President Obama does not agree with the view of his former Attorney General Eric Holder that Edward Snowden performed a “public service” by leaking classified documents about the United States’ sweeping surveillance programs.
Holder, in an interview with CNN’s David Axelrod over the weekend, said Snowden’s illegal act had some silver linings for people by shining a light on U.S. surveillance techniques. But he also said the former contractor for the National Security Agency must pay a penalty for the crimes.
White House spokesman Josh Earnest was unequivocal in his response to a question on whether Obama agreed with Holder’s perception that Snowden’s actions had some redeeming qualities for the public.
“A careful review of [Obama’s] public comments will indicate that he does not” share Holder’s view, Earnest said
Odd that Obama would be forced to publicly disagree with Holder. So Axelrod interviews Holder, and that is real credible journalism? I wonder if this is the beginning of the talk which is to end in a Snowden pardon? Since when should a former AG come out to defend a criminal? But then these guys are radicals, it’s what they do.
I always knew it would finally come to this. Having a Leviathan so large and massive that really no one knows anything. No one even knows what they are doing, or why.
As for President Know Nothing, how could he know even most of what this behemoth government is doing? Does he even care? Sure he has people for that, but they do not know anything either.
So when we have an investigation, just ask the people, and they will tell you no one outside the department influenced their policy or actions. And they don’t know how or why it happened. (sounds like an old Laugh-In bit) Nope, then it is clear, there was no outside [political] influence on the IRS – so you can take that to the bank. (sorry bad pun)
The investigators can say there was no influence, but if no one knows anything, how can employees state with any certainty that there was no outside influence? Then how are we to believe that when we don’t know for sure? And how can the IG state with any surety there was no outside influence. He surely does not know either. No one does.
And that is the great thing about this huge out of control government. At least there is one thing they can all agree on: that no one could possibly know because of its size. Even David Axelrod states with surety that the government is so breathtakingly huge that Obama could not know what is going on. That’s a far cry from transparency and the accountable government we were sold.
“Part of being president is there’s so much beneath you that you can’t know because the government is so vast”, Axelrod said. (see video)
So if you want an excuse for no accountability from government, there it is.
Government “of, by and for the people” is now of, by and for Government. And when it is wrong or errors, don’t worry it will investigate itself. You can trust its integrity. It’s always good for its tab too. (another bad analogy, I know)
Just to name a few of the prominent Know Nothings
Lists? What lists?
Besides, if it does come to a hearing where they are accused of keeping information from Congress, they can do like Eric Holder and criticize the messenger.
“No, that’s what you typically do…. That is inappropriate and is too consistent with the way in which you conduct yourself as a member of Congress. It’s unacceptable and it’s shameful.” — Holder told Issa.
He can always revert back to the primary “I don’t know” answer that always works. And when he gets accused of hiding information or lying, he can always play the racism card. (that one never gets old)
What happens when you get all those personalities clashing in the meat-grinder “machine” of Chicago’s campaign headquarters?
It sounds like Axelrod, Stephanie Cutter, and Debbie Wasserman Schultz have quite the family feud going. Occasional appearances by the tyrant-in-chief adds even more drama than a Lifetime Orignial. Fights over airtime and DWS, partisan hack extraordinaire, on the bench surrounded by fire extinguishers set the scene.
Obama’s trash-talking competitiveness, a trait that has defined him since his days on the court as a basketball-obsessed teenager in Hawaii, was on display one night last February, when the president spotted a woman he knew was close to Sen. Marco Rubio in a Florida hotel lobby. “Is your boy going to go for [vice president]?” the president asked her. Maybe, she replied.
“Well,” he said, chuckling, according to a person who witnessed the encounter. “Tell your boy to watch it. He might get his ass kicked.”
We need to kick his arrogant ass and send him back to Chicago.
Politics of destruction and personal records chase, while not accounting for his own record.
OBAMA’S SIGNATURE MOVE: UNSEALING PRIVATE RECORDS
August 1, 2012
Mitt Romney presents one enormous problem for Barack Obama’s campaign: No divorce records. That’s why the media are so hot to get their hands on Romney’s tax records for the past 25 years. They need something to “pick through, distort and lie about” — as the Republican candidate says.
Obama’s usual campaign method, used in 100 percent of his races, has been to pry into the private records of his opponents.
Democrats aren’t going to find any personal dirt on the clean-cut Mormon, so they need complicated tax filings going back decades in order to create the illusion of scandal out of boring financial records. [/…]