they were strong enough to take us down, we’d see blue helmets coming ashore immediately.
    And we support these assholes to the tune of about 70%…

  21. jevica says:


    SCOTUSblog reports that Roberts says mandate is constitutional.

    Yup, the court upheld the mandate as a tax, not as part of a Commerce Clause jurisdiction. They narrowed the Medicaid expansion, but it looks like the bill will survive mainly intact.

    What else can Congress make me do?

    • BrianR says:

      Yeah, I’ve seen the headlines. I haven’t been able to read the whole opinion yet because the SCOTUS site is swamped (I guess) the the slip opinions aren’t working.

      But I have to say, I’m absolutely flabbergasted. Un-be-frikkin-lievable.

      We now officially live in a tyranny.

    • Mrs. AL says:

      Jevica you pose a most signifivant question when you write, “What else can Congress make me do”? The sky is the limit. I have already put up a reaction to this. Pathetic to say the least.

  22. clyde says:

    Well,I see the Constitution has just been rendered meaningless on a 6-3 decision. Kennedy and Roberts sided with the liberals. Roberts says the mandate can stand as a tax. Wow. Looks like something else we can blame Bush for.

    • BrianR says:

      Clyde, the only upside I can see is that the GOP can ride this terrible decision like a prize pony to the election in November.

  23. jevica says:


    “Chief Justice John Roberts was the swing vote in the decision, Kate Bolduan reports, joining Ruth Bader Ginsburg, Stephen Breyer, Sonia Sotomayor and Elena Kagan.”

    “. . . Kennedy voted to kill the mandate and Roberts voted to uphold it.”

    What a surprise.

    • BrianR says:

      Like I said, I’m flabbergasted.

      • clyde says:

        The frigging media does it again. Here I’m blaming Kennedy,when he voted to overturn the mandate. Christ,these slobs can’t get anything right. Brian,we shall see if the GOP has the stones to attempt to repeal. I have my doubts.

      • BrianR says:

        Well, Romney’s been saying all along that his first priority would be repeal of Obamacare. Now he actually has a case and an issue in that promise. It’s hugely unpopular.

  24. jevica says:


    “Mandate upheld: what now?”


    “It’s an interesting argument, but one that should have Americans worried. Basically, this is a tax that you have to pay to private companies. For all of the screaming the Right did over single-payer — and for good, outcome-based reasons — at least the money paid by taxpayers would go directly to government . . . . The Supreme Court has signed off on what is, in very practical terms, a tax levied by the insurance industry on Americans simply for existing. It’s an amazing, and fearsome, decision that really should have both Right and Left horrified.”

    “By the way, don’t forget when Obama insisted that this wasn’t a tax, . . .

  25. clyde says:

    I trust Romney to do zip. Most of these clowns believe SCOTUS is sacrosanct. Would he not have to run this repeal through CONgress first?

    • BrianR says:

      Yeah, that’s always the hurdle: Congress has to repeal it, and Romney can sign the repeal. And with the Dems controlling the Senate, that’s a non-starter.


      If the GOP retains the House and takes the Senate, THEN it can be done. Which makes this election VERY important.

      Of course, I guess he could “do an Obama” and simply DIRECT the IRS to not collect the tax by Executive Order. Why not? Bat Ears has “declared” an amnesty, hasn’t he?


  26. jevica says:


    “. . . the tax isn’t just on non-compliance, which is what Roberts and the court ruled constitutional. The law forces people to give money to private industry, in the form of buying health insurance. That’s a tax too, imposed by force on Americans, in this case the force of the penalties and the legal consequences of not paying them.”

  27. Jack says:

    The Constitution has been rendered is a useless piece of paper…it really IS a “living document” I guess… and all those nose-holders who say we need to vote Republican in order to get “conservative” judges on the scotus look pretty silly right about now…

    This has gotta be one of the worst rulings since New Deal legislation passed…

  28. Jack says:

    I wonder if there was some kind of “arm-twisting” that went on behind the scenes…something akin to FDR’s threat to add members to the scotus when it overturned some of his early New Deal legislation. Or, maybe some of the scotus members have links to the insurance lobby?

    In any case, this is a HUGE political victory for Obama…6-3…a stronger ruling than HELLER!

    Oddly, this victory might help Romney and Republicans IF they capitalize on it…whether they repeal if they win in 2012 is about 50/50 imo. I’ve come to expect very little of the GOP.

    • BrianR says:

      I doubt any arm-twisting. If you read the decision, you’ll see what I mean. Roberts (in particular) et al over-intellectualized the issue.

      I agree that Romney and the GOP can ride this one like a race horse.

      • Jack says:

        I saw now that the dec. was 5-4, not 6-3. That makes Robert’s betrayal all the more astounding!

      • BrianR says:

        Yep. Precisely. If he’d gone with the Constitution, it would have been 6-3, which was my actual prediction.

  29. I’m truly enjoying the design and layout of your website. It’s a very easy on the eyes which makes it much more enjoyable for me to come here and visit more often. Did you hire out a developer to create your theme? Superb work!

  30. layanan seo says:

    Highly energetic post, I enjoyed that a lot. Will there be a part 2?

  31. BrianR says:

    Thanks. I’m not sure. We’ll have to see how it plays out.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s