DOWNLOADS: (141)

PLAYS: (1227)

Embed

Jon Stewart finally took a bit of a break from what he's been doing for the better part of the week -- which is feeding the trolls on this so-called "scandal trifecta" -- and called out Donald Rumsfeld and Dick Cheney for acting like they should be allowed to pile on as well.

Jon Stewart calls out Rumsfeld and Cheney: Obama’s transgressions don’t wipe away yours:

The Daily Show host Jon Stewart ripped into Donald Rumsfeld and Dick Cheney on Wednesday for their sanctimonious criticism of the current administration, saying President Barack Obama’s transgressions didn’t resolve them of their own.

Stewart lamented that conservatives now had government scandals to be justifiably outraged about. Many right-wing commentators were downright orgiastic at all the bad news pummeling the President and his administration.

“This week I can’t nitpick,” Stewart said. “The floodgates are open. Every critic suddenly has credibility. Every single one. Who wouldn’t have the standing to legitimately criticize this president? I can’t imagine.”

But one such figure did emerge: Donald Rumsfeld. The former defense secretary, who was key to the start of the Iraq war, remarked that the Obama administration falsely believed narratives that fit their hopes.

“You believe the Obama administration is promoting a narrative? Not because it is real but because fits their hopes and what they want to be the case? You?” Stewart said. “So, no. You alone don’t get to come to the victory parade for the Republicans. You’re the only one who doesn’t get to weigh in.”

DOWNLOADS: (78)

PLAYS: (439)

Embed

Our corporate media has been trotting these Bushies back out for years on end now, so it's no surprise that we'd eventually see Alberto Gonzales take his turn. I guess the producers of Morning Joe thought there was no one better for their audience to hear from when it comes to Department of Justice scandals than Gonzo.

It does seem his memory has improved slightly since 2007, when he couldn't recall much of anything when testifying before Congress.

Steve Benen summed up his appearance this Wednesday quite nicely. After first explaining why it's likely Gonzales has kept such a low profile since leaving office and the fact that he went through quite a bit of trouble finding a job, he reminded us why he has absolutely no credibility to be commenting on the DOJ and journalists: Alberto Gonzales returns from obscurity:

The former A.G. nevertheless appeared on MSNBC this morning, apparently ready to address some of ongoing controversies. He seemed inclined to give the Obama administration the benefit of the doubt when it came to subpoenaing Associated Press phone logs, but this nevertheless stood out for me.

Former Attorney General Alberto Gonzales recalled on Wednesday a time when he was confronted with a "very serious leak investigation" similar to the one that has embroiled the Obama administration this week. But, he said, he went a very different route and decided against subpoenaing a reporter's notes.

Continue reading »

DOWNLOADS: (190)

PLAYS: (3171)

Embed

From this Wednesday's House Judiciary Committee hearing, Darrell Issa wasn't the only one who had a contentious back and forth with Attorney General Eric Holder: Holder smacks down Gohmert over Boston bombings–’You cannot know what I know’:

An already-ugly House Judiciary Committee hearing on Wednesday turned even nastier when Texas Republican Louie Gohmert took the wheel on questions related to last month’s Boston Marathon bombing–specifically, about what the FBI did and did not do after receiving information from Russian intelligence that suspect Tamerlan Tsarnaev had been radicalized.

Attorney General Eric Holder had already faced a heavy grilling on both the AP and IRS scandals plaguing the Obama administration this week when Gohmert began pelting him with accusations that the FBI shirked a thorough examination of Tsarnaev because of “political correctness.”

“On the one hand, we go after Christian groups like Billy Graham’s group, we go after Franklin Graham’s group, but then we’re hands off when it comes to possibly offending someone who has been radicalized as a terrorist,” said Gohmert.

The Texas lawmaker added that though he “appreciated” the concern of racial profiling, he believes “there were a lot more people in America concerned about being blown up by terrorists.”

Holder fired back that Gohmert was speaking “as a matter of fact” about information not fully available to him.

“Unless somebody’s done something inappropriate, you don’t have access to the FBI files,” said Holder. “You don’t know what the FBI did. You don’t know what the FBI’s interaction was with the Russians. You don’t know what questions were put to the Russians, whether those questions were responded to. You simply do not know that…I know what the FBI did. You cannot know what I know.”

Yeah, old "terror babies" Gohmert is back at it again, fearmongering as usual.

DOWNLOADS: (167)

PLAYS: (1366)

Embed

Stephen Colbert took on the Heritage Foundation and Jason Richwine, the author of their racist so-called "immigration study" -- which made the claim that "the average IQ of immigrants in the United States is substantially lower than that of the white native population, and the difference is likely to persist over several generations" -- as only he can on his show this Tuesday evening.

As Stephen noted, Heritage is attempting to put some distance between themselves and Richwine now that he's resigned. Case in point being their VP of communications, Mike Gonzales, who put up a blog post stating:

Dr. Richwine did not shape the methodology or the policy recommendations in the Heritage paper... The dissertation was written while Dr. Richwine was a student at Harvard, supervised and approved by a committee of respected scholars... Its findings do not reflect the positions of The Heritage Foundation or the conclusions of our study...

Colbert wrapped things up by explaining how they're attempting to have it both ways with that ridiculous statement:

COLBERT: Now, Heritage is saying they find no credence in Richwine's dissertation, which they are careful to point out was "supervised and approved by respected scholars" at Harvard. In other words, Richwine's paper, which says that today's Hispanic immigrants have low IQs and will for several generations, dooming them to failure is reprehensible.

And had no influence on this paper, co-written by the same guy, which says Hispanic immigrants are a burdensome underclass and will be for several generations, because they're doomed to failure.

Because this one is based on hard numbers, unlike this one, which is an offensive screed with no credibility, approved by Harvard, so it must be pretty good.

These two papers are totally different. It's like apple pickers and orange pickers... which by the way, we desperately need.

DOWNLOADS: (77)

PLAYS: (433)

Embed

Someone needs to tell Fox regular Charles Krauthammer that the picture he's demanding to see of President Obama on the night of the attack in Benghazi, Libya has been available on the White House Flickr page since at least January:

Via Media Matters: Krauthammer Still Hasn't Seen This Photo Of Obama From Night Of Benghazi Attack:

Fox News contributor Charles Krauthammer continued to hype the right-wing myth that President Obama was missing on the night of the September 11, 2012 attack on the American consulate in Benghazi, Libya.

During a May 14 panel discussion on the Benghazi investigation during Fox News' Special Report, Krauthammer requested photographic evidence of President Obama's whereabouts on the night of the Benghazi attack:

KRAUTHAMMER: And where was the president on that night? We've all seen the video and the pictures--well the picture of the situation room--of Obama on the night of the Osama raid. And everybody looks at that, oh yeah he was really involved in that. Show me a picture of where he was on the night of the attack in Libya.

The claim that Obama was absent the night of the Benghazi attack has been repeatedly debunked, both by former Defense Secretary Leon Panetta and Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff General Martin E. Dempsey.

Some of Krauthammer's other tales he was telling in the segment have been debunked here and here as well.

DOWNLOADS: (151)

PLAYS: (1325)

Embed

As Esquire's Charlie Pierce relayed to Stephanie Miller this Tuesday morning, between Benghazi, Benghazi!, BENGHAZI!, the IRS and now the Associated Press phone records, get ready for a really long summer of scandal mongering from Republicans the the beltway Villagers.

We're going to be in for one hearing after another and as Pierce wrote in his column, none of this is going away any time soon: Washington's Political Circus Is Not An Accident:

Want to know why the Benghazi, Benghazi!, BENGHAZI! mummery isn't going away, and why the marginally more serious accusations concerning the IRS aren't going away, either? Read what Howard Fineman, a very reasonable fellow, writes today about the singularly futile press conference the president held. [...]

We are now entering the we're-all-just-feathers-in-the-wind period of scandal coverage in Washington. The courtier press has decided that Washington "has turned into" a political circus, as if the process were a passing thunderstorm or an implacable seismic event. [...]

Continue reading »

DOWNLOADS: (172)

PLAYS: (1162)

Embed

Sen. Al Franken made a rare national media appearance on Lawrence O'Donnell's show on MSNBC this Monday evening to discuss his participation in the SEC's roundtable on credit rating industry reform this Tuesday.

Back in 2010, with bipartisan support, Franken managed to get his Restore Integrity to Credit Rating Amendment passed, which cleans up the credit rating system by making sure a bank or financial institution can't shop around for a credit rating agency that will game the system for them.

From Sen. Franken's press release when the amendment first passed back in 2010: Credit Rating Agency Reform:

The inherent conflicts of interest in Wall Street's current pay-to-play credit rating system were one of the greatest contributing factors to the economy's collapse. Right now, banks choose which credit rating agencies will rate the quality of their stocks, bonds, and other financial products, resulting in the agencies giving away undeserved top ratings to countless sub-par financial products in order to attract business.

The Senate Permanent Subcommittee on Investigations recently revealed examples of Wall Street financial institutions negotiating higher ratings from credit rating agencies for its sub-par products. Of the AAA-rated subprime-mortgage-backed securities issued in 2006 alone, 93% have been downgraded to junk status.

Sen. Franken's Restore Integrity to Credit Rating Amendment cleans up the credit rating system by making sure a bank or financial institution can't shop around among credit rating agencies to get a product's initial rating. The bipartisan proposal creates a board, overseen by the Securities and Exchange Commission, which will assign credit rating agencies to provide initial ratings in order to eliminate inherent conflicts of interest. Senator Franken's proposal passed the Senate by a 64 to 35 vote, and the final bill passed into law requires that the SEC study the problem. If the SEC does not develop an alternative mechanism to address the conflicts of interest problem, Senator Franken's proposal will go into effect.

Here's more on the SEC meeting this week: Sen. Franken to Speak at SEC’s Roundtable on Credit Rating Industry Reform:

Continue reading »

DOWNLOADS: (115)

PLAYS: (882)

Embed

Sen. Marco Rubio sent out a letter this Monday, calling for the IRS commissioner to resign in the wake of the latest dust up over the agency's admission that there were some conservative groups targeted by the branch in Cincinnati. The problem with his request -- the IRS commissioner when these scandals occurred was a Bush appointee who no longer heads the department:

Commissioner Douglas H. Shulman, who was appointed by President Bush in 2008 and held by President Obama, left the agency in Nov. 9, 2012. Any pre-election misconduct would have had to occur on his watch. The current acting commissioner is Steven T. Miller -- a permanent replacement has not been nominated.

When TPM originally posted their report on this, they had not heard back from Rubio's office. As they noted in their update, here's their response:

In response to TPM's query, Rubio's spokesman Alex Conant noted that Miller was deputy commissioner when the targeting took place. He did not suggest the IRS acted inappropriately under Miller's watch as acting commissioner.

"He was Deputy IRS Commissioner when all this occurred," Conant said in an email.

So after someone pointed out to them that it was a Bushie that was in charge when these supposed abuses took place, now he wants the acting-director fired, even though the practice was not continued under their watch. Chris Jansing couldn't be bothered to point that out in the clip above, where she basically just read Rubio's letter with no context.

Some saner coverage of the topic aired a little later on the network, with both Joy Reid and Katrina vanden Heuvel doing a fine job of trying to put this story into its proper perspective and with Reid making sure the audience knew just who Rubio was initially calling to have fired -- someone who no longer works for the agency. Vanden Heuvel made some very good points about the fact that all of these groups ought to be getting a lot more scrutiny after the flood of them that came in after the Citizens United ruling.

In the meantime, all this is going to be is an excuse for more Obama derangement syndrome out of Republicans -- which is in full force already -- and more partisan witch hunts in the form of more hearings from Darrell Issa.

Video and Rubio's letter below the fold.

Continue reading »

DOWNLOADS: (95)

PLAYS: (587)

Embed

Oh look! It's John McCain on a Sunday show pushing for the United States to start dropping more bombs on people's heads. What a rare treat it is that our corporate media allows McCain on for more warmongering. That never happens, does it?

Here he is with guest host Martha Raddatz on This Week, where he actually got a little bit of push back about the dangers of the United States escalating our involvement in Syria, but McCain just brushed it off.

So we might get the Russians involved if we go in there... or be arming terrorists. So what? What could possibly go wrong?

I guess you've got to give McCain credit for one thing. He is at least consistent in never being able to find a military conflict somewhere that he doesn't want to help escalate. Consistently wrong... but consistent. No amount of bad behavior ever goes unrewarded by our media if you're a Republican. I was shocked to see this is only his tenth appearance on a Sunday show this year. I guess it just feels like more since he's got his mug on Fox and CNN so often throughout the week as well.

RADDATZ: I -- I want to move on to Syria. It's been more than a week since Israeli jets hit targets in Syria. More than two weeks since the U.S. said that there was evidence of the use of chemical weapons. What should be happening now concerning, especially these chemical weapons, and the red line that the president talked about?

MCCAIN: Well, the president said he wants a U.N. investigation. The only problem with that is the U.N. can't get into -- into Syria.

RADDATZ: And we read this morning that Assad's forces are making incredible gains. You...

MCCAIN: Incredible gains?

RADDATZ: ...you talked about...

MCCAIN: Which...

RADDATZ: ...a no-fly zone, striking targets. What good does that do?

MCCAIN: Well first of all, engage their air assets. In that kind of terrain, and that kind of weather, air is a -- is a decisive factor in this kind of conflict, and...

RADDATZ: A -- a decisive factor in doing what? What's -- what's...

MCCAIN: Well, we take out the air. We establish a no-fly -- no boots on the ground, no American boots on the ground...

RADDATZ: That's still a lot of risk taking out that air. In fact -- in fact the Russians have said they would move in...

MCCAIN: Well, if they move in...

RADDATZ: ...anti-aircraft, very...

MCCAIN: ...if they move in...

RADDATZ: ...sophisticated.

MCCAIN: ...if they move that in, it's going to make it more complicated, and certainly maybe gives us a little bit of skepticism about a conference. But, we can provide them with a safe zone. We can provide them a place to organize inside Syria. We can give them the heavy weapons that they need...

RADDATZ: Who's -- who's them? Who's them?

Continue reading »

DOWNLOADS: (57)

PLAYS: (122)

Embed

One of these things is not like the other, but this is what's passing for political debate on CNN this weekend. Republican strategist and dirty trickster Alex Castellanos did his best to help the network continue on their path to becoming Fox-lite with this false equivalency on the drummed up Benghazi "scandal" they're all having the feeding frenzy over this week.

CROWLEY: Now, while I'm asking you this question I want to put up an NRCC, a Republican campaign committee, an ad they put up asking for funds saying, you know, we're after Benghazi. Is it smart to go after substantive things with Rand Paul in Iowa attacking Hillary, who might run in 2016 and the NRCC raising funds off of it. Isn't that kind of a mixed message?

CASTELLANOS: Well sometimes if you make something too political you undermine your motive that you really want -- a fair investigation.

CROWLEY: Do you think that has happened here?

CASTELLANOS: Not yet. Politics is also how we govern our governors. It's the only control we have. So, when government fails, the political arena is the place that we want to expose something and bring it to people's attention. And this is bad news for Hillary Clinton. This could be what mission accomplished was for George Bush. What difference does it make could be for Hillary Clinton? She -- three bad mistakes here. She didn't look after the people under her care in Benghazi. She either allowed or encouraged or didn't know about a cover up and then she marked it with a YouTube moment and those things last and travel in politics. This is going to make it very tough for her in 2016.

Ah yes, taking part of Hillary Clinton's testimony during the Republicans witch hunt on Benghazi out of context is exactly like Bush declaring that we'd "won" in Iraq right as things were about to go to hell after our illegal invasion of a country that was not a threat to us. Just the same! Jesus this crap makes my head hurt. And not an ounce of push back from host Candy Crowley, of course.

Full transcript from the segment above below the fold.

Continue reading »