The Other McCain

"One should either write ruthlessly what one believes to be the truth, or else shut up." — Arthur Koestler

No One Says That #OccupyResoluteDesk Has Much To Hide, But He Acts That Way

Posted on | November 5, 2011 | 24 Comments

by Smitty

President Obama’s attorney sent a letter to Congressional investigators on Friday, saying the White House would not cooperate with a subpoena requesting documents related to its doling out a $535 million loan guarantee to now bankrupt solar panel manufacturer Solyndra.
“I can only conclude that your decision to issue a subpoena, authorized by a party-line vote, was driven more by partisan politics than a legitimate effort to conduct a responsible investigation,” Obama’s counsel, Kathryn Ruemmler, wrote in a letter to the top Republicans on the House Energy and Commerce committee.

One is tempted to make some remark about an ass and cheek, but people might not understand that I mean them in the sense of ‘donkey’ and ‘impudence’, and accuse me of sexual harassment, so we’ll steer clear.

This administration, in joke terms, is moving from ‘unfunny’ to ‘tedious’. #OccupyResoluteDesk seems almost guilty until proven innocent of everything imaginable on this and every other scandal. The way to remedy that is to put some teeth in the campaign promises of transparency. The sooner the better. Credibility is dwindling, Mr. President. That is truly a shame. The ‘Chicago on the Potomac’ japes would have been better as cheap political riffs, not sad reality.

An example of a purely political subpoena would be if Congress demanded #OccupyResoluteDesk’s college transcripts. That task would be better left to the media. Politico has recently set a new low benchmark, with its homeroom-note-passing-level story against Herman Cain. Moving up to the level of inquiring about college transcripts would be a step up for Politico.

via Althouse

Category: Ann Althouse, Barack Obama

Comments

24 Responses to “No One Says That #OccupyResoluteDesk Has Much To Hide, But He Acts That Way”

  1. Anonymous
    November 5th, 2011 @ 8:38 am

    If the WH were to release its top secret Solyndra files, that exposure of sensitive, experimental data might fall into the hands of Norweigian “alternative energy” companies, thereby jeopardizing our national security.

    We have a critical Green Gap with the Euros and China – we cannot afford to fall behind in the transnational race to slow down our (the plebs’) glutinous ways! 

    Look, at this stage in the rapacious trajectory of humanoids, large-scale population reductions have become mutually assured. For many workers, the future will be cold, brutish and short, no matter how many new Green innovations we can mandate . . . errr, I mean invent.  But we cannot allow the evil Rethuglicans to expose our Green secrets and thus allow Earth and its true stewards to perish along side of the chronically obese, tobacco adicts, unreformed capitalists, etc.

  2. ThePaganTemple
    November 5th, 2011 @ 8:53 am

    If Obama does win re-election but the GOP takes the Senate by a substantial margin and increases its hold on the House, the first order of business should be impeaching that sorry asshole.

  3. Anonymous
    November 5th, 2011 @ 9:11 am

    Cronyism, like what is being covered up here,  is at the heart of so much corruption in our government.   

    Consider also what just happened in a federal court in Texas involving a judge appointed by President Clinton.  As described at http://LawInjustice.com, a Dallas business owner was involved in a civil dispute and paid millions of dollars to lawyers, and when he objected to additional fees after settling the case, they had a “friendly” judge seize all of his possessions, without any notice or hearing, and essentially ordered him under “house arrest” as an involuntary servant to the lawyers. The business owner has been under this “servant” order for 10 months and is prohibited from owning any possessions, prohibited from working, etc..

    …and some quotes from the judge:
     
    THE COURT: “I’m telling you don’t scr-w with me. You are a fool, a fool, a fool, a fool to scr-w with a federal judge, and if you don’t understand that, I can make you understand it. I have the force of the Navy, Army, Marines and Navy behind me.”
     
    THE COURT: “You realize that order is an order of the Court. So any failure to comply with that order is contempt, punishable by lots of dollars, punishable by possible jail, death”

  4. Anonymous
    November 5th, 2011 @ 9:15 am

    Subpoenas aren’t “requests.” The Senate should promptly issue a contempt citation and send its Sergeant at Arms to 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue to perp-walk Mr. Obama over to the Hill to answer it. They won’t, of course, but they should.

    Smitty, that last-paragraph slap at Politico indicates that the Navy needs to send you to the nearest Marine Corps base for a quick refresher on the 14 leadership traits, with special emphasis on Integrity. That’s bullshit and you’re not dumb enough not to know otherwise.

  5. Anonymous
    November 5th, 2011 @ 9:30 am

    I fail to see how you’re applying those leadership traits in your disparagement of Smitty’s last paragraph (above). Like we’ve asked of Politco, what specifically did Smitty do? You’re much too smart to make an “argument” by simply throwing around a few adjectives . . . 

  6. Mike
    November 5th, 2011 @ 9:44 am

    Why would anyone believe that a Chicago politician would have a transparent administration? The willful suspension of reality when people voted for “O” and the press’ being in the bag should go down in history if it doesn’t do irreparable harm to elections in this country.  mpw

  7. Anonymous
    November 5th, 2011 @ 9:44 am

    PGlenn,

    Politico told us what they knew about what Cain did, and everything Politico told us about it has subsequently been confirmed multiple times — including by Cain himself — as true and factual.

    What Smitty did was blame the messenger.

  8. smitty
    November 5th, 2011 @ 9:48 am

    Your denigration of the common, honest sphincter by this comparison is noted.
    However, I had not thought of that scenario, which, in some respects, would be worse for BHO.
    If he simply slinks off to the golf course at the end of his term, he gets all the retirement perks, &c.
    Re-election, and the possibility of impeachment and having the rotten carcass of his administration torn open, so that the maggots, worms spill out, is actually a significant risk.
    Does pursuit of an impeachment become a campaign item for GOP Senate candidates?

  9. smitty
    November 5th, 2011 @ 9:51 am

    I wrote this post last night, and maybe the wording could have been smoother.
    The intent was to direct snark at BHO’s transcript situation, and Politico for its muckraking.

  10. smitty
    November 5th, 2011 @ 9:57 am

    My contention is that if Politico is the messenger, than the entire alphabet and language should be scuttled.
    Being a messenger worthy of more regard than a thorough nuking involves a bit more homework than the high school homeroom note-passing that has occurred here.
    Politico isn’t news: it’s propaganda pissed down your back and labeled ‘rain’.
    But go ahead. Defend them.

  11. Anonymous
    November 5th, 2011 @ 10:21 am

    Smitty,

    In form and style, the initial Politico story was about as close to straight news as you’ll find anywhere these days — very little in the way of the “analysis” that tends to get thrown in under the news heading, as opposed to commentary where it belongs, and even what there was of it generally in one-word adjective choices (“unorthodox” as a descriptor for Cain’s campaign, for example).

    The story’s main flaw is that it relies on anonymous sources. I suspect I hate that in a news story as much as you do, but the proof is in the pudding — so far, the batting average for  the factual claims attributed to those anonymous sources in the story being confirmed has been 1000.The argument over what is and what is not “news” has been going on since long before you and I were so much as gleams in our daddies’ eyes.

    Presumably the record as a CEO of a candidate for POTUS who is running largely on his record as a CEO qualifies as “news.” If this particular aspect of his record had been publicized and scrutinized when it happened or in the intervening timeframe between his CEO days and his candidacy, it might not be news — but it wasn’t, so it is.

    I confess that I have not read the 90 Politico stories on the topic — only the first. But to call that first story “note-passing” or “propaganda” is to blame the messenger.

  12. Garym
    November 5th, 2011 @ 10:24 am

    Don’t appoligize. It was perfect.

  13. richard mcenroe
    November 5th, 2011 @ 10:34 am

    what facts, knappie? 

  14. richard mcenroe
    November 5th, 2011 @ 10:36 am

    knappster so many people have dissected that weasel-worded nothing Politico called a story that the only people who can still defend it would have to call The View a news program.  

    I begin to suspect you are not being entirely candid with us.p

  15. smitty
    November 5th, 2011 @ 10:39 am

    Well, I wouldn’t attack the right of Politico to say what it said. That’s capitalism.
    However, your ‘blaming the messenger’ charge, for me to take seriously, requires compulsion of the messenger. That is, when there is a chain of command in place, and the senior lawfully orders a subordinate to say stupid things, and the subordinate is pilloried by the recipients, ‘blaming the messenger’ charges against the recipients make sense.
    So, by my logic, are you telling me that capitalism is compelling Politico to beclown itself?

  16. Anonymous
    November 5th, 2011 @ 11:08 am

    Fact one: That at least two female employees of NRA complained of alleged sexual harassment by Cain.

    Fact two: That those employees subsequently left NRA.
    Fact three: That upon exit, those employees entered into agreements with NRA pursuant to which they received financial settlements and agreed not to publicly discuss the circumstances of their departures.

    Those are the factual claims that the story makes. And each of them has subsequently been confirmed by both Cain and the NRA.

  17. Anonymous
    November 5th, 2011 @ 11:12 am

    As to whether or not I’m being “candid,” what is it that you want to know.

    If you suspect that I’m working for a rival campaign, I’m fine with disclosing that I am doing some back-office work (no opposition research at the moment, though) for two presidential campaigns (one Democrat — not Obama — and one Libertarian), and that I recently did some “blind” (through an agency) general consulting for what I assume (on the basis of the questions on which my advice was sought) is a Republican presidential campaign.

  18. ThePaganTemple
    November 5th, 2011 @ 11:12 am

    It would make a good trial balloon if any certain candidate wanted to fly it out there as a part of his campaign. It’s just too bad we’re settled with Darrell Issa, if somebody else chaired his committee there would probably already be enough evidence of wrongdoing to win a handful of Democrat votes. It’s always better if an impeachment effort can have a least a smidgen of bi-partisan support.

    Also, I wanted to say a lot worse than asshole, I was trying to restrain myself.

  19. richard mcenroe
    November 5th, 2011 @ 2:14 pm

    “fact” one: At least two female employees complained of “alleged sexual harrassment”. Allegations are not facts.  Your own language shows you get this.   And NO actual facts have ever been produced.

    “fact” two: a settlement is neither a verdict nor a judgment.  It proves nothing.  In fact, the NRA states that the agreements specifically precluded any admissions of guilt or wrongdoing.

    Attorney Kurt Schlichter has written of how such settlements are most often simple matters of fiscal convenience; it’s cheaper to settle than to go to court.

    So your “facts” are basically… what’s the legal term I’m looking for here… “crap.”

  20. richard mcenroe
    November 5th, 2011 @ 2:16 pm

    As far as your candidness goes, I suspect you know better than you’re talking, because these are very basic legal realities you’re screwing up, and that you’re doing so because you see some advantage to it.  

    There’s a lot of that going around, but it is not a very amiable quality…

  21. Anonymous
    November 5th, 2011 @ 2:48 pm

    Mr. McEnroe,

    What Politico reported was the fact that the allegations had been made, and the fact that settlements had been entered into. Those were, in fact, facts.

    While you may read additional points (such as that the allegations were true or that the settlements indicated guilt) into those facts, that doesn’t speak to what Politico did; it only speaks to your dire need for a remedial reading course.

  22. Anonymous
    November 5th, 2011 @ 3:08 pm

    The problem with this story is that other than fact that there were “complaints” and that there were relatively small “settlements” none of the under lying facts have been or will be revealed. When the attorney for complainant #1 demanded that she be released from the confidentiality clause the NRA complied. She then determined that telling “her truth” wasn’t worth the blow back. Given that most of these things are settled on financial considerations not any actual wrong doing by the actual “victim” who I’m defining as the accused, this whole story relies on the innuendo of wrongdoing based solely on the fact that a complaint was made. If one were inclined to give Politico the benefit of the doubt it’s possible that they went with the story believing that once the story got rolling their sources would ultimately allow the underlying facts to emerge. Since I don’t believe there is anything significant to the charges in the first place I’m concluding that the underlying facts of this case are merely PC nonsense. I suspect Politico knew this from the start and thus this reportage is mere gossip.

  23. Anonymous
    November 5th, 2011 @ 3:23 pm

    Adobe,

    I suspect you’re right that Politico expected the disclosure of initial facts (that there were allegations, and that there were settlements) to result in disclosure of substantially the rest of the facts.

    Nor do I  object to the conclusion that there was an agenda (“let’s put out what we have, knowing it will be damaging whether or not we ever find out what else is there”) at work.

    Finally, I guess whether or not the reported facts — allegations and settlement — constituted “news” is something that could be argued either way … but I’m firmly on the side of “yes, a POTUS candidate’s past record of this type is news.”

    As far as my own agenda is concerned, I neither particularly like nor particularly dislike Cain as compared to most other candidates; nor do I particularly care who gets the GOP’s 2012 presidential nomination, nor does it matter much to me who wins next November’s presidential election.

    The electoral political work I do right now falls into two categories — stuff I do for personal friends, and stuff I get paid for (there’s some overlap). I don’t expect that any of the personal friends have a real shot at 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue, but they’re accomplishing things they want to accomplish by running, and I don’t mind helping them.

    If I’m offered work with any “serious, major party” campaign that isn’t blind work (analysis, through an agency, for unidentified clients is what I’ve done this cycle), I’ll probably take a look at whether or not I think it would be a particularly good or bad thing to work for that campaign. Unless that happens, as far as I’m concerned it’s just sport for the most part, and cash and carry when it isn’t just sport.

  24. Anonymous
    November 5th, 2011 @ 3:57 pm

    knappster, I don’t have a chance to fully review this thread (football Saturday), so this might be redundant, but . . .

    Your (implied) standard for newsworthy journalism wouldn’t hold up very well. Let’s say that I report that three unnamed men close to Obama claim to know that he is a homosexual and that he propositioned each of them for sex. Follow up stories “confirm” that I did indeed talk to the three anonymous sources and that they’re sticking by their stories that Obama is a closet homosexual and repeat sexual harasser of young men. Therefore, my story was “true.” Subsequently, not just hearsay, but “forensic” evidence proves that Obama does in fact swing the other way.

    Does that make the original story an example of responsible, professional journalism? I don’t believe so, but maybe you do.