Issa subpoenas WH aide in Fast & Furious probe

posted at 10:45 am on October 14, 2011 by Ed Morrissey

Last week, CBS News reporter Sharyl Attkisson revealed that an Obama administration spokesman screamed and cursed at her in an attempt to get her to back off of the Operation Fast and Furious scandal.  Roll Call’s Jonathan Strong reports this morning that Schultz just found a subpoena on his doorstep along with Eric Holder and host of other figures, but Schultz’ position in the White House itself makes him unique:

House Oversight and Government Reform Chairman Darrell Issa (R-Calif.) made headlines this week byissuing a subpoena for documents from Attorney General Eric Holderabout a botched weapons investigation, but Holder is apparently not Issa’s only target.

A little-noticed provision of the subpoena targets the White House, specifically naming Eric Schultz, a communications aide who was hired in May to respond to media inquiries on oversight matters. …

The subpoena also requires Holder to produce “all communications between and among Department of Justice (DOJ) employees and Executive Office of the President employees, including but not limited to Associate Communications Director Eric Schultz, referring or relating to Operation Fast and Furious or any other firearms trafficking cases.”

Strong’s source on the Oversight Committee says that the subpoena for Schultz came from suspicions that the White House was directing the DoJ’s resistance to document requests.  Issa himself told Strong that the committee knew that communications flowed between Schultz and F&F officials, but had been told they were of a personal nature.  The committee isn’t taking that at face value:

“The question is whether the White House has been instructing the Justice Department on what [documents] to release,” the source said.

The source added that recent allegations by a CBS reporter that Schultz yelled at her over her coverage of Fast and Furious in part prompted Issa’s questions on the matter, but the source maintained that the inquiry is unrelated to Schultz’s communications with reporters.

Really?  Well, perhaps, but I suspect that the committee might be interested in any e-mails that instructed Schultz to start intimidating reporters who have looked into F&F as well.  Let’s revisit Attkisson’s recollection of her treatment by administration flacks:

Laura: So they were literally screaming at you?

Attkisson: Yes. Well the DOJ woman was just yelling at me. The guy from the White House on Friday night literally screamed at me and cussed at me.

Laura: Who was the person? Who was the person at Justice screaming?

Attkisson: Eric Schultz. Oh, the person screaming was [DOJ spokeswoman] Tracy Schmaler, she was yelling not screaming. And the person who screamed at me was Eric Schultz at the White House.” …

And I’m certainly not the one to make the case for DOJ and White House about what I’m doing wrong. They will tell you that I’m the only reporter–as they told me–that is not reasonable. They say the Washington Post is reasonable, the LA Times is reasonable, the New York Times is reasonable, I’m the only one who thinks this is a story, and they think I’m unfair and biased by pursuing it.

Since Schultz was brought into the White House strictly for the purpose of dealing with Issa and the Oversight Committee, this is a rather interesting and aggressive tactic. Unlike the DoJ internal correspondence, the White House could have a case for executive privilege on internal communications involving Schultz on discussions related to Fast and Furious, but it would be political dynamite to make that claim. If Obama demands to keep those communications secret, the obvious implication will be that Schultz was ordered to intimidate Attkisson into backing down, which isn’t a crime in itself but is a stinkbomb in the middle of the Hope and Change campaign. Plus, people will naturally ask themselves why the White House wanted to intimidate reporters into silence if they did nothing wrong in F&F.

Heck, that might even wake up the “reasonable” folks at the Washington Post and New York Times.

Blowback

Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.

Trackbacks/Pings

Trackback URL

Comments

Comment pages: 1 2

odannyboy on October 14, 2011 at 11:55 AM

Obama wants to be…king.

China, Iran and other dictatorships are lauding the OWS as well as Democrats here.

We’re arming drug cartels.

There is word that the OWS wants to overthrow the govt.

The OWS attacks rich people, but not the rich Dems.

Obama has said on more than one occassion that Democracy is hard, and if not for the constitution…

A Dem Governor proposes cancelling elections.

Another Dem lawmaker encourages Obama to go around the constitution and a difficult congress to enact what they want.

I’m seeing a pattern here. I just hope many more are also.

capejasmine on October 14, 2011 at 12:04 PM

Yes because we cannot be controlled easily if we are armed. This OWS nonsense may be about the same thing, y’know.

dogsoldier on October 14, 2011 at 11:58 AM

It’s going to backfire. The dems have backed the wrong horse.

VegasRick on October 14, 2011 at 12:05 PM

you guys come up with really cool names for your fake scandals.
 
crr6 on July 10, 2011 at 1:24 PM

rogerb on October 14, 2011 at 12:06 PM

CBS just did a report today on “GrenadeWalker”
http://www.cbsnews.com/video/watch/?id=7384677n

William Amos on October 14, 2011 at 10:47 AM

Later CNN has one on “TOW missile walker”.

arnold ziffel on October 14, 2011 at 12:07 PM

For the same reason we armed the Contras.

Washington Nearsider on October 14, 2011 at 11:12 AM

How so? To overthrow the Mexican Govt like they did Egypt, Libya etc?

AH_C on October 14, 2011 at 12:09 PM

I’m seeing a pattern here. I just hope many more are also.

capejasmine on October 14, 2011 at 12:04 PM

Oh yes, I’m seeing the pattern. We are in very dangerous times right now with our own government turning the people against each other for its nefarious ends. The Republic is in danger, and that’s not hyperbole.

Trafalgar on October 14, 2011 at 12:10 PM

This is gonna get uglier than Hellen Thomas in a string bikini.

Laura in Maryland on October 14, 2011 at 10:49 AM

Add Frances Fox Piven, a 5 gallon jar of mayonnaise, some surgical gloves, and a poncho…

… and now were a talkin’!

/

Seven Percent Solution on October 14, 2011 at 12:13 PM

How so? To overthrow the Mexican Govt like they did Egypt, Libya etc?

AH_C on October 14, 2011 at 12:09 PM

Not a government. That is an understandable goal.

In this case, Obama was picking one violent gang over another violent gang.

The analogy was simply ‘picking winners and losers.’

Washington Nearsider on October 14, 2011 at 12:15 PM

Sure they were. Because they all just felt like talking about the rain on the plains in Spain, right? Or their favorite recipes?

strictnein on October 14, 2011 at 10:52 AM

It just floors me how absolutely willing most of the media are to prostitute themselves for Obama and liberalism in general.

Any reasonable person would know the communications were not just innocent chit chat.

arnold ziffel on October 14, 2011 at 12:16 PM

Seven Percent Solution on October 14, 2011 at 12:13 PM

I admitted when I’ve been out-grossed *bows*.

Thanks to that little gem, Blantant Blue will be in the bathroom for weeks. He may even end up in um…traction.

Laura in Maryland on October 14, 2011 at 12:22 PM

Washington Nearsider on October 14, 2011 at 11:30 AM

I was wrong, I admit, you didn’t flunk history…you flunked logic…

right2bright on October 14, 2011 at 12:34 PM

right2bright on October 14, 2011 at 12:34 PM

Oh?

You don’t think this is an example of the Administration picking winners and losers? This time, it doesn’t involve picking types of governments – which is defensible – it involves picking winners in a gang war – which is not.

It also involves picking which rights we get to lose – which, if Obama gets his way, would be “all of them”.

Washington Nearsider on October 14, 2011 at 12:42 PM

I admitted when I’ve been out-grossed *bows*.

Thanks to that little gem, Blantant Blue will be in the bathroom for weeks. He may even end up in um…traction.

Laura in Maryland on October 14, 2011 at 12:22 PM

On TMZ they put pics side by side and ask….

Who’d You Rather?

ProudPalinFan on October 14, 2011 at 12:52 PM

It also involves picking which rights we get to lose – which, if Obama gets his way, would be “all of them”.

Washington Nearsider on October 14, 2011 at 12:42 PM

No it’s not about picking “winners and losers”…giving arms to whatever gangs in Mexico isn’t picking a “winner”, these ended up all over the place and they knew it, or should have…many innocent people, close to home were killed, and at least one and probably more, American citizens were killed…trying to make a case this is like Iran-Contra, is foolish, this administration is not that sophisticated…to put it in another way, this administration is stupid and you are trying to make appear “bright”.
Look at the players between the two events…look at the intellect.
This in no way rises to anything close…these are amateurs not understanding what they are doing, and that is and always was the danger.
Good try, but illogical…

right2bright on October 14, 2011 at 12:53 PM

Heck, that might even wake up the “reasonable” folks at the Washington Post and New York Times.

In your/our dreams.

Blaise on October 14, 2011 at 12:53 PM

right2bright on October 14, 2011 at 12:53 PM

Okay, first of all, if you look at anything I’ve written, either here or at my blog, you’ll know I think this Administration is one of the worst things to ever happen to this nation with the single exception being that it may have finally awaken us to the stark choice we face between the left and right. Things aren’t nearly as muddled as they’ve seemed over the past 40 or so years.

On topic – I do believe the Administration thought they could control this. I believe they thought they could arm an opposition group and ensure their success. To what end, for what benefit? I have no idea. Thinking that far ahead presupposes what Obama has already disproven: that he is an analytical thinker.

I’m the last person who would defend anything Obama’s done. You seem to have completely misunderstood.

Washington Nearsider on October 14, 2011 at 12:59 PM

Laura in Maryland on October 14, 2011 at 12:22 PM

Always privileged to oblige…

Seven Percent Solution on October 14, 2011 at 1:01 PM

If you think about it, it’s almost as if America armed Mexico in an effort to …………what?

Key West Reader on October 14, 2011 at 11:51 AM

‘Crowdsource’ This: Emails Expose #OccupyWallStreet Conspiracy to ‘Destabalize’ Global Markets, Governments
by Andrew Breitbart

petefrt on October 14, 2011 at 1:04 PM

Well, crud.

Why didn’t my Obama link get through? You know? That one that ties him to Holder. That pesky link that has Obama actually speaking about Fast and Furious?

Oh.

Key West Reader on October 14, 2011 at 1:08 PM

obama makes it clear that he already knew about F&f

OK.

Key West Reader on October 14, 2011 at 1:13 PM

I think eventually Obama will have to explain his comment about working on gun control “under the radar”. Couple that with Rahm’s statement ‘never let a good emergency go to waste’ and you have to wonder if this was to be the reason for an attack on our 2nd amendment rights.

Tuna Tugger on October 14, 2011 at 1:14 PM

Documents are being destroyed as we speak. We could really use another All The President’s Men type “Deep Throat” informant right now, not that any state-run media lackeys would actually want to get to the bottom of this.

infidel4life on October 14, 2011 at 1:20 PM

I don’t care anymore.

What’s left?

Key West Reader on October 14, 2011 at 1:21 PM

Key West Reader on October 14, 2011 at 1:13 PM

Watching that made want to pick up the monitor and throw it. Can that ****sucker ever answer a question normally. He goes for the finger to the nose trick advances to the curled index finger while spewing projectile lies.
Someone should ask “who started F&F”? When he starts his routine they should interrupt and tell him “Sir you look very foolish with that kind of answer”.

arnold ziffel on October 14, 2011 at 1:26 PM

Key West Reader on October 14, 2011 at 1:13 PM

Rush must be following you. He’s talking about this now. :)

petefrt on October 14, 2011 at 1:38 PM

As I have said before, there is more than one agenda being served here. The obvious agenda is gun control. Many dots connect to make that picture. The players, including Obama, Hillary Clinton, Janet Napolitano, and Eric Holder, have long histories of anti-gun rights activism, pushing the UN international bans on civilian gun ownership, the 90% lie, padding the stats by strong-arming dealers to sell thousands of guns illegally and letting them walk across the border, followed by the illegal effort to impose additional reporting requirements on border state dealers and the repeated calls for reinstatement of the so-called Assault Weapons ban, One-Gun-A-Month, etc., ad nauseum.

But from the beginning some of us pointed out the odds the gun control agenda was the only one served here were very, very long. Just too much risk for too little reward. It wasn’t just guns, it was grenades, explosives, .50 BMG rifles. Multiple agencies, multiple cabinet level departments (Inclucing DOJ, Homeland, Treasury, and State) involved in what amounts to a huge conspiracy to violate US and Mexican law and international arms treaties, committing literally thousands of felonies that they KNEW would result in much spilled blood, just to push gun control? No way.

Some of us took note that most of the arms were going straight to elements of the Sinaloa Cartel. Their enemies? Los Zetas, the single most dangerous cartel, and an existential threat to the Mexican government. Armed to a large extent with US military-grade weaponry obtained from the Mexican military and police sources. The robust inspection regimes of the arms treaties make simply transferring similar weapons to the Sinaloas impossible. CIA direct purchase of black market guns and transfer to the Sinaloas runs a high risk of disclosure. But using criminals to do the actual transfers and smuggling provides both an avenue for arming the Sinaloas and a buffer between the providers and culpability for the crimes they were committing.

Now there are more dots to connect between Los Zetas and our enemies, Iran and its terrorist agents, Hezbollah, and of course Hugo.

Who was actually behind a plan to arm the Sinaloas in a proxy war with Los Zetas? Who has the power to authorize such a plan?

Yesterday Megyn Kelly opined that F&F was a local plan approved somewhere higher up that got out of hand.

Bullshit. F&F is the tip of the iceberg. Some local plan in the Southwest may have been the inspiration, but this is too big and has too many moving parts to be a bottom up deal. This plan is top down, and the blood trail leads straight to the Oval Office.

novaculus on October 14, 2011 at 1:39 PM

I’m the last person who would defend anything Obama’s done. You seem to have completely misunderstood.

Washington Nearsider on October 14, 2011 at 12:59 PM

No, I understood, you made an error in saying it was similar to Iran-Contra, and now you are covering up your error.
Would have been easier to say, “Yes, it is different, I was thinking more of the strategic implications”…but you didn’t.
The fact is…this is nothing like Iran-Contra, the only thing similar is the gov. stuck their nose into something they should not have…
…an no I do not take the time to read other posters blogs, most of them are foolish and a waste of time. I respond to what is written here, not on some facebook/twitter page.

right2bright on October 14, 2011 at 1:58 PM

The analogy was simply ‘picking winners and losers.’

Washington Nearsider on October 14, 2011 at 12:15 PM

I’m tracking now. :)

AH_C on October 14, 2011 at 2:05 PM

I’m tracking now. :)

AH_C on October 14, 2011 at 2:05 PM

R2B certainly isn’t.

Oh well.

Washington Nearsider on October 14, 2011 at 2:18 PM

Go, Grassley !

pambi on October 14, 2011 at 2:40 PM

It’s going to backfire. The dems have backed the wrong horse.

VegasRick on October 14, 2011 at 12:05 PM

I agree. The State run media can’t control the facts any longer and many people see these communist/anarchist jerks for what they are.

dogsoldier on October 14, 2011 at 3:28 PM

Comment pages: 1 2