Bad news: Jon Stewart not exactly buying the executive-privilege claim

posted at 12:41 pm on June 22, 2012 by Ed Morrissey

Via Katie Pavlich, that’s not the only bad news here for Eric Holder and Barack Obama. Not only does Jon Stewart tell an audience inclined towards supporting Obama in November exactly why Operation Fast and Furious was so important to investigate, he also explains that the Obama administration has been refusing to cooperate with subpoenas, giving false information to Congress, and generally stalling for the last several months. On top of that, Stewart then skewers the same Democrats who blasted George Bush in 2007 for hypocrisy in defending Obama’s executive privilege claim in 2012. That’s a hell of a lot more information than NBC provided its viewers this week, that’s for sure:

Stewart then argues that Democrats can’t identify a difference between the two situations:

Actually, there is a key difference … but it doesn’t help Democrats. The issue in 2007 involved the use of non-delegable executive authority specifically granted under Article II to make political appointments — in the event, those of US Attorneys, who like all other political appointees serve at will at the pleasure of the President. As courts have ruled in Nixon and Espy, executive privilege applies in the exercise of non-delegable Article II powers as part of the separation of powers in the government. Operation Fast and Furious was conducted by a federal agency under powers delegated to the DoJ that are shared between Congress and the President. Furthermore, the subpoenas in this case relate to official misconduct and lawbreaking — not just the gunrunning but also false testimony before Congress. Presidents cannot claim executive privilege to shield documents in those circumstances, as Espy explicitly states.

The White House spin isn’t working. Even Jon Stewart ridiculed it. Maybe NBC might consider following Stewart’s lead and report honestly on the story now.


Related Posts:

Breaking on Hot Air

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 3

Reconcile Your Current Outrage At Obama Administration’s Use Of Executive Privilege With Former Apologia For Bush’s Use Of Same!</blockquote>

Easy.

The latter was over a few political-appointee lawyers getting fired.

The former is about Brian Terry & hundreds of Mexicans getting fired upon.

itsnotaboutme on June 22, 2012 at 1:40 PM

Oops! Messed up the blockquotes, didn’t I?

itsnotaboutme on June 22, 2012 at 1:40 PM

There has to be an angle he`s working here. It can`t be serious critisism.

ThePrez on June 22, 2012 at 12:44 PM

No, this is serious criticism. Stewart seems brighter than the average MSM type (or perhaps he’s simply not committed to “the struggle” like the rest of them). Stewart has gone after Obama/the left a number of times recently. Remember the MSNBSad after Scott Walker’s defeat? He openly said the Walker’s victory was “the repudiation of everything they believed in.”

Stewart is not going to go down with the Obama ship. Expect him to continue to at least occasionally mock the Democrats as election time rolls closer.

Doomberg on June 22, 2012 at 1:40 PM

Hope Jon isn’t expecting an invitation to Barry’s last Christmas party in the White House.

GarandFan on June 22, 2012 at 1:41 PM

The White House spin isn’t working. Even Jon Stewart ridiculed it. Maybe NBC might consider following Stewart’s lead and report honestly on the story now.

I wouldn’t bet on that, if I were you.

Brian1972 on June 22, 2012 at 12:54 PM

Yeah, not so much. The Today Show on NBC this morning did a big segment on how the awesome President doesn’t use his children for any political gain. They then proceeded to show/talk about his lovely children and what an awesome father the President is. No, wait, what?

yubley on June 22, 2012 at 1:44 PM

In his defense, John Stewart’s coverage of this topic has been better than ABC, NBC and CBS’s combined.

But I still have a quibble. Even if, for the sake of discussion, make the air-headed assumption that all claims of Executive Privilege are the same, what Obama’s doing is still a lot worse than what Bush did.

Using the analogy as applied to administration longevity… Obama lost his virginity as a ten-year-old girl, while Bush lost his as a thirty-year-old woman. That’s not exactly the same on the “sluttiness” meter.

logis on June 22, 2012 at 1:45 PM

Meh. Stewart will get a dressing down from his democrat friends (the only kind he has) and redeem himself by getting back to his usual attacks on Republicans. He’ll be all in on getting Barack re-elected, and he’ll say whatever he needs to to get the braindead children who watch his show to vote that way.

Rational Thought on June 22, 2012 at 1:46 PM

Wait…. Did Jon Stewart just call Bill Clinton a SLUT?!!! Someone call the internet police, quick!

tgdouglas on June 22, 2012 at 1:47 PM

Yeah. The party members are hypocrites. It would have been nice, though, for him to point out that Obama isn’t even supposed to have been involved in this, so the idea that executive privilege applies is kinda sorta maybe suspicious.

wte9 on June 22, 2012 at 1:49 PM

Oh, no, poor Juan “broken politics” Williams….Spike!! This is good. The curtain’s being drawn and it’s clear now to everyone that Juan’s no better than a hack apologist for slimy corruption.

I don’t know why on earth Stewart is doing this. All liberals as a group had to do was shut up and pretend the whole issue was another example of the vast right-wing conspiracy and partisan extremism that goes on constantly with those “nasty mean Republicans.” Whatever reason he had for doing this, though, the effect will do more to legitimize this issue as a genuine scandal than everything else so far combined. People listen to and trust Stewart.

A week ago I thought there was no way this issue could gain traction before the election as long as Holder and the LSM continued stonewalling. Not any more. The dam’s starting to break.

Burke on June 22, 2012 at 1:50 PM

Kind of sad when this is the main way this story gets into the general public. Does the MSM even understand how inconsequential this makes them?

dirtseller on June 22, 2012 at 12:45 PM

Indeed, but he did a great job at explaining the whole thing succintly…I will give him that…compared to NYT that wrote stuff such as ‘DOJ produced all documents requeted by Issa and withheld just some :))) (yeah, some, more like 140,000 doc :).)….or keep insisiting that the program was started under BUsh, though clearly that was a different program and the guns were tracked…Stewart didn’t even bring that falsehood in…

jimver on June 22, 2012 at 1:51 PM

Oh, no, poor Juan “broken politics” Williams….Spike!! This is good. The curtain’s being drawn and it’s clear now to everyone that Juan’s no better than a hack apologist for slimy corruption.

I don’t know why on earth Stewart is doing this. All liberals as a group had to do was shut up and pretend the whole issue was another example of the vast right-wing conspiracy and partisan extremism that goes on constantly with those “nasty mean Republicans.” Whatever reason he had for doing this, though, the effect will do more to legitimize this issue as a genuine scandal than everything else so far combined. People listen to and trust Stewart.

A week ago I thought there was no way this issue could gain traction before the election as long as Holder and the LSM continued stonewalling. Not any more. The dam’s starting to break.

Burke on June 22, 2012 at 1:50 PM

i am surprised too….it is ironic that a comedian (even a politicking one like stewart) is more honest and ethical than legit MSM newsmakers, journalists and reporters (ahem, Andrea Mitchell)…

jimver on June 22, 2012 at 1:55 PM

This is classic Stewart, great stuff. Remember how in the 2000s you all loved it when Stewart lampooned the Bush Admin and Fox News? Really? Cause no one else does.

libfreeordie on June 22, 2012 at 1:55 PM

Don’t get excited. Steward is nothing more than a warning horn that tells the lefties they are coming dangerously close to the rocks. He performs a valuable service for them.

DFCtomm on June 22, 2012 at 1:59 PM

“Maybe NBC might consider following Stewart’s lead and report honestly on the story now.”

Dopenstrange on June 22, 2012 at 2:01 PM

Jon Stewart says they ran guns and didn’t track them for no f*cking reason whatsoever, but we know better. The motivation is one of the things that is probably made clear in the documents Issa can’t get.

The Rogue Tomato on June 22, 2012 at 2:04 PM

Don’t get excited. Steward is nothing more than a warning horn that tells the lefties they are coming dangerously close to the rocks. He performs a valuable service for them.

DFCtomm on June 22, 2012 at 1:59 PM

He would be, but Obmaa threw all the warning horns over the side to get more speed; that dead weight was just weighing him down on his way to utopia.

He would be serving a useful purpose if the Administration were one that listened to anyone but themselves… of course then he might not be needed.

gekkobear on June 22, 2012 at 2:05 PM

canopfor: try http://www.youtubeunblocker.org/

ReaganWasRight on June 22, 2012 at 1:32 PM

ReaganWasRight:

Thank-you for the link,I only have problems,with Comedy
Central!:)

canopfor on June 22, 2012 at 2:06 PM

Stewart surprised with Climategate in a similar way, mocking “POOOOR AL GORE…!”

sparkle motion on June 22, 2012 at 2:06 PM

I feel like Stewart is starting to revert back to the mean, or as I like to call it, the Onion-South Park diagonal.

leetspeek on June 22, 2012 at 2:09 PM

It only matters for the independents who weren’t aware.

The liberals who weren’t aware still won’t care. Obama and Holder could slaughter dolphins and puppies and baby seals on the White House lawn and liberals would find a way to justify it in their minds, and still pull that lever in November. They see a label, and they see black skin, and that is all that matters to them. Character is irrelevant.

tdpwells on June 22, 2012 at 2:10 PM

The motivation is one of the things that is probably made clear in the documents Issa can’t get.

The Rogue Tomato on June 22, 2012 at 2:04 PM

I’m guessing it goes beyond gun control laws.

Fallon on June 22, 2012 at 2:10 PM

I could hear the sweat dripping off of the audience more than I could hear the stifled, clockwork spurts of subdued laughter.

All of them thinking “Bu…bu…bu…but……..hope and change!!!!”

MadisonConservative on June 22, 2012 at 2:17 PM

Loved the dead silence in the audience after Stewart played that 2007 clip of Obama, Emperor of Hypocrisy, denouncing executive privilege.

natasha333 on June 22, 2012 at 2:17 PM

This is classic Stewart, great stuff. Remember how in the 2000s you all loved it when Stewart lampooned the Bush Admin and Fox News? Really? Cause no one else does.

libfreeordie on June 22, 2012 at 1:55 PM

Gee, I dunno, with all that illegal activity going on with Operation Wide Receiver and all, Liebowitz must’ve missed it.

You never cease to let us down.

Z- (Del Dolemonte TM)

ICanSeeNovFromMyHouse on June 22, 2012 at 2:17 PM

I’m guessing it goes beyond gun control laws.

Fallon on June 22, 2012 at 2:10 PM

Goddamn, that’s a hell of an article, and it would have been extremely valuable back when Obama was running and trying to claim he wasn’t anti-gun.

MadisonConservative on June 22, 2012 at 2:24 PM

It is important to note that a privilege is only used when the asserter does not wish the evidence aired. It is only used to conceal. It has no other purpose.

pat on June 22, 2012 at 12:49 PM

Actually, John Hinderaker makes a very good counter-argument to that point (which was also spotlighted here on HA):

if an opposing party requests documents that plainly are protected by a privilege, a lawyer will routinely assert the privilege, on principle, even though there is nothing hurtful to his case in those documents.

pain train on June 22, 2012 at 2:25 PM

So how long before Stewart gets canned?……
NBC and their Dem masters can’t allow this kind of stuff to come out of their network.

dentarthurdent on June 22, 2012 at 2:30 PM

He has wandered off the reservation and needs to be sent to Chicago for re-education.

CorporatePiggy on June 22, 2012 at 2:31 PM

pain train on June 22, 2012 at 2:25 PM

Except this isn’t about attorney-client privilege – it’s about government executive privilege and separation of powers – different things entirely.
And if you’re implying that Obummer is “a lawyer” – which he isn’t – who would do this as “routine” – then why would he have denounced executive privilege in 2007 when Bush used it?

dentarthurdent on June 22, 2012 at 2:35 PM

Maybe NBC might consider following Stewart’s lead and report honestly on the story now.

Nah.

talkingpoints on June 22, 2012 at 2:36 PM

How are y’all into that second clip, it shows very clearly that Republicans are massive hypocrites too….

libfreeordie on June 22, 2012 at 2:37 PM

Actually, John Hinderaker makes a very good counter-argument to that point (which was also spotlighted here on HA):

if an opposing party requests documents that plainly are protected by a privilege, a lawyer will routinely assert the privilege, on principle, even though there is nothing hurtful to his case in those documents.
pain train on June 22, 2012 at 2:25 PM | Delete | Delete and Ban
Except this isn’t about attorney-client privilege – it’s about government executive privilege and separation of powers – different things entirely.
And if you’re implying that Obummer is “a lawyer” – which he isn’t – who would do this as “routine” – then why would he have denounced executive privilege in 2007 when Bush used it?

dentarthurdent on June 22, 2012 at 2:35 PM | Delete | Delete and Ban

Hinderaker’s point regarding “executive privilege” was that if you have reason to assert it you would do it immediately when asked to produce the material and that if it is applicable, Holder and his counsel should have raised the issue when this investigation started, not now. Waiting this long implies that the claim is specious.

talkingpoints on June 22, 2012 at 2:41 PM

Jon Stewart says they ran guns and didn’t track them for no f*cking reason whatsoever, but we know better. The motivation is one of the things that is probably made clear in the documents Issa can’t get.

The Rogue Tomato on June 22, 2012 at 2:04 PM

Agree, but he can’t run with that speculation until the docs become public….

jimver on June 22, 2012 at 2:42 PM

How are y’all into that second clip, it shows very clearly that Republicans are massive hypocrites too….

libfreeordie on June 22, 2012 at 2:37 PM

The moral equivalency card is a bore.

Hey, but I’ve got a couple of questions for you – you seem to have conveniently avoided reacting to a couple of your Queen’s comments the last day or two:

1. Should Karl Rove have been arrested? According to your Queen, she could’ve done so “at any time”.

2. Is F&F really about “voter suppression” – another weak attempt at employing the race card.

This ouughta be good. I’ll be right here.

ICanSeeNovFromMyHouse on June 22, 2012 at 2:46 PM

Goddamn, that’s a hell of an article, and it would have been extremely valuable back when Obama was running and trying to claim he wasn’t anti-gun.

MadisonConservative on June 22, 2012 at 2:24 PM

Did you see this article?

Breitbart.com has uncovered video from 1995 of then-U.S. Attorney Eric Holder announcing a public campaign to “really brainwash people into thinking about guns in a vastly different way.”

Fallon on June 22, 2012 at 2:55 PM

Good for JonnyS. But will he keep telling his audience the truth?

I think the NothingButCrap reporters and anchors are afraid their faces will crack or their heads will explode if they report accurately, extensively or truthfully on F&F.

I heard Katie Pavlich on local Chicago radio this morning insinuate that Chicago Mayor “tiny dancer” Rahmbo could have had a hand in F&F, too. The next thing I want to hear more of is people talking about the underlying motivating reason for F&F–to wipe out the 2nd Amendment right to bear arms.

stukinIL4now on June 22, 2012 at 2:57 PM

Fallon on June 22, 2012 at 2:55 PM

Yeah, I saw that a few months ago when that clip first showed up. The combination of YouTube and CSPAN must be haunting liberals everywhere.

When it comes to the 1990s, with everything from Waco to Ruby Ridge, not to mention my own father’s persecution at the hands of the federal government…it feels like that decade was some sort of drug-induced haze. The sheer boldness of the left’s rhetoric after the Cold War just flooded politics. With no blogosphere, with conservative talk radio still in its youth…it’s startling what people got away with saying.

I’m honestly glad I wasn’t old enough to really get most of what was happening.

MadisonConservative on June 22, 2012 at 2:59 PM

How are y’all into that second clip, it shows very clearly that Republicans are massive hypocrites too….

libfreeordie on June 22, 2012 at 2:37 PM

The difference is that we have no problem calling our own people out on the crap they try to pull – are you new here or something?? – while the left only points fingers or blows it off as no big deal.

We don’t need the media to tell us when our guys are behaving like hypocrites because we’re already well aware of it and, 99% of the time, have already called them on the carpet for it. Your side, however . . . . . .

tdpwells on June 22, 2012 at 2:59 PM

You can practically hear his liberal audience waiting for the punch lines. I bet a few of them walked out.

red villain on June 22, 2012 at 3:08 PM

How are y’all into that second clip, it shows very clearly that Republicans are massive hypocrites too….

libfreeordie on June 22, 2012 at 2:37 PM

Speaking of hypocrites, you still haven’t answered the Simple Question I posed to you the other day. Care to give it a throw now?

Namely, why did your side shamelessly use Cindy Sheehan for political purposes, and then immediately throw her in the trash when her usefulness to your Party was exhausted?

(starts stopwatch, and gets ready to watch libfreeordie go silent)

Del Dolemonte on June 22, 2012 at 3:15 PM

Stewart often skewers Dems and Obama. Maybe if Fox News didn’t provide so much materials, he’d do more of it.
So to regular watchers of his show, this doesn’t come as such a surprise.
I’ve been consistently critical of Issa over this and continue to see this is a politically motivated ‘investigation’ –
But as I said yesterday on another thread:

I’m on the fence with the EP issue here. I think there’s a worthy case to be made that it shouldn’t apply here.
And was it a good or necessary move on Obama’s part?
I think Issa couldn’t be more pleased than to have his real and intended target in this whole thing pulling a chair up to the table.

Stewart does a great job here succinctly pointing out the hypocrisy of both Dems and Repubs over this issue. But he also illustrates how partisan the motivations are for various rationales. To many here, well…they were fine with Bush’s EP claims, or perhaps objected less strenuously.
And their defense of that is a mirror of what the Dems will predictably offer in this case.

But the bigger lesson…is maybe sometimes try a little Jon Stewart in place of Mark Levin.
Much less predictable.

verbaluce on June 22, 2012 at 3:23 PM

Agree, but he can’t run with that speculation until the docs become public….

jimver on June 22, 2012 at 2:42 PM

He can ask for his clown nose back from MSNBS and then say whatever he wants.

pedestrian on June 22, 2012 at 3:26 PM

Del Dolemonte on June 22, 2012 at 3:15 PM

For effort, I give you

A

But don’t hold your breath. That would involve intellectual honesty, something he grades closer to

F

With a big curve :)

ICanSeeNovFromMyHouse on June 22, 2012 at 3:27 PM

Namely, why did your side shamelessly use Cindy Sheehan for political purposes, and then immediately throw her in the trash when her usefulness to your Party was exhausted?

Del Dolemonte on June 22, 2012 at 3:15 PM

Yes, you do keep ‘asking’ that.
But it’s not really a question…but a statement based on an opinion.
Your feelings are noted.
Try moving on.

verbaluce on June 22, 2012 at 3:28 PM

But he also illustrates how partisan the motivations are for various rationales. To many here, well…they were fine with Bush’s EP claims, or perhaps objected less strenuously.
And their defense of that is a mirror of what the Dems will predictably offer in this case.

verbaldiarrhea on June 22, 2012 at 3:23 PM

Nice try, sport.

Resorting to “phoning it in” now, are we? Pretty weak, even for you.

ICanSeeNovFromMyHouse on June 22, 2012 at 3:29 PM

Namely, why did your side shamelessly use Cindy Sheehan for political purposes, and then immediately throw her in the trash when her usefulness to your Party was exhausted?

Why did the Democrats stop paying attention to a vocal opponent of American imperialism once their party came into the seat of power in the American empire? Gee, I really don’t think you need my help to answer that one, do you? Now if one of my many personal archivists would be so kind as to quote my comments of dismay on the numerous threads about the deflating of the anti-war left post-Obama’s election you can, perhaps, stop trying to “catch” me in something I’m already quite aware and that is priced into my vote for Democrats on national tickets. If I want to vote for an anti-imperialist party its not the Democrats.

libfreeordie on June 22, 2012 at 3:30 PM

How about your boy’s 2000′th death in Afghanistan you pacifist proggies? That is some milestone in your perpetual war of imperialism around the world. Seems like your boy likes to air raid villages and kill civilians in his compassionate liberalism nationbuilding scheme.

tom daschle concerned on June 22, 2012 at 3:33 PM

Conservatives in the media and politics need to explain this very clearly: here’s how can you tell when someone is lying about Fast & Furious!

Look for the word Botched“. Even if they seem to be criticizing the DoJ, or Holder, or Obama’s invocation of Executive Privilege – if they use the word “Botched” they are still lying to you about the true nature of this crime.

drunyan8315 on June 22, 2012 at 3:35 PM

No, this is serious criticism. Stewart seems brighter than the average MSM type (or perhaps he’s simply not committed to “the struggle” like the rest of them). Stewart has gone after Obama/the left a number of times recently. Remember the MSNBSad after Scott Walker’s defeat? He openly said the Walker’s victory was “the repudiation of everything they believed in.”

Stewart is not going to go down with the Obama ship. Expect him to continue to at least occasionally mock the Democrats as election time rolls closer.

Doomberg on June 22, 2012 at 1:40 PM

I’ve seen little evidence of Stewart’s intelligence. Now and then he reads lines from his large staff of comedy writers that sound intelligent, but assuming that Stewart is himself intelligent is like assuming that Matt Damon is a world-class mathematician.

slickwillie2001 on June 22, 2012 at 3:37 PM

I am surprised. Definitely never expected this.

Esthier on June 22, 2012 at 3:38 PM

How about your boy’s 2000′th death in Afghanistan you pacifist proggies? That is some milestone in your perpetual war of imperialism around the world. Seems like your boy likes to air raid villages and kill civilians in his compassionate liberalism nationbuilding scheme.

tom daschle concerned on June 22, 2012 at 3:33 PM

Historically the Democrats have always been the pro-war/imperialist party in opposition to the once isolationist Republicans (hint, this is what Ron Paul is always yammering on about and why many of us lefties kind of love him). Look at Clinton, now *thats* your traditional pro-war Democrat. Of course the Cold War got Republicans more excited about expanionist military intervention, or at least Cold War culture moved Republicans from saying “don’t intervene” into saying “well if we’re gonna intervene lets just lay waste and who gives a crap about civilians.” But, lets face it, the administration of war by Democrat or by Republican isn’t any more or less humane (Kissinger certainly tried to tip the scale of inhumanity towards the GOP of course). But its only a matter of degrees. Are these things new to you?

libfreeordie on June 22, 2012 at 3:39 PM

Hinderaker’s point regarding “executive privilege” was that if you have reason to assert it you would do it immediately when asked to produce the material and that if it is applicable, Holder and his counsel should have raised the issue when this investigation started, not now. Waiting this long implies that the claim is specious.

talkingpoints on June 22, 2012 at 2:41 PM

Agreed. Hinderaker goes on to say:

it is reasonable to infer that the documents, if made public, would be highly damaging to President Obama, Attorney General Holder, or other senior administration officials.

In my opinion, there isn’t anything that doesn’t smell here (of course because we’re talking about Barry & Eric).

I think that, when it’s justified, it’s important for the president, regardless of party, to reserve the right to claim executive privilege. This helps maintain the separation of powers and prevents a hostile congress from going on witch hunts against the executive branch. It also preserves the right for the president to advice without that advice being made public.

I don’t think any of that applies here. Obama is saying he, nor any of his direct underlings, had any prior knowledge about F&F. If that’s the case, then how can he claim EP? It can’t be both.

pain train on June 22, 2012 at 3:40 PM

Hinderaker’s point regarding “executive privilege” was that if you have reason to assert it you would do it immediately when asked to produce the material and that if it is applicable, Holder and his counsel should have raised the issue when this investigation started, not now. Waiting this long implies that the claim is specious.

talkingpoints on June 22, 2012 at 2:41 PM

But aren’t the documents that Holder is EPing actually not documents that Issa wants, but other files? Perhaps that they anticipate Issa requesting? Still, the timing of the EP, on the day of the contempt vote was odd given that these were separate documents. One might conclude that it was a (badly thought out) attempt to redirect news coverage.

libfreeordie on June 22, 2012 at 3:43 PM

I must admit, this was one of the funniest Jon Stewart segments I’ve seen.

The Rogue Tomato on June 22, 2012 at 3:45 PM

I must admit, this was one of the funniest Jon Stewart segments I’ve seen.

The Rogue Tomato on June 22, 2012 at 3:45 PM

The show (and Colbert) is always funny. He attacks the absurdity of our political system, regardless of who is being absurd at a given moment. He hates CNN and CNBC as much as he hates FOX. Its just unbelievably pathetic that so many can only only laugh when his target is someone they already didn’t like. Get out of the partisan mindset, would you. To quote Jon “stop..hurting America.”

libfreeordie on June 22, 2012 at 3:48 PM

libfreeordie on June 22, 2012 at 3:39 PM

tl;dr

PO

tom daschle concerned on June 22, 2012 at 3:51 PM

Lousy recap by Stewart.

The executive privilege by Bush was for documents that directly involved the White House.

The Obama WH said it didn’t know about F&F.

So there’s a Catch 22 here. The only way executive privilege would be valid is if the WH did know about F&F.

Libs claim that F&F is the same as the Operation Wide Receiver in the Bush administration. Wrong.

Operation Wide Receiver worked with the Mexican government. And there was an attempt to track the weapons. Unfortunately, the antennae in the tracking devices were damage when they were crammed inside the weapons.

F&F made no attempt to track the weapons and the Mexican government was not told about the program. No U.S. federal agent was killed. And there was no attempt at a coverup.

hepcat on June 22, 2012 at 3:55 PM

If you’ve lost J-Stew, you’ve lost the Left.

AlexB on June 22, 2012 at 3:58 PM

tl;dr

PO

tom daschle concerned on June 22, 2012 at 3:51 PM

Elegant.

libfreeordie on June 22, 2012 at 4:02 PM

Maybe NBC might consider following Stewart’s lead and report honestly on the story now.

Mmmm, yeah. Don’t hold your breath on that one, Ed.

woodNfish on June 22, 2012 at 4:02 PM

I don’t understand the eagerness of conservatives to give this Leftist the benefit of the doubt. Just because he’s clever and just because he’s addressing something openly does not mean he’s playing it down the middle.

What is the end result of this bit? What is the takeaway for his dumbed down audience? The entire bit was meant to deal with the fact that the Democrats have been busted by equating their crimes, cover-ups, and reactions with those of the GOP.

It is a given that this story can no longer be ignored. So the next best thing is to mitigate the disaster by reanimating the lies of the past regarding the Bush administration and then drawing a false equivalence.

Stewart is fulfilling his Leftist role faithfully. Nothing more or less.

IronDioPriest on June 22, 2012 at 4:05 PM

It is a given that this story can no longer be ignored. So the next best thing is to mitigate the disaster by reanimating the lies of the past regarding the Bush administration and then drawing a false equivalence.

Stewart is fulfilling his Leftist role faithfully. Nothing more or less.

IronDioPriest on June 22, 2012 at 4:05 PM

That’s certainly what I thought about the segment, but hey if these folks want to celebrate it, let them! Make sure you share it all over Facebook k?

libfreeordie on June 22, 2012 at 4:10 PM

…or at least Cold War culture moved Republicans from saying “don’t intervene” into saying “well if we’re gonna intervene lets just lay waste and who gives a crap about civilians.”

Roosevelt would like to have a word with you.

bettycooper on June 22, 2012 at 4:15 PM

Of course the Cold War got Republicans more excited about expanionist military intervention, or at least Cold War culture moved Republicans from saying “don’t intervene” into saying “well if we’re gonna intervene lets just lay waste and who gives a crap about civilians.” But, lets face it, the administration of war by Democrat or by Republican isn’t any more or less humane (Kissinger certainly tried to tip the scale of inhumanity towards the GOP of course). But its only a matter of degrees. Are these things new to you?

libfreeordie on June 22, 2012 at 3:39 PM

Your naivete is showing. No doubt, under the safe blankee of academia.

Here’s a little hint. War is hell. That’s why it’s called war. No one wants to intentionally murder innocent civilians, but it’s an unfortunate ancillary part of the battle. No one wants it, notwithstanding you and your side’s frothing at the mouth about Dick Cheney and HELLLLiburton.

It’s nice of you to so cavalierly point out that only Republicans just want to “lay waste” to everything. The Cold War got Republicans excited about expansionism? Really? LBJ says hi.

I suppose we could knock, ask nicely, and then start shooting, but where would the “fun” in that be, right? Better yet, would it even encourage anyone to end hostilities quickly, or maybe we just drag out things for 10-20 years, eh?

Riddle me this, Batman. If we wanted to “lay waste” to everything how would Vietnam, which by the way was escalated by a Democrat (LBJ) and ended by a Republican (Nixon) have turned out? Or put another way, how much longer would WWII have lasted if we (Truman) didn’t drop two nukes on Japan? How many more lives would’ve been lost?

If you weren’t so intellectually dishonest you’d be a laugh riot.

ICanSeeNovFromMyHouse on June 22, 2012 at 4:17 PM

Namely, why did your side shamelessly use Cindy Sheehan for political purposes, and then immediately throw her in the trash when her usefulness to your Party was exhausted?

Del Dolemonte on June 22, 2012 at 3:15 PM

Yes, you do keep ‘asking’ that.
But it’s not really a question…but a statement based on an opinion.
Your feelings are noted.
Try moving on.

verbaluce on June 22, 2012 at 3:28 PM

Wow, I see libfree found a new pal on the playground.

First of all, libfree was the one who first brought up Cindy, not you. So I’m not asking you.

Second, what I asked wasn’t based on “opinion”, it was based on Facts.

libfree’s (and your) Party shamelessly used Sheehan and her dead soldier son for political gain, and then immediately threw her and her son’s memory into the trash can like used syringes when their usefulness politically had expired.

Since libfree is deathly afraid to tell me why she condoned her (and your) Party doing this, perhaps you would like to amuse us with your explanation?

Del Dolemonte on June 22, 2012 at 4:21 PM

Hey Stewart, you know what? This would be funny…if people weren’t being murdered because the current administration is dumber than a bag of hammers.

There’s nothing funny about any of this, and I’ll bet the Terry Family doesn’t find this bit particularly funny, either.

No amount of attempted self-deprecating humor is gonna fix this one, your messiah, and his people, screwed up BIG TIME, and someone needs to be held accountable. The worst part is, this whole thing was a setup to enact stricter gun laws, and they simply got caught making the plant. How far would these jackasses have gone if this hadn’t been exposed? And what other malaise have they caused that we just haven’t discovered their involvement in yet?

And Libfree: Your assertions about Stewart are total bullshit. He’s trying to ‘get out in front of this’ and nothing more. Nothing about the left is funny, and spare me the whole Rodney King bullshit. The left has the unmitigated gall to start fights, and then accuse anyone who stands up to them with being ‘oppressive’, ‘partisan’, ‘unreasonable’, ‘uncivil’ or whatever other sissy excuse you can think of.

a5minmajor on June 22, 2012 at 4:21 PM

Namely, why did your side shamelessly use Cindy Sheehan for political purposes, and then immediately throw her in the trash when her usefulness to your Party was exhausted?

Why did the Democrats stop paying attention to a vocal opponent of American imperialism once their party came into the seat of power in the American empire?

libfreeordie on June 22, 2012 at 3:30 PM

Translated: “I’m still afraid to answer Del’s question.”

Since you’re afraid to tell us the truth, I’ll tell it for you.

Your Party threw Sheehan away before O’bama was even elected. Because she left your Party in 2007.

Why did she leave the Democrat Party in 2007? Because she was mad at your Democrat Congressional Majority voting to continue funding for the Iraq War.

Thanks for playing!

Del Dolemonte on June 22, 2012 at 4:26 PM

Del Dolemonte on June 22, 2012 at 4:21 PM

Del,
You have a gift for hyperbole.
And you use it.

verbaluce on June 22, 2012 at 4:29 PM

Del Dolemonte on June 22, 2012 at 4:26 PM

Don’t waste your time with VerbalDiarrhea. You’ll never get an answer. He/she/it’s your garden variety “I only answer a question with another question” pseudo-troll.

ICanSeeNovFromMyHouse on June 22, 2012 at 4:32 PM

Del,
You have a gift for hyperbole.
And you use it.

verbaluce on June 22, 2012 at 4:29 PM

verbulace,
You have a gift for deflection.
And you use it.

tom daschle concerned on June 22, 2012 at 4:33 PM

tom daschle concerned on June 22, 2012 at 4:33 PM

Ha –
coming from someone who offers stuff like –
How about your boy’s 2000′th death in Afghanistan you pacifist proggies?….Seems like your boy likes to air raid villages and kill civilians….

No need to deflect something that revealing.

verbaluce on June 22, 2012 at 4:41 PM

Roosevelt would like to have a word with you.

bettycooper on June 22, 2012 at 4:15 PM

Cr*p. I meant Truman.

ICanSeeNovFromMyHouse on June 22, 2012 at 4:17 PM

covered it much better anyway.

bettycooper on June 22, 2012 at 4:41 PM

verbulace,
You have a gift for deflection.
And you use it.

tom daschle concerned on June 22, 2012 at 4:33 PM

It’s not much of a gift though.

Fighton03 on June 22, 2012 at 4:47 PM

Maybe NBC might consider following Stewart’s lead and report honestly on the story now.

Ed, why are you turning blue?
..
..
..
Take a breath, Ed!

shick on June 22, 2012 at 4:59 PM

verbaluce on June 22, 2012 at 4:41 PM

That’s 100% on you reprobate leftists comrade.

Hope you enjoy 8 years of Romney. Your boy ain’t even going to be in Charlotte.

tom daschle concerned on June 22, 2012 at 5:01 PM

Jon Stewart would be amazingly funny…if he was being played by anyone but Jon Stewart…

BlaxPac on June 22, 2012 at 5:11 PM

Your boy ain’t even going to be in Charlotte.

tom daschle concerned on June 22, 2012 at 5:01 PM

What is that supposed to mean?
You often use ‘your boy’ for Obama.
Why won’t Obama be in Charlotte for 2012 DNC?

verbaluce on June 22, 2012 at 5:17 PM

It’s a Single-Issue Election

http://predicthistunpredictpast.blogspot.com/2012/06/its-single-issue-election.html

M2RB: Lisa Marie Presley

Resist We Much on June 22, 2012 at 5:18 PM

I don’t find Jon Stewart funny, and I don’t think much of him at all, but at least he might penetrate that cloud of denial that surrounds some “progressive” heads. They trust Jon Stewart, so a few of them might start thinking that maybe Barack Obama isn’t the Second Coming after all.

RebeccaH on June 22, 2012 at 5:46 PM

the explanation was pretty good for the libs who have no idea what this story was about….but if you watch Stewarts “take-down”s of dems …its ALWAYS done in the “come on ..we are better than that dems” He, at least, does not let the completely indefensible things go..to his credit..but its always done in the “dont do what republicans do” schtick.

lostinjrz on June 22, 2012 at 6:12 PM

Jon Stewart says they ran guns and didn’t track them for no f*cking reason whatsoever, but we know better. The motivation is one of the things that is probably made clear in the documents Issa can’t get.

The Rogue Tomato on June 22, 2012 at 2:04 PM

-
Yeah… this is just a small start toward waking up and educating moderates who are barely paying attention. Your point is the real deal… if that comes out and is as bad as Rush and others have been saying for the last 9 months… Barry/Holder should be toast. Election or not.

RalphyBoy on June 22, 2012 at 6:27 PM

Your boy ain’t even going to be in Charlotte.

tom daschle concerned on June 22, 2012 at 5:01 PM
What is that supposed to mean?
You often use ‘your boy’ for Obama.
Why won’t Obama be in Charlotte for 2012 DNC?

verbaluce on June 22, 2012 at 5:17 PM

So what’s your point, verb?

re: DNC
Keep it up tom daschle!

bettycooper on June 22, 2012 at 6:33 PM

Del Dolemonte on June 22, 2012 at 4:21 PM

Del,

You have a gift for hyperbole.
And you use it.

verbaluce on June 22, 2012 at 4:29 PM

Translated: “Del just kicked my getalife into low Earth orbit.”

Thanks for playing!

Del Dolemonte on June 22, 2012 at 6:37 PM

tom daschle concerned on June 22, 2012 at 4:33 PM

Ha –
coming from someone who offers stuff like –
How about your boy’s 2000′th death in Afghanistan you pacifist proggies?….Seems like your boy likes to air raid villages and kill civilians….

No need to deflect something that revealing.

verbaluce on June 22, 2012 at 4:41 PM

Unlike in 2005, when they gleefully noted the 2,000th combat death in Iraq, ABC, NBC, PBS and MSNBC all ignored the recent 2,000th combat death in Afghanistan.

You and the Ghost of Dr. Goebbels must be so proud of them.

Del Dolemonte on June 22, 2012 at 6:41 PM

One might conclude that it was a (badly thought out) attempt to redirect news coverage.

libfreeordie on June 22, 2012 at 3:43 PM

No, that would be this attempt.

In a ten-minute rant on her show Thursday night, Rachel Maddow tried to explain the long NBC and ABC blackout of “Fast and Furious” scandal news by somehow tying it to the Shirley Sherrod controversy. The American people should move along, since this scandal is only a “paranoid delusion” and shouldn’t be covered by anyone other than Fox News. It should be carefully quarantined.

The graphic behind Maddow read “WHAT YOUR UNCLE WHO WATCHES FOX NEWS ALL DAY IS ALL WORKED UP ABOUT.”

-snip-

Alongside Mother Jones and other left-wing journalists, the MSNBC host claimed that blogger Michael Vanderboegh was the evil genius who uncorked this whole “cuckoo for Cocoa puffs” conspiracy theory for Fox News, and concocted the notion that the Obama administration engaged in gun walking to make a case for gun control inside the United States:

MADDOW: This is not some weird, boggy offshoot of what the Fast and Furious scandal is. This is what the Fast and Furious scandal is. This is it. It is a conspiracy theory on the right that President Obama is secretly trying to take away all your guns. That’s what it was. They created this program was actually started by George W. Bush as a means of upsetting people about gun violence and their abolishing the Second Amendment.If you watch Fox News, as your source of information, you marinate daily in conservative media and that is your source of information about the world. This has been drilled into your head over and over and over again.

-snip-

Maddow concluded; “This is a test. This is a test. We have been here before. We know how this ends. News media of America, you are getting baited to cover this story that Fox and the right have cooked up in their own special cockamamie marinade for more than a year now. Are you going to swallow this one, too?”

What this dude isn’t telling his 27 brainwashed viewers is that Fox didn’t break this story. It was broken by C-BS.

You must be so proud of MSNBC for trying to Censor the news.

Del Dolemonte on June 22, 2012 at 6:50 PM

NBC might report the news honestly? Are you kiding? The next time NBC reports the news honestly will be the first time for them!!!

Jersey Dan on June 22, 2012 at 7:02 PM

Oops! Misspelled kidding!

Jersey Dan on June 22, 2012 at 7:03 PM

First, did Jon Stewart have his clown nose on or off?
.
Next:

Stewart is not going to go down with the Obama ship. Expect him to continue to at least occasionally mock the Democrats as election time rolls closer.

Doomberg on June 22, 2012 at 1:40 PM

.
It’s not just Stewart. I predict (and alreay posted over at Ace) that we are about to see the beginning of a mass-exodus of the Left.
.
Teh JEF has been a titanic failure, at everything. If Roney focuses, hard, on Jobs, the Economy and Fast & Furious, then the JEF will crumble. Will it happen during the first debate, or immediately after (during the stage exit, maybe the next day)? Will there even be a second debate?
.
Or will there be an attempt to “fix” the debates … avoid certain topics, weight the questions, maybe even play with speaking time?
.
Watch, over the next 4 months, for retirements, acceptance of academic/consulting-at-think-tank/resignations-to-spend-more-time-with-the-family exits among the poitical appointees and political players … and listen for the (muted) vows to coninue the struggle.
.
.
Chicgo, even with its crime rate, looks might safe right now …

Arbalest on June 22, 2012 at 7:05 PM

How are y’all into that second clip, it shows very clearly that Republicans are massive hypocrites too….

libfreeordie on June 22, 2012 at 2:37 PM

Tu quoque, lib, a tu quoque.

You Libbies are great with logical fallacies. Did you study it in school as a tactic or something? Or were you making an attempt at Alinsky #4?

Unfortunately, Al #4 doesn’t apply, since conservatives and other thinking people DO hold their reps to standards.

Try again. Dig deep into those college notes you have around your mom’s basement.

ProfShadow on June 22, 2012 at 7:35 PM

A lot of liberals have a problem with Fast and Furious, because they don’t like guns and don’t like the fact that we sent thousands of guns across the border on purpose. They might have overlooked that fact, though, had it not been for the executive privilege thing.

Liberals hated Nixon, and his attempted use of executive privilege. Reagan didn’t use it much (3 times), but they hate Reagan for no apparent reason. They didn’t like Clinton doing it, and they really hated Bush doing it.

Obama had to know this, so whatever he’s hiding must be worse for him than claiming executive privilege. Must be bad.

kdlee on June 22, 2012 at 8:21 PM

This is classic Stewart, great stuff. Remember how in the 2000s you all loved it when Stewart lampooned the Bush Admin and Fox News? Really? Cause no one else does.

libfreeordie on June 22, 2012 at 1:55 PM

I was a Democrat back then. Maybe you should try opening your mind too Libfree. Don’t defend the indefensible. No matter what the letter is after the name. Be Independent. Think for yourself.

magicbeans on June 22, 2012 at 8:22 PM

How are y’all into that second clip, it shows very clearly that Republicans are massive hypocrites too….

libfreeordie on June 22, 2012 at 2:37 PM

That doesn’t make Obama or Holder right, it just makes a whole lotta people wrong.

Have you also failed to notice that the arguments toward open advisors refers to the president being advised, and Holder et al have repeatedly stated that Obama was not involved in the program at all?

sssooooooooo what presidential advice is protected under this privilege assertion?

But aren’t the documents that Holder is EPing actually not documents that Issa wants, but other files?

I want you to stop and think for a moment about what you are asking. This process has been going on for months. Issa has been threatening a contempt of Congress vote for a couple weeks now. Holder met with Issa to try and talk him down a few days ago. Obama stepped in and asserted executive privilege just before this vote took place.

Now, explain how all of that could have taken place without Issa requesting the documents in question. What was the threat of the vote over? What did Holder meet with Issa to discuss? What would the vote have been over when it was scheduled so long in advance of Obama’s assertion? None of these events makes any sense whatsoever without Issa first having requested the documents. Otherwise, there was nothing for the two sides to fight over the last ten days or so.

The Schaef on June 22, 2012 at 8:54 PM

I’ve always laughed at the claim that people get their news from Jon Stewart, but he just gave more information in those two clips than most of the media has given all along.

Of course, he’s still wrong when he tries to make the case that Republicans and Democrats are alike guilty. The latest claim of executive privilege is far more spurious and in the face of far greater offenses than any of the claims made by the Bush administration.

Let’s face it, there is no serious way to claim Bush committed a crime by firing US attorneys who were actually political appointees.

But I don’t think Stewart cares about a tit-for-tat comparison. I think he’s just upset that Democrats are, to his mind, playing the exact same game that the Republicans did.

So it’s not that Stewart isn’t biased towards the Democrats. He’s just not as biased towards them as we’ve come to expect the msm to be.

tom on June 22, 2012 at 9:15 PM

Maybe Stewart has at least a modicum of principle?

Chaz706 on June 22, 2012 at 9:32 PM

I think it is obvious that Eric Holder called Obama and asked…I am in deep shit…I need you to save my ass and yours. Obama said….We need to save both our asses. Obama is as guilty as Holder.

logicman_1998 on June 22, 2012 at 11:34 PM

There are two types of Executive Privilege:

1/ The first, and strongest, is the “presidential communications privilege”, which involves communications “in performance of a president’s responsibilities” and “in the process of shaping policies and making decisions.” If the White House claims this type of privilege, then Fast and Furious did either involve President Obama or members of his inner circle, which would make him a liar of the first order. Clearly, the man bamboozled his way to the White House.

2/ The second, and weaker privilege, is the “deliberative process privilege”, which applies to discussions among any members of the executive branch, members of the Department of Justice for example, that are part of the government’s decision making process. If the White House claims this type of privilege, the communications do not have to involve President Obama or members of his inner circle.

Of course Obama is being cagey and making it difficult by claiming privilege against the very thing he won’t let anyone, including Congress, review.

While the Court concedes the need for confidentiality in discussions between presidents and their advisers, it ruled that the right of presidents to keep those discussions secret under a claim of executive privilege was not absolute, and could be overturned by a judge. In the Court’s majority opinion, Chief Justice Warren Burger wrote “[n]either the doctrine of separation of powers, nor the need for confidentiality of high level communications, without more, can sustain an absolute, unqualified Presidential privilege of immunity from judicial process under all circumstances.”

The ruling reaffirmed decisions from earlier Supreme Court cases, including Marbury v. Madison, establishing that the U.S. court system is the final decider of constitutional questions, and that no person, not even the president of the United States, is above the law.

This will be Obama’s Waterloo and Watergate all wrapped into one giant turd bag.

DevilsPrinciple on June 23, 2012 at 2:22 AM

Comment pages: 1 2 3