Barack Obama unilaterally tries to recuse Susan Rice from #Benghazi testimony.

Via Ed Driscoll comes something I hadn’t considered: Susan Rice as National Security Advisor means that Barack Obama thinks that he can claim executive privilege to keep her from testifying.

A Google News search on [“Susan Rice” “executive privilege”] (typed exactly as indicated between brackets) returns two stories. The main one is at Fox News, where K.T. McFarland pointed out that President Obama, now that he has appointed Susan Rice to be his National Security Adviser, can invoke executive privilege to keep her from testifying before Congress. The second is at Mediate, and notes that McFarland said the same thing to Fox News Channel anchor Martha MacCallum earlier today.

So I think that we have established here that the President is hiding something about Benghazi; we’re now just trying to figure out what Barack Obama is hiding*.

Continue reading Barack Obama unilaterally tries to recuse Susan Rice from #Benghazi testimony.

Terry McAuliffe’s pro-Castro contributor.

Full disclosure: I have no particular love for the Baltimore Orioles, mostly because they’re neither the Mets nor the Blue Jays (yes, I know).  I note this because you could conceivably argue that my distaste at seeing Terry McAuliffe demonstrate that he’ll take $250 grand from anybody (in this case, Orioles owner Peter Angelos) is merely sour grapes from having both of the baseball teams that I (barely) follow be in the cellar.  This argument would be wrong, though.

I just have a real problem with anybody who would voluntarily sit next to Fidel Castro.

fidel-castro-terry-mcauliffe

Continue reading Terry McAuliffe’s pro-Castro contributor.

So. About that 2008 church burning in Wasilla, Eric Holder…

Not to pile on Eric Holder or anything, but on December 12, 2008 somebody tried to murder several women and children at Sarah Palin’s old church in Wasilla, Alaska.  The assailants did this by pouring accelerants on the doors and then setting the place on fire; and you would think that a Justice Department which was about to be headed up by the first African-American Attorney General would take a dim view of somebody trying to burn down a church with people inside of it, just to score some political points. However, there has been absolutely no resolution of this.  The Justice Department seems to be remarkably indifferent to what happened, back then.

Why?

Tweet of the Day, You Don’t Have To Agree… edition.

…but you should probably take the argument seriously.

 

One thing that Sean said rings particularly true: “The battlefield of presidential politics is littered with the bones of politicians who started thinking about Iowa before tending to their own re-election efforts.” I should also note that a lot of people – including me, some days – are simply assuming that Cory Booker’s social media-friendly persona will beat out Frank Pallone’s I-buried-the-bodies-so-of-course-I-know-where-they-are machine politics methodology in a primary.  If that does not happen, then the odds of a GOP upset go a little bit higher; after all, it then becomes an off-year, off-date special election where the Old White Guy beat out that nice Mayor who gets along so well with Governor Christie.  Every little bit helps.

Again, you are not required to agree with any of this.

Moe Lane

EPA confesses to handing out farmers’ personal information to activist-lawyers.

Executive summary (H/T: AoSHQ): the EPA just admitted that, yeah, it gave out a bunch of personal information about farmers and ranchers – including phone numbers, email addresses, regular addresses, and whatnot – to various environmental groups.  The EPA also is kind of admitting that, yeah, maybe it shouldn’t have given out that information, which is why they’ve asked those groups to give that information back (note that the EPA apparently didn’t even bother to ask that the groups give back the information without making copies first).  This is not amusing Senator John Thune, because a) the damage is done; b) apparently nobody in the EPA talks to Agriculture & Homeland Security, which both decided not to make this particular information available in a database; and c) there’s a question about whether or not all of this violates the Privacy Act of 1974.

Before we go into the specific point about this situation that I wish to highlight, let me make a general observation to people who like big government; there are a lot of stories like this out there, just waiting to be found.  There always are.  But right now, we have a combination of factors that will bring these stories to the surface: there is an existing pattern of consistent government overreach, an administration that is increasingly being associated with heavy-handed, somewhat incompetent use of policy as a weapon, and a media that has just internalized the revelation that the government is reading their mail, too.  This could go on all summer, and probably will.

But back to the EPA!  Please, pay close attention to this part:

The EPA said the data was related to farms in 29 states with “concentrated animal feeding operations” and that the released information was part of the agency’s commitment to “ensure clean water and public-health protection.”

The groups wanted the information, they say, because such large-scale operations are a major source of water pollution and they want to hold the EPA accountable for enforcing the Clean Water Act.

Critics have characterized Earth Justice and the organizations as being “extremist groups” and say the released information included data on family farmers who feed fewer than 1,000 animals, which excludes them from having to comply with the Act.

Continue reading EPA confesses to handing out farmers’ personal information to activist-lawyers.