http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2014/10/12/dems-returned-20g-check-to-father-white-house-aide-linked-to-prostitution/?intcmp=latestnews
The reason is simple: In September 2012, they knew that the younger Dach was implicated in the April 2012 scandal, which they deny to this day. Are they really saying they returned the check because the elder Dach failed to show up at a London benefit for Obama? I didn't show up either but they would have gladly accepted my check because I get e-mails all the time from these yahoos asking for money (which I never send).
Even more disturbing is that the lead investigator was allegedly leaned upon to change his report by "higher-ups" because it would embarrass the White House with Obama's re-election campaign in progress.
And what was the role, if any, of Janet Napolitano, now the president of the University of California?
What could she testify to as to the actions of the DHS Inspector General?
3 comments:
Thus, the question about the current "scandal." If they returned the check from the father, why would they bother with a "cover-up"? The son was a nobody. The only reason to cover for him was to curry favor with the father. But they returned the father's check, so they didn't need to cater to him either.
I am quite open to the possibility that they had a reflex to institute an entirely superfluous cover-up. Democrats go into a kind of delerium tremens over the possibility that someone might believe the latest guff from some talk show host, and therefore they do stupid things.
The ultimate example was demanding that Shirley Sherrod resign her position with the Department of Agriculture because "Glenn Beck is about to do a show" talking about her. Everyone from O'Reilly to the Secretary of Agriculture had to offer profuse apologies after learning that the "white farmer" she had supposedly discriminated against was on TV saying "She saved our farm. She is the best friend we ever had."
As I recall, someone from CNN interviewing his wife offered condolences on his recent death, and she told him, he's not dead, he's out driving the tractor right now.
Never attribute to malice what is adequately explained by stupidity.
What has Shirley Sherrrod have to do with anything? Your argument seems to be that since the Obama white house had no motive to cover up anything, they didn't cover up anything even though it appears its right in front of us. They will cover up anything they do wrong.
No, Gary, you totally missed it. My point is that some layer of useless idiots in the Obama White House feel an impulsive need to cover up, on general principles, whether there is any good reason to do so or not. (That's the relevance of Shirely Sherrod -- another pointless cover-up of nothing, or rather, a cover-up where there was no smoke or fire at all, much less the tiny wisps from old dry twigs wafting into the breeze now.
Ron the Barber, who ran an old school corner barber shop until a few years ago, told me that if Obama got the right people around him, he would do very well. In this respect, he has signally failed, from Hillary and Geithner onward.
Post a Comment