PDA

View Full Version : Obama Obama claims executive privilege over 'Fast and Furious' documents


qabbaan
06-20-2012, 09:33 AM
Obama claims executive privilege over 'Fast and Furious' documents


President Obama has granted an 11th-hour request by Attorney General
Eric Holder to exert executive privilege over Fast and Furious
documents, a last-minute maneuver that appears unlikely to head off a
contempt vote against Holder.

The House Oversight and Government Reform Committee is expected to
forge ahead Wednesday morning with its meeting on the contempt
resolution anyway.

If the vote proceeds, Republicans have more than enough votes on
committee to pass the resolution.
However, Holder would not be considered held in contempt of Congress
unless and until the full House approves the measure.

The move by Holder and Obama to lock down some requested documents
only complicates the fight over the botched anti-gunrunning operation
between the legislative and executive branches.

After Holder made the request to Obama via letter on Tuesday, Deputy
Attorney General James Cole wrote to Rep. Darrell Issa, R-Calif., on
Wednesday informing him that the president has granted the request.

"We regret that we have arrived at this point, after the many steps we
have taken to address the committee's concerns and to accommodate the
committee's legitimate oversight interests regarding Operation Fast
and Furious," Cole wrote. "Although we are deeply disappointed that
the committee appears intent on proceeding with a contempt vote, the
department remains willing to work with the committee to reach a
mutually satisfactory resolution of the outstanding issues."

Obama's decision pertains to documents from February 2011 and
afterward examining how Justice officials learned about the Fast and
Furious probe.

Holder, in his letter to Obama, said those documents pertain to the
"deliberative process" on how to respond to congressional and media
inquiries.

Wednesday's developments follow a flurry of activity Tuesday, as
Holder tried to negotiate a way to avert the contempt proceedings.
Issa had earlier indicated a willingness to postpone the vote after
Holder indicated a willingness to make compromises and supply some
documents in response to House Republicans' subpoena.

But Issa told reporters after a roughly 20-minute meeting with Holder
Tuesday that the attorney general instead briefed them on the
documents in lieu of delivering them.

Issa told Fox News that Holder didn't provide "anything in writing,"
and said the family of murdered Border Patrol agent Brian Terry wants
the documents as much as he does.

"We want the documents. Brian Terry's family would like the documents
that are responsive to how in fact their son was gunned down with
weapons that came from lawful dealers but at the ... behest of the
Justice Department," Issa told Fox News.

Weapons from the Fast and Furious anti-gunrunning operation were found
at Terry's murder scene.
Issa suggested earlier Tuesday that the vote could still be up in the air.

"The deadline will always move to the last minute," said Issa,
chairman of the House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform.
"We're not looking to hold people responsible. We're looking for
document production."

The failed Fast and Furious operation attempted selling thousands of
guns to arms dealers along the U.S.-Mexico border to trace them to
leaders of drug cartels. However, many of them showed up in crime
scenes.

Congressional investigators have been trying to determine if and when
high-level Justice officials knew about problems with the operation.

qabbaan
06-20-2012, 09:35 AM
Where have we heard that term before? So much for all the transparency.

HonestChieffan
06-20-2012, 09:37 AM
Well, on to a special prosecutor and force it out. This may well be the scandal that rocks Obama's socks.

qabbaan
06-20-2012, 09:44 AM
Well, on to a special prosecutor and force it out. This may well be the scandal that rocks Obama's socks.

To me it seems obvious that Holder has been dishonest at every stage about what he knew about F&F. They should have simply cut their losses and let Holder go down. Instead it seems they have been stonewalling and lying to congress trying to save him.

It doesn't make much political sense to have tried to cover this up and caused a much bigger problem than it would have been otherwise. They could have preserved the veneer that Obama knew nothing about it. Now that he is actively participating in the obstruction by claiming executive privilege, that is implausible.

But it does seem to mesh with the rest of the administration's attitude of arrogance and unwillingness to negotiate or play ball with anyone else in Washington unless forced.

blaise
06-20-2012, 09:44 AM
Hope.

Chiefshrink
06-20-2012, 09:48 AM
Well, on to a special prosecutor and force it out. This may well be the scandal that rocks Obama's socks.

As much as I want to believe this, don't count on it:rolleyes: They will drag this out at least until after the election. Until there are a few Dems who come forward and criticize Holder and Obama they don't have to do sh**. Right now it's just Repubs against Dems. Remember, Nixon was allowed to skirt and dodge until some Repubs started jumping ship.

Chiefshrink
06-20-2012, 09:50 AM
To me it seems obvious that Holder has been dishonest at every stage about what he knew about F&F. They should have simply cut their losses and let Holder go down. Instead it seems they have been stonewalling and lying to congress trying to save him.

And precisely why Obama NEEDS Holder otherwise Obama is far more vulnerable to impeachment.

Bewbies
06-20-2012, 09:53 AM
I was mocked on here when I said this went higher than Holder. I'd say if Obama knew nothing about this he'd have no reason to invoke EP.

Until proven otherwise I really do believe this was an op designed to enrage people over guns so they could add more and tighter gun regulations....

Sad.

qabbaan
06-20-2012, 10:01 AM
As much as I want to believe this, don't count on it:rolleyes: They will drag this out at least until after the election. Until there are a few Dems who come forward and criticize Holder and Obama they don't have to do sh**. Right now it's just Repubs against Dems. Remember, Nixon was allowed to skirt and dodge until some Repubs started jumping ship.

Looking down the road, Holder can't like his chances at the Supreme Court based on US v. Nixon. The first thing that jumps out is Rhenquist's recusal having been a Nixon appointee. Without Kagan and Sotomayor as out brand-loyalists, he'd be in trouble right from the start.

Bewbies
06-20-2012, 10:02 AM
http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-31727_162-57338546-10391695/documents-atf-used-fast-and-furious-to-make-the-case-for-gun-regulations/


Documents obtained by CBS News show that the Bureau of Alcohol Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (ATF) discussed using their covert operation "Fast and Furious" to argue for controversial new rules about gun sales.
PICTURES: ATF "Gunwalking" scandal timeline

In Fast and Furious, ATF secretly encouraged gun dealers to sell to suspected traffickers for Mexican drug cartels to go after the "big fish." But ATF whistleblowers told CBS News and Congress it was a dangerous practice called "gunwalking," and it put thousands of weapons on the street. Many were used in violent crimes in Mexico. Two were found at the murder scene of a U.S. Border Patrol agent.

ATF officials didn't intend to publicly disclose their own role in letting Mexican cartels obtain the weapons, but emails show they discussed using the sales, including sales encouraged by ATF, to justify a new gun regulation called "Demand Letter 3". That would require some U.S. gun shops to report the sale of multiple rifles or "long guns." Demand Letter 3 was so named because it would be the third ATF program demanding gun dealers report tracing information.


http://nation.foxnews.com/guns/2011/05/25/obama-were-working-gun-control-under-radar#ixzz1NRzVTlKG


During the meeting, President Obama dropped in and, according to Sarah Brady, brought up the issue of gun control, "to fill us in that it was very much on his agenda," she said.

"I just want you to know that we are working on it," Brady recalled the president telling them. "We have to go through a few processes, but under the radar."

LiveSteam
06-20-2012, 10:10 AM
Obama is a Mexican drug dealer. Cool beans.

FD
06-20-2012, 10:13 AM
Looking down the road, Holder can't like his chances at the Supreme Court based on US v. Nixon. The first thing that jumps out is Rhenquist's recusal having been a Nixon appointee. Without Kagan and Sotomayor as out brand-loyalists, he'd be in trouble right from the start.

Holder is out at the end of the term whether Obama stays or goes. I doubt he cares too much either way.

Bewbies
06-20-2012, 10:37 AM
http://foxnewsinsider.com/2012/06/20/judge-napolitano-on-fast-and-furious-documents-executive-privilege-only-applies-if-the-president-was-personally-involved/#more-90166


This morning, the White House asserted executive privilege over documents related to Operation ‘Fast and Furious,’ per Attorney General Eric Holder’s request. Following this move, Judge Napolitano warned that we may be on the “precipice of a constitutional confrontation between the executive branch, the White House, and the Congress.”

Executive privilege, in its definition, provides protection over communications with the president himself. The letter sent by Eric Holder requesting executive privilege does not detail a discussion with the president, but Judge Napolitano said, “The implication is there.”

“If the attorney general sat down and discussed it with the president, he probably doesn’t want the Congress and the public to know that,” Napolitano said.

Napolitano also said that executive privilege only pertains to “military, diplomatic and sensitive national security matters.”

“Now, was fighting the drug gangs at the border a sensitive national security matter? And, if so was the President of the United States of America personally involved in making decisions as to how to conduct that fight? If that’s the case, this has reached a different level and we now know why the attorney general has ferociously defended these documents,” Napolitano said.

Napolitano concluded, “If the president was not personally involved, executive privilege doesn’t apply. If the president was personally involved, and they want to argue that fighting drug gangs at the border is a matter of sensitive national security, then they at least have an argument for executive privilege but that would be at odds with what Attorney General Holder has already testified to under oath.”

patteeu
06-20-2012, 10:41 AM
I think the subject matter (dealing with the issue of foreign drug gangs) falls well within the executive privilege domain.

OTOH, if these are just communications between underlings at the Dept. of Justice as opposed to communications with the WH, it doesn't.

Saul Good
06-20-2012, 11:04 AM
I find it interesting that Obama is hugging this tar baby.

mikey23545
06-20-2012, 11:09 AM
http://img208.imageshack.us/img208/6242/nixony.jpg (http://imageshack.us/photo/my-images/208/nixony.jpg/)

FD
06-20-2012, 11:11 AM
Looking down the road, Holder can't like his chances at the Supreme Court based on US v. Nixon. The first thing that jumps out is Rhenquist's recusal having been a Nixon appointee. Without Kagan and Sotomayor as out brand-loyalists, he'd be in trouble right from the start.

Also, from everything I've heard, this isn't intended to last that long unless Issa wants it to, its more of a negotiating ploy. They seem willing to hand over the documents once Issa removes his contempt threat. So its more of a standoff.

FD
06-20-2012, 11:26 AM
I think the subject matter (dealing with the issue of foreign drug gangs) falls well within the executive privilege domain.

OTOH, if these are just communications between underlings at the Dept. of Justice as opposed to communications with the WH, it doesn't.

I think thats the big question. Does this order imply White House knowledge of the program? If so its a bombshell, as Obama has repeatedly denied it. I don't know if that is the implication or not, but Boehner said this morning that it was.

patteeu
06-20-2012, 11:36 AM
I think thats the big question. Does this order imply White House knowledge of the program? If so its a bombshell, as Obama has repeatedly denied it. I don't know if that is the implication or not, but Boehner said this morning that it was.

Interesting.

qabbaan
06-20-2012, 11:51 AM
I think thats the big question. Does this order imply White House knowledge of the program? If so its a bombshell, as Obama has repeatedly denied it. I don't know if that is the implication or not, but Boehner said this morning that it was.

If the DoJ asked the WH to assert executive privilege, wouldn't they ask why? Are we to believe they granted the request over documents they never saw or cared to look over...?

I think they are trying to protect the network of lies they told in trying to minimize the political impact of this scandal.

mlyonsd
06-20-2012, 12:01 PM
If you're keeping score at home don't forget to scratch 'Transparency' off the list of Obama campaign promises that were kept.

patteeu
06-20-2012, 12:07 PM
If you're keeping score at home don't forget to scratch 'Transparency' off the list of Obama campaign promises that were kept.

I've realized that when candidate Obama promised transparency, what he was really saying is that we'd have a hard time seeing him in a press conference answering questions.

mikey23545
06-20-2012, 12:22 PM
I've realized that when candidate Obama promised transparency, what he was really saying is that we'd have a hard time seeing him in a press conference answering questions.

Well, we've seen just a few days ago what happens if you do catch a glimpse of him at a press conference and ask him a question.

The_Grand_Illusion
06-20-2012, 12:32 PM
Holder lied in front of the cameras yesterday. Here is Issa's statement from yesterday:

Issa Statement Following Meeting with Attorney General Eric Holder
House Oversight and Government Reform Committee Chairman Darrell Issa made the following
statement after his meeting with U.S. Attorney General Eric Holder:

“I had hoped that after this evening’s meeting I would be able to tell you that the Department
had delivered documents that would justify the postponement of tomorrow’s vote on
contempt. The Department told the Committee on Thursday that it had documents it could
produce that would answer our questions. Today, the Attorney General informed us that the
Department would not be producing those documents. The only offer they made involved us
ending our investigation.

“While I still hope the Department will reconsider its decision so tomorrow’s vote can be
postponed, after this meeting I cannot say that I am optimistic. At this point, we simply do not
have the documents we have repeatedly said we need to justify the postponement of a
contempt vote in committee.”

notorious
06-20-2012, 01:28 PM
Literature, it looks like we found true dumbass.

During the meeting, President Obama dropped in and, according to Sarah Brady, brought up the issue of gun control, "to fill us in that it was very much on his agenda," she said.

"I just want you to know that we are working on it," Brady recalled the president telling them. "We have to go through a few processes, but under the radar."

ROFL

Gotcha.

Munson
06-20-2012, 02:05 PM
This obviously suggests that Obama and his staff was directly involved. Otherwise, there is no reason to assert "executive privilege." I've thought for a while that F & F went all the way to the top so he could scare the public and push Congress for much tighter gun control laws, or worse, a weapons ban.

Bowser
06-20-2012, 02:15 PM
An honest question - who was the last president to not invoke executive privilege?




*DISCLAIMER - This really is an honest question and is not intended to skirt around the issue of if Obama was involved in gun trafficking. I'm just curious.

mlyonsd
06-20-2012, 03:13 PM
What happened to all the liberals that got so tied up in knots about the Valerie Plame incident? This is a much more serious issue. The silence is deafening.

cosmo20002
06-20-2012, 03:26 PM
What happened to all the liberals that got so tied up in knots about the Valerie Plame incident? This is a much more serious issue. The silence is deafening.


:facepalm:

mlyonsd
06-20-2012, 03:39 PM
:facepalm:You might want to consider deleting this post before anyone else sees it.

Chiefshrink
06-20-2012, 03:54 PM
I was mocked on here when I said this went higher than Holder. I'd say if Obama knew nothing about this he'd have no reason to invoke EP.

Until proven otherwise I really do believe this was an op designed to enrage people over guns so they could add more and tighter gun regulations....

Sad.

Double BINGO !!!

Chiefshrink
06-20-2012, 03:57 PM
An honest question - who was the last president to not invoke executive privilege?




*DISCLAIMER - This really is an honest question and is not intended to skirt around the issue of if Obama was involved in gun trafficking. I'm just curious.

W of course who Obama severely criticized in an interview on 3/19/07.

Oh the IRONY !!!:rolleyes:

Chiefshrink
06-20-2012, 04:01 PM
What's even more telling is that the MSP media were beginning to start the narrative of blaming Bush of course that this FF started on his watch but since earlier today Holder has already walked back that Mike Mukasy knew about this. So now that Holder admits Mukasy knew nothing now it's "cover-up" on ROIDS !:rolleyes:

CoMoChief
06-20-2012, 04:03 PM
This guy is such a piece of fuckin shit.

LOL at the fools that voted this puppet into office.

Munson
06-20-2012, 04:05 PM
When all the details finally come out, I'm sure Obama will give all of his cronies a presidential pardon.

Does anybody know if Obama can pardon himself?

Chiefspants
06-20-2012, 04:42 PM
This is Obama's Iran-Contra, but unfortunately for him, it didn't occur in his second term.

Bowser
06-20-2012, 04:49 PM
W of course who Obama severely criticized in an interview on 3/19/07.

Oh the IRONY !!!:rolleyes:

Yeah, no.

http://www.time.com/time/nation/article/0,8599,1638663,00.html


And to answer my own question, Clinton used it 14 times, W. Bush used it 6 times, and this is Obama's first. That's as far back as I looked.

KCTitus
06-20-2012, 05:27 PM
So, Im confused...if Holder knew nothing about Fast and Furious, how or why would he know what the documents said, and assuming he did, would Executive Privilege be used to protect Holder, Obama or both?

I dont understand what EP does for the administration other than admit there is something to the fact that Fast and Furious was an attempt to create the impression that our current gun laws werent enough.

So is this Obama lied, people died?

notorious
06-20-2012, 08:36 PM
So, Im confused...if Holder knew nothing about Fast and Furious, how or why would he know what the documents said, and assuming he did, would Executive Privilege be used to protect Holder, Obama or both?

I dont understand what EP does for the administration other than admit there is something to the fact that Fast and Furious was an attempt to create the impression that our current gun laws werent enough.

So is this Obama lied, people died?

You are not confused. You hit the nail on the head, and there isn't a soul that can disprove it.


The idiot supporters of Holder and Obama can't say anything because they know what you have said to be 100% true.

mlyonsd
06-20-2012, 08:41 PM
So, Im confused...if Holder knew nothing about Fast and Furious, how or why would he know what the documents said, and assuming he did, would Executive Privilege be used to protect Holder, Obama or both?

I dont understand what EP does for the administration other than admit there is something to the fact that Fast and Furious was an attempt to create the impression that our current gun laws werent enough.

So is this Obama lied, people died?Search the net for an episode of the Keystone Cops and it might become clearer to you.

mikey23545
06-20-2012, 08:50 PM
:facepalm:

So this is going to be your sole contribution to this thread?

Looks like Obama and Holder sucker punched you and left you on the side of the road...

cosmo20002
06-20-2012, 08:59 PM
I dont understand what EP does for the administration other than admit there is something to the fact that Fast and Furious was an attempt to create the impression that our current gun laws werent enough.



Its not enough to just to accuse someone of screwing up. You need to make it into an implausible, overly complicated conspiracy.

go bowe
06-20-2012, 09:01 PM
Its not enough to just to accuse someone of screwing up. You need to make it into an implausible, overly complicated conspiracy.

it's not overly complicated...

the russians did it!

or was it the chinese?

or iranians?

or socialists from europe?

or watermelon seeds?

HonestChieffan
06-20-2012, 09:13 PM
An interesting take on the cover up

http://directorblue.blogspot.com/2012/06/top-10-takeways-from-obama-holder.html

notorious
06-20-2012, 09:14 PM
This is going to burn them in the end. It smells really bad, and even if they are successful in covering up their colossel cluster ****, the people will have lost a lot of trust in Obama.


**** him, and **** everyone that supports him on this.

notorious
06-20-2012, 09:16 PM
"President Obama, who had never heard of Fast & Furious and knows nothing about it, invoked executive privilege to protect something he’s totally unfamilar with from being made public… whatever it is... "


I had yet to get angry at the president, because in the past I thought he was doing what he thinks is right, even if I didn't agree with the policies.

This shit is completely different.

cosmo20002
06-20-2012, 09:19 PM
An interesting take on the cover up

http://directorblue.blogspot.com/2012/06/top-10-takeways-from-obama-holder.html

That was a lie.

ILChief
06-20-2012, 09:42 PM
When all the details finally come out, I'm sure Obama will give all of his cronies a presidential pardon.

Does anybody know if Obama can pardon himself?

No he couldn't. President Biden could and would

Munson
06-20-2012, 10:00 PM
No he couldn't. President Biden could and would

True. I didn't think of that.

And putting "President" and "Biden" right next to each other in the same sentence scares the sh*t out of me. :bolt:

cosmo20002
06-20-2012, 10:17 PM
No he couldn't. President Biden could and would

ROFL

The fairy tales that must be going on in your head must be quite entertaining.

ClevelandBronco
06-20-2012, 10:44 PM
So this is going to be your sole contribution to this thread?

Looks like Obama and Holder sucker punched you and left you on the side of the road...

It'll be a while before he'll be told what his opinion is going to be.

patteeu
06-20-2012, 11:25 PM
So this is going to be your sole contribution to this thread?

Looks like Obama and Holder sucker punched you and left you on the side of the road...

No, they left him in the middle of the road. Ask him.

mikey23545
06-20-2012, 11:46 PM
No, they left him in the middle of the road. Ask him.

And then Romney ran right over him with his dressage horse...

qabbaan
06-21-2012, 06:21 AM
No he couldn't. President Biden could and would

Wasn't there discussion that Nixon might pardon himself and then resign?

Iz Zat Chew
06-21-2012, 08:23 AM
"President Obama, who had never heard of Fast & Furious and knows nothing about it, invoked executive privilege to protect something he’s totally unfamilar with from being made public… whatever it is... "

I had yet to get angry at the president, because in the past I thought he was doing what he thinks is right, even if I didn't agree with the policies.

This shit is completely different.Does this not take us back to Nixon and Watergate?

Grassley: Obama’s Actions Suggest Involvement in Fast and Furious Cover-Up
Wednesday, 20 Jun 2012 08:20 PM
By Paul Scicchitano and Kathleen Walter

Iowa Sen. Charles Grassley charged in an exclusive interview with Newsmax.TV Wednesday that President Barack Obama’s decision to invoke executive privilege in the bungled “Operation Fast and Furious” gun-running scheme could indicate that the president is involved.

“I wonder why. Is it because the president does have something to do with it? And I don’t have any evidence of that, but it would be the first time that I had any suspicion,” asserted Grassley, the ranking Republican on the Senate Judiciary Committee, just hours before a House committee voted to hold Attorney General Eric Holder in contempt of Congress for failing to turn over Justice Department documents related to Fast and Furious.

“Well the only thing I can say is, it raised questions in my mind that maybe they knew more about Fast and Furious than they ever wanted us to know and that the documents that we requested might prove that,” declared Grassley. “It would be very harmful to the president, and in an election year they want to cover up until after the election.”

Grassley’s remarks appeared to represent an expansion of his earlier official statement that speculated on possible “White House involvement,” but had not specifically questioned the president’s possible involvement.
Obama invoked executive privilege for the first time since being sworn in as president to withhold documents from the House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform, which subsequently proceeded with the contempt vote along party lines later in the day.

The president’s decision to invoke executive privilege came as a shock to Grassley and House Republicans. Presidents have invoked the privilege for years -- it's actually rooted in arguments made by George Washington himself -- but the U.S. Supreme Court first acknowledged a constitutional basis for the practice in its 1974 United States v. Nixon decision. Still, courts have never given presidents absolute authority to defy congressional subpoenas.

Essentially, the idea behind executive privilege is that presidents should be free to engage in private decision-making with their advisers without fearing how their words or internal memos might look to Congress or the public.

Nixon and other presidents -- including, now, Obama -- have argued that the authority also extends to the work of high-level agency officials like the attorney general, even if they weren't communicating with the president or White House about such work.

The contempt citation must still be approved by the full House, and could technically result in a federal case against Holder. Grassley does not think that such an outcome is likely, nor does he think Congress would be able to compel prosecution of Holder.

“You can’t because that’s an executive responsibility under the court. But you would think that in so many instances where this has been done before, there has been the proper prosecution,” observed Grassley. “You’re talking about a misdemeanor — and possibly up to a year in jail time. I would think it would be very embarrassing to an attorney general to be caught in contempt when all we want is documents.”

He added that the president’s use of executive privilege appears to be at odds with his push for greater transparency.

“You have a president that ran on a platform that he’s going to be the most transparent of any president ever, and he ends up being less transparent than most presidents,” according to Grassley. “And this is just one example of where they don’t want the transparency of these documents being out because there must be something that scares them about it and would be embarrassing to them.”

The president could also be trying to protect Holder, he said. Grassley and his staff have been conducting an investigation of the Fast and Furious operation that put weapons in the hands of Mexican drug cartels apart from the investigation being conducted by California Rep. Darrell Issa, who chairs the House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform.

The congressional investigation stemmed from Grassley’s inquiry into whistle-blower allegations that the government had allowed the transfer of illegally purchased weapons found at the scene of the murder of a U.S. Border Patrol agent, Brian Terry. The Department of Justice denied the allegations for 10 months before withdrawing its denial, according to Grassley.

"Even at the end of our meeting with Holder last night — up until that point, and at the end of the meeting — there was never one evidence that executive privilege would ever be cast onto this whole issue,” Grassley insisted.

The Hawkeye State senator said it is unlikely that the Democratic-controlled Senate would move to impeach Holder even if the Republican-controlled House were to consider such action.

“It only takes a majority vote in the House of Representatives. That could be accomplished, but it takes a two-third vote of the Senate sitting as jurors to find a person guilty and to actually be found guilty of the impeachment charges,” he explained. “I don’t think that that’s a realistic possibility.”

Grassley believes that Holder also owes an apology to his predecessor — Michael Mukasey. In his testimony to the Senate Judiciary Committee last week, Holder claimed that Mukasey had been briefed on similar kinds of tactics used in an operation called Wide Receiver and did nothing to stop them. The Justice Department subsequently walked back those comments today.

“Of course he should apologize,” snapped Grassley, who sees a substantive difference between Operation Wide Receiver and Fast and Furious. “It was a well-thought-out program where guns were actually followed and kept track of very closely and entirely different from Fast and Furious, which was basically a program that got out of control — the sale of 2,000 guns — and the guns weren’t followed.”

While some political observers fear that the investigation into Fast and Furious could trigger a constitutional crisis, Grassley believes it is the responsibility of Congress to pursue the matter.

“Everybody says they want to avoid a constitutional crisis, but when you ask for documents in your constitutional responsibility of oversight to make sure the checks and balances of government work — and that’s all the Congress is pursuing — and people take an oath to uphold the Constitution — I would think that they would be embarrassed that they’re not abiding by the Constitution,” he said.

Reuters contributed to this report.

cosmo20002
06-21-2012, 08:37 AM
Wasn't there discussion that Nixon might pardon himself and then resign?

Constitutionally, there does not seem to be anything preventing a president from pardoning himself.

What will be interesting is if a president is ever removed from office. The Cons says this can be done after impeachment and conviction for "treason, bribery, or other high crimes and misdemeanors." Given that especially the last two are very vague, I would think that a convicted president could/would challenge it in the Supreme Court that whatever was done did not meet the constitutional standard.

mlyonsd
06-21-2012, 08:39 AM
Holder is such a **** up he can't even play the 'it was Bush's fault' card correctly.

Justice retracts second statement to Congress on Fast and Furious

The Justice Department has retracted a second statement made to congressional investigators in the course of their probe into the failed Operation Fast and Furious.

Iowa Sen. Chuck Grassley, top Republican on the Senate Judiciary Committee, announced the retraction Wednesday morning just as a House committee meeting considering contempt proceedings against Attorney General Eric Holder got underway.

In a letter Monday, the department stated that Holder “inadvertently” said during a Senate committee hearing last week that his predecessor, then-Attorney General Michael Mukasey, had been briefed about a tactic known as gun-walking in a federal program known as Operation Wide Receiver -- which bared similarities to Fast and Furious.

The letter stated Holder was referring to Mukasey being briefed on another, similar operation -- the Fidel Hernandez case.

“As we explained in a letter to chairman Issa … this briefing paper concerned the case of Fidel Hernandez, not Wide Receiver, as the attorney general inadvertently stated at the hearing,” wrote acting Assistant Attorney General Judith Appelbaum.

“This is the second time in nearly seven months that the department has gotten its facts wrong about gun walking,” Grassley said in a statement. “Attorney General Holder accused Attorney General Mukasey, without producing any evidence, of having been briefed on gun walking in Wide Receiver.

Grassley also said the Hernandez operation is fundamentally different from Wide Receiver and Fast and Furious because it involved cooperation with the Mexican government.

Lawmakers continued to discuss the issue Wednesday during the House Oversight and Government Affairs Committee meeting, called to address whether to vote to find Holder in contempt of Congress for failing to comply with subpoenas to provide more information about Fast and Furious.

This is the department’s second retraction over the past seven months.
The department several months ago retracted a Feb. 4, 2011, letter to Congress in which it inaccurately stated the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives -- which executed Fast and Furious -- “makes every effort to interdict weapons that have been purchased illegally and prevent their transportation to Mexico."

Grassley, who exposed problems with Fast and Furious, said Holder “in his eagerness to blame the previous administration … got his facts wrong.”

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2012/06/20/justice-retracts-second-document-sent-to-congress-on-fast-furious/

cosmo20002
06-21-2012, 08:50 AM
Grassley:
"Is it because the president does have something to do with it? And I don’t have any evidence of that..."

“You have a president that ran on a platform that he’s going to be the most transparent of any president ever, and he ends up being less transparent than most presidents,” according to Grassley.


Because invoking EP 1 time almost 4 years is more than his predecesors? Reagan even invoked EP after leaving office.

Comrade Crapski
06-21-2012, 09:06 AM
Two scumbags.

Iz Zat Chew
06-21-2012, 09:11 AM
Because invoking EP 1 time almost 4 years is more than his predecesors? Reagan even invoked EP after leaving office.

Invoking executive privlege one time is not criminal, the possibilities that he invoked it to cover up his participation and/or knowledge of the event tends to cast a long shadow.

More than his predicessors? Who even was discussing that issue? For the record why don't you point out how many times Bill Clinton and GWB invoked EP?

Links to support your comment?

patteeu
06-21-2012, 10:09 AM
Invoking executive privlege one time is not criminal, the possibilities that he invoked it to cover up his participation and/or knowledge of the event tends to cast a long shadow.

More than his predicessors? Who even was discussing that issue? For the record why don't you point out how many times Bill Clinton and GWB invoked EP?

Links to support your comment?

You were when you quoted Chuck Grassley. Good grief.

Iz Zat Chew
06-21-2012, 10:44 AM
You were when you quoted Chuck Grassley. Good grief.

Technically correct, but the jist of the conversation was about Obama exposing possible collusion with Holder in the Fast and Furious debaucle.

To keep with my initial response, how many times did Clinton invoke EP? I don't remember and obviously the other guy did. Also, I don't remember Bush doing so and it seems the other guy did again. Reagan was pretty far back and I would still like to see the proof that Reagan used EP AFTER he was out of office. I'm not saying he didn't try to use it, but I didn't find anything indicating he did.

cosmo20002
06-21-2012, 10:58 AM
To keep with my initial response, how many times did Clinton invoke EP? I don't remember and obviously the other guy did. Also, I don't remember Bush doing so and it seems the other guy did again. Reagan was pretty far back and I would still like to see the proof that Reagan used EP AFTER he was out of office. I'm not saying he didn't try to use it, but I didn't find anything indicating he did.

1. Go to Google. Or Yahoo.
2. Type 'executive privilege'
3. Scan results.

Iz Zat Chew
06-21-2012, 11:11 AM
1. Go to Google. Or Yahoo.
2. Type 'executive privilege'
3. Scan results.

So, what did you find? Afraid to post the results?

Look, I'm not in a pissing contest with you. All I asked is that you provide proof of what you said. I did search and found nothing that indicated Reagan used EP AFTER he was out of office. If you found something, show it.

History of presidential use of executive privilege

President Barack Obama asserted executive privilege for the first time Wednesday. He applied the presidential power to withhold documents a House committee is seeking in an investigation of a flawed gun-smuggling probe called Operation Fast and Furious.

Presidents have the right to invoke executive privilege to preserve the confidentiality of information and documents in the face of legislative inquiries. The White House says presidents have asserted that privilege 25 times since 1980.

Here's a look at how many times each president since Ronald Reagan has asserted executive privilege:
—President Barack Obama: 1
—President George W. Bush: 6
—President Bill Clinton: 14
—President George H.W. Bush: 1
—President Ronald Reagan: 3 (gonna be tough proving your point)

patteeu
06-21-2012, 11:17 AM
Technically correct, but the jist of the conversation was about Obama exposing possible collusion with Holder in the Fast and Furious debaucle.

To keep with my initial response, how many times did Clinton invoke EP? I don't remember and obviously the other guy did. Also, I don't remember Bush doing so and it seems the other guy did again. Reagan was pretty far back and I would still like to see the proof that Reagan used EP AFTER he was out of office. I'm not saying he didn't try to use it, but I didn't find anything indicating he did.

All of them did it more than Obama has so far. Clinton did it more than any of the Republicans. I don't think the number of times is a very telling measure anyway. The question is whether they were legitimate uses or not. More intrusive demands for info will naturally result in more invocations.

notorious
06-21-2012, 11:21 AM
Because invoking EP 1 time almost 4 years is more than his predecesors? Reagan even invoked EP after leaving office.

The amount of times EP is used doesn't matter. The situation for which it's used does.

Iz Zat Chew
06-21-2012, 11:31 AM
All of them did it more than Obama has so far. Clinton did it more than any of the Republicans. I don't think the number of times is a very telling measure anyway. The question is whether they were legitimate uses or not. More intrusive demands for info will naturally result in more invocations.

Cosmo didn't give a shit about why it was used and the numbers I supplied showed that you are correct about Clinton. In this case there seems to be collusion between the White House and Holder, otherwise there wouldn't be a need for EP.

The apparent action of F&F was to get drugs off the streets in the U.S., what harm would come out of releasing information that would prove that your best interest was for America?

KC Dan
06-21-2012, 11:35 AM
The question is whether they were legitimate uses or not.
The bottom line here is that since Obama never knew about F&F until the press got it, why invoke EP for all documents especially those from before that time? Whether there is collusion or illegality or anything, this EP act at the last moment shines a light that there is more than likely issues that would be uncovered that this administration doesn't want out in the open. Obama said it himself before President that invoking EP in a non-US security protection situation gives the impression of impropriety and shouldn't be done. But, now that hes the Prez, well.....that was different.

HonestChieffan
06-21-2012, 11:44 AM
The amount of times EP is used doesn't matter. The situation for which it's used does.


Nice summation.

cosmo20002
06-21-2012, 11:53 AM
The bottom line here is that since Obama never knew about F&F until the press got it, why invoke EP for all documents especially those from before that time? Whether there is collusion or illegality or anything, this EP act at the last moment shines a light that there is more than likely issues that would be uncovered that this administration doesn't want out in the open. Obama said it himself before President that invoking EP in a non-US security protection situation gives the impression of impropriety and shouldn't be done. But, now that hes the Prez, well.....that was different.

Because it is quite reasonably possible that the documents requested contain information that could compromise current or planned undercover / crime-fighting / security operations. That's not a partisan answer, that is a very reasonable explanation of why EP is often invoked.

This does involve US security and protection.

KC Dan
06-21-2012, 11:56 AM
Because it is quite reasonably possible that the documents requested contain information that could compromise current or planned undercover / crime-fighting / security operations. That's not a partisan answer, that is a very reasonable explanation of why EP is often invoked.

This does involve US security and protection.
That's what black sharpies are for

Iz Zat Chew
06-21-2012, 12:13 PM
Because it is quite reasonably possible that the documents requested contain information that could compromise current or planned undercover / crime-fighting / security operations. That's not a partisan answer, that is a very reasonable explanation of why EP is often invoked.

This does involve US security and protection.

:BS:

cosmo20002
06-21-2012, 12:17 PM
That's what black sharpies are for

Somehow I don't think handing over documents with black highlights is going the satisfy the Rs document request.

Der Flöprer
06-21-2012, 12:27 PM
Thanks for all the transparency, hope, and change Mr. President. :rolleyes:

Iz Zat Chew
06-21-2012, 12:28 PM
Somehow I don't think handing over documents with black highlights is going the satisfy the Rs document request.

Somehow I don't believe that there is anything in the documents that are significant to the security of the country, with any ongoing investigations or places anyone in any danger. I do believe that the implications of what Obama was driving for are revealed inside the documents and they are most likely career enders.

patteeu
06-21-2012, 12:31 PM
Because it is quite reasonably possible that the documents requested contain information that could compromise current or planned undercover / crime-fighting / security operations. That's not a partisan answer, that is a very reasonable explanation of why EP is often invoked.

This does involve US security and protection.

It may well be a security issue for which EP is appropriate, but I don't buy the rationale that EP is for protecting those kinds of secrets. EP is for insuring that the POTUS gets full and frank counsel. The classification system is for protecting national security secrets. Members of Congress are briefed on extremely sensitive national security secrets all the time (e.g. Pelosi et al being briefed on enhanced interrogation and international wiretaps involving known associates of terror organizations).

cosmo20002
06-21-2012, 12:46 PM
Somehow I don't believe that there is anything in the documents that are significant to the security of the country, with any ongoing investigations or places anyone in any danger. I do believe that the implications of what Obama was driving for are revealed inside the documents and they are most likely career enders.

But most of what you believe is based on chain e-mail and websites of questionable credibility and almost always turns out to be demonstrably incorrect. Are you keeping that in mind?

ThatRaceCardGuy
06-21-2012, 12:47 PM
The same people in this thread bitching about Zimmerman being condemed by the media and others before knowing the facts...are doing the same shit now with the POTUS.

cosmo20002
06-21-2012, 12:50 PM
It may well be a security issue for which EP is appropriate, but I don't buy the rationale that EP is for protecting those kinds of secrets. EP is for insuring that the POTUS gets full and frank counsel. The classification system is for protecting national security secrets. Members of Congress are briefed on extremely sensitive national security secrets all the time (e.g. Pelosi et al being briefed on enhanced interrogation and international wiretaps involving known associates of terror organizations).

Actually, the main purpose is security. If the issue were to go to court, that's what would have to be shown. And that's why Clinton lost one of his privilege assertions in the Lewinsky deal--it wasn't related to security.

cosmo20002
06-21-2012, 12:53 PM
The same people in this thread bitching about Zimmerman being condemed by the media and others before knowing the facts...are doing the same shit now with the POTUS.

Very, very true. And with Zimmerman, there was actually no question that he actually did kill someone.

With this, there is absolutely nothing there except desperate hope that Obama did do something wrong.

Iz Zat Chew
06-21-2012, 12:55 PM
But most of what you believe is based on chain e-mail and websites of questionable credibility and almost always turns out to be demonstrably incorrect. Are you keeping that in mind?

That may be your impression, but it is very far off the mark as are most of your assumptions.

Where are you getting your staunch defense of Obama and this case of EP? What websites? What news agencies?

Are you keeping in mind that YOUR president has opened the door for an investigation that might not come out the way you want?

Your perception that he can do no wrong is just stupid!

Iz Zat Chew
06-21-2012, 12:56 PM
Actually, the main purpose is security. If the issue were to go to court, that's what would have to be shown. And that's why Clinton lost one of his privilege assertions in the Lewinsky deal--it wasn't related to security.

What makes you feel this is related to security? Daydreams?

Why would the U.S. run an operation to give automatic weapons to the drug cartel? Were they afraid the drug lords didn't have the funds to buy their own?

cosmo20002
06-21-2012, 01:10 PM
That may be your impression, but it is very far off the mark as are most of your assumptions.

Where are you getting your staunch defense of Obama and this case of EP? What websites? What news agencies?

Are you keeping in mind that YOUR president has opened the door for an investigation that might not come out the way you want?

Your perception that he can do no wrong is just stupid!

My "defense" of Obama isn't based on something I've read. Its based on what I haven't read--which is anything that would indicate he's done something wrong.

If it is determined he did something wrong, then so be it. There's just not even a circumstantial case supporting it at the moment.

LiveSteam
06-21-2012, 01:12 PM
My "defense" of Obama isn't based on something I've read. Its based on what I haven't read--which is anything that would indicate he's done something wrong.

If it is determined he did something wrong, then so be it. There's just not even a circumstantial case supporting it at the moment.


:facepalm:

cosmo20002
06-21-2012, 01:14 PM
What makes you feel this is related to security? Daydreams?

Because it involved law enforcement dealing with illegal drug and weapons sales.


Why would the U.S. run an operation to give automatic weapons to the drug cartel? Were they afraid the drug lords didn't have the funds to buy their own?

To track where they were going in order to indentify and locate the leaders. Its not rocket science to figure outthe purpose of the tactic. These type of operations pre-date Obama.

Iz Zat Chew
06-21-2012, 01:38 PM
If it is determined he did something wrong, then so be it. There's just not even a circumstantial case supporting it at the moment.

You obviously don't know the meaning of circumstantial. Holder had an operation going on that Obama wasn't supposed to know about. Obama invokes EP. Pretty circumstantial looking to me.

Iz Zat Chew
06-21-2012, 01:40 PM
Because it involved law enforcement dealing with illegal drug and weapons sales.



To track where they were going in order to indentify and locate the leaders. Its not rocket science to figure outthe purpose of the tactic. These type of operations pre-date Obama.

Law Enforcement and illegal drugs and weapons is a problem for national security how? And why was Obama's administration involved at the level it was?

Of those operations that pre-date Obama how many of them included the government supporting gun running?

Your suppositions are weak and your responses area actually to laugh at.

Munson
06-21-2012, 01:47 PM
My "defense" of Obama isn't based on something I've read. Its based on what I haven't read--which is anything that would indicate he's done something wrong.

If it is determined he did something wrong, then so be it. There's just not even a circumstantial case supporting it at the moment.

So invoking EP at the last minute before Holder is to meet Chairman Issa doesn't make you the least bit suspicious of Obama?

Why didn't he just invoke EP a year and a half ago?

patteeu
06-21-2012, 01:51 PM
Actually, the main purpose is security. If the issue were to go to court, that's what would have to be shown. And that's why Clinton lost one of his privilege assertions in the Lewinsky deal--it wasn't related to security.

You misunderstand. Security is important because Executive Privilege is supposed to be used by the POTUS for issues involving the areas in which he has superiority over the other branches as defined by the Constitution. In large part, that means issues involving national security and diplomatic relations. IMO, this F&F does indeed fall in that category so EP is potentially valid here.

Where you're confused is that this doesn't mean EP is intended to be used to protect national security secrets. Protecting national secrets is not a valid use of EP IMO. The classification system is the proper method for protecting those secrets and when classified information is subpoenaed, there are procedures in place to deal with whether or not those materials are turned over and the manner in which such disclosures take place.

cosmo20002
06-21-2012, 01:57 PM
So invoking EP at the last minute before Holder is to meet Chairman Issa doesn't make you the least bit suspicious of Obama?

Why didn't he just invoke EP a year and a half ago?

It is generally a contentious issue if it is invoked and presidents generally avoid doing so unless necessary.

vailpass
06-21-2012, 01:57 PM
Because it is quite reasonably possible that the documents requested contain information that could compromise current or planned undercover / crime-fighting / security operations. That's not a partisan answer, that is a very reasonable explanation of why EP is often invoked.

This does involve US security and protection.

Negro please.

cosmo20002
06-21-2012, 02:04 PM
You misunderstand. Security is important because Executive Privilege is supposed to be used by the POTUS for issues involving the areas in which he has superiority over the other branches as defined by the Constitution. In large part, that means issues involving national security and diplomatic relations. IMO, this F&F does indeed fall in that category so EP is potentially valid here.

Where you're confused is that this doesn't mean EP is intended to be used to protect national security secrets. Protecting national secrets is not a valid use of EP IMO. The classification system is the proper method for protecting those secrets and when classified information is subpoenaed, there are procedures in place to deal with whether or not those materials are turned over and the manner in which such disclosures take place.

I don't know the official procedure for officially classifying "national secrets," but I think it is irrelevant. Certainly, there can be documentation of communications between people discussing various plans and sensitive information that doesn't get officially classified into whatever system you are talking about. It nevertheless still qualifies as information, that if disclosed, could compromise security and law enforcement operations.

Most of the EP claims eventually get settled, so there's only been a few actual court cases. Look them up and you can see the standard the court describes.

patteeu
06-21-2012, 02:30 PM
I don't know the official procedure for officially classifying "national secrets," but I think it is irrelevant. Certainly, there can be documentation of communications between people discussing various plans and sensitive information that doesn't get officially classified into whatever system you are talking about. It nevertheless still qualifies as information, that if disclosed, could compromise security and law enforcement operations.

Most of the EP claims eventually get settled, so there's only been a few actual court cases. Look them up and you can see the standard the court describes.

This one will get settled too.

Iz Zat Chew
06-21-2012, 03:06 PM
This one will get settled too.

Hopefully it will be settled at the ballot box and we will have former president obama walking out of the door, BUT just to be safe he needs to resign the office in December before the change of power so Biden can pardon him.

Iz Zat Chew
06-21-2012, 03:10 PM
Greetings,

Yesterday, House Oversight committee Chairman Darryl Issa's committee voted, 23-17, to hold U.S. Attorney General Eric Holder in contempt of Congress for his refusal to turn over to Congress documents relevant to the “Fast and Furious” gun running program. I am glad that they did. Issa’s committee is investigating the death of ATF Border Patrol Agent Brian Terry, who was killed in southern Arizona by a firearm that was allowed across the border as part of Operation Fast and Furious. At the beginning of the hearing, Issa received a message from the Department of Justice that the President was invoking executive privilege.

I have previously called on Attorney General Holder to resign because of a pattern of lawless behavior by Holder and this Administration.

President Obama's use of executive privilege is inconsistent with common sense and legal precedent. His effort to deny the American people access to answers about who made important decisions within his Administration is unacceptable. Executive privilege may shield confidential aspects of the decision-making process, but it is not meant to protect those who were responsible for making misguided decisions from accountability for their actions.

Invoking executive privilege has now made the President, not just his attorney general, party to the stonewalling of Congress. A young man—an American—died while faithfully serving his country as a direct result of the decision to allow guns to walk across the border. Unless the President reverses course and provides the documents that Congress has requested, I will, next week, vote to hold the Attorney General in contempt of Congress. My colleagues and I will not cease the hunt for truth until we determine who will be held accountable for this tragic failure.

Please don’t hesitate to contact either of my offices if you have any questions or comments about this or any other issue. My team and I are here to serve you. Please also follow me on Facebook and Twitter, if you do not already, to keep up to date on my work in Washington.

Sincerely,

MP (Republican)
Member of Congress

This may have been a form letter all of the republicans in house sent out. Posted because you all need something else to discuss.

KCTitus
06-22-2012, 09:06 PM
Its not enough to just to accuse someone of screwing up. You need to make it into an implausible, overly complicated conspiracy.

I didnt accuse the White House of anything, but I can add 2 plus 2...what's the purpose of allowing guns to make it to Mexican drug gangs and not work with the Mexican authorities or track them? It's pretty obvious what the end result is going to be...death. If I were of the opinion that no one in the United States should be allowed to own guns, the only way around the second amendment would be to create a public outcry for additional federal gun laws. It's rather simple...border violence using assault weapons purchased in the United States means 'we need more laws'.

Only in this case, it didnt work. Now if Holder and Obama were innocent and it was Bush's fault, I figure they'd be giving up all the documents in a heart beat. Instead, Holder has lied about his knowledge, his being told about the operation from the Bush AG, and now has asked Obama to claim EP.

It doesnt take a rocket scientist to put the pieces together. I can understand your reticence, frankly, I believe that you feel that gun laws are not in fact, restrictive enough in the United States and you think that the administrations aims were honorable.

Iz Zat Chew
06-23-2012, 10:12 AM
I didnt accuse the White House of anything, but I can add 2 plus 2...what's the purpose of allowing guns to make it to Mexican drug gangs and not work with the Mexican authorities or track them? It's pretty obvious what the end result is going to be...death. If I were of the opinion that no one in the United States should be allowed to own guns, the only way around the second amendment would be to create a public outcry for additional federal gun laws. It's rather simple...border violence using assault weapons purchased in the United States means 'we need more laws'.

Only in this case, it didnt work. Now if Holder and Obama were innocent and it was Bush's fault, I figure they'd be giving up all the documents in a heart beat. Instead, Holder has lied about his knowledge, his being told about the operation from the Bush AG, and now has asked Obama to claim EP.

It doesnt take a rocket scientist to put the pieces together. I can understand your reticence, frankly, I believe that you feel that gun laws are not in fact, restrictive enough in the United States and you think that the administrations aims were honorable.

I don't think holder asked obama to invoke EP, I think obama invoked because he knows what happened and can be tied to it.

Now remember, this is the president that claimed he had full knowledge and was commanding the raid on OBL's compound. "I gave the Order" I believe were his words. Someone that claims to be that involved in an operation that didn't know anything about this one? Can't have it both ways.

banyon
06-23-2012, 01:14 PM
I didnt accuse the White House of anything, but I can add 2 plus 2...what's the purpose of allowing guns to make it to Mexican drug gangs and not work with the Mexican authorities or track them? It's pretty obvious what the end result is going to be...death. If I were of the opinion that no one in the United States should be allowed to own guns, the only way around the second amendment would be to create a public outcry for additional federal gun laws. It's rather simple...border violence using assault weapons purchased in the United States means 'we need more laws'.

Only in this case, it didnt work. Now if Holder and Obama were innocent and it was Bush's fault, I figure they'd be giving up all the documents in a heart beat. Instead, Holder has lied about his knowledge, his being told about the operation from the Bush AG, and now has asked Obama to claim EP.

It doesnt take a rocket scientist to put the pieces together. I can understand your reticence, frankly, I believe that you feel that gun laws are not in fact, restrictive enough in the United States and you think that the administrations aims were honorable.

My thoughts on this would pretty much echo this post.

If this was a continuation of the Bush policy, as has been claimed, there should be no need to claim EP.

This was a dumb move politically as well. They took an issue that few people besides the very politically involved and partisans cared about, and turned it into an issue that anyone who glances at it will now have a question.

Just on the politics of it, Holder should resign for the good of the WH, whatever the problem was.

This smells, and there's no good justification of it. If it were sensitive, then claim Nat. Security classification, not EP. EP makes this just look dirty.

Bowser
06-23-2012, 01:32 PM
My thoughts on this would pretty much echo this post.

If this was a continuation of the Bush policy, as has been claimed, there should be no need to claim EP.

This was a dumb move politically as well. They took an issue that few people besides the very politically involved and partisans cared about, and turned it into an issue that anyone who glances at it will now have a question.

Just on the politics of it, Holder should resign for the good of the WH, whatever the problem was.

This smells, and there's no good justification of it. If it were sensitive, then claim Nat. Security classification, not EP. EP makes this just look dirty.

Exactly.

It makes you wonder who exactly is giving the president legal counsel, and why they would want to invoke EP in such an instance. Agree that Holder should eject for the good of the White House.

One thing for certain is this does nothing if not strengthen Romney.

patteeu
06-23-2012, 02:05 PM
My thoughts on this would pretty much echo this post.

If this was a continuation of the Bush policy, as has been claimed, there should be no need to claim EP.

This was a dumb move politically as well. They took an issue that few people besides the very politically involved and partisans cared about, and turned it into an issue that anyone who glances at it will now have a question.

Just on the politics of it, Holder should resign for the good of the WH, whatever the problem was.

This smells, and there's no good justification of it. If it were sensitive, then claim Nat. Security classification, not EP. EP makes this just look dirty.

Sensible.

Iz Zat Chew
06-23-2012, 10:38 PM
EP makes this just look dirty.

I believe this is the most important difference I have with your statement, I don't think it makes it look dirtier than it is. If Obama didn't have anything to do with it he should have just let it go. I think the "how does this make me look" was the initial gut reaction. Two days later I think he wishes he hadn't of done it but can't back out of it now.

ClevelandBronco
06-24-2012, 12:18 AM
I believe this is the most important difference I have with your statement, I don't think it makes it look dirtier than it is. If Obama didn't have anything to do with it he should have just let it go. I think the "how does this make me look" was the initial gut reaction. Two days later I think he wishes he hadn't of done it but can't back out of it now.

Yeah, he really could back out, and I hope he doesn't. I don't even want to think about what might happen to the polls if president Barry "Obama" Davis got in front of the cameras and said something like:

"I am here tonight to admit that this administration has made a mistake — and it's the sort of mistake that I always hoped we would avoid. In fact, when I asked you to place your hope in me almost four years ago, I promised you that my administration wouldn't make this sort of mistake. I promised you that my administration would represent a change for the American people from politics as usual, and that we would be more transparent and forthcoming than any administration has ever been. I believed when I made that promise that the American people deserve no less, and I continue to believe it.

"Last week this administration claimed executive privilege with regard to Congressional investigations into an operation known as Fast and Furious. Key Republicans in Congress are asking some very tough questions — some of which are fair, and some of which appeared to us to be of a more political nature — and to tell you the truth, in part because this is an election season, and because we believe in our hearts that it is so vitally important that this administration is allowed to complete the work that it has begun, our initial reaction was to act as though these questions were primarily a political attack on this administration. I was briefed on the situation, recommendations were made to me, and I approved a course of action that now I have come to regret. Well, tonight, I am here as your president to correct this mistake..."

Munson
06-24-2012, 12:36 AM
I think I would have a heart attack if Barry admitted a mistake, or took any responsibility whatsoever. I guess I'm just used to him always blaming somebody else(George Bush, Republicans, Congress, Wall Street, CEO's, millionaires and billionaires, the "one percent", etc).

Chiefspants
06-24-2012, 12:50 AM
I think I would have a heart attack if Barry admitted a mistake, or took any responsibility whatsoever. I guess I'm just used to him always blaming somebody else(George Bush, Republicans, Congress, Wall Street, CEO's, millionaires and billionaires, the "one percent", etc).

I don't know, he seemed to take some responsibility for the Bin Laden killing.

Munson
06-24-2012, 01:03 AM
I don't know, he seemed to take some responsibility for the Bin Laden killing.

I forgot about that. All he did was give the green light. All the planning, and the actual mission was in Admiral McRaven's hands. And why was it under the Adm. McRaven's control? Because if the mission failed, Obama would have someone to blame.

Iz Zat Chew
06-24-2012, 06:19 AM
Yeah, he really could back out, and I hope he doesn't. I don't even want to think about what might happen to the polls if president Barry "Obama" Davis got in front of the cameras and said something like:

"I am here tonight to admit that this administration has made a mistake — and it's the sort of mistake that I always hoped we would avoid. In fact, when I asked you to place your hope in me almost four years ago, I promised you that my administration wouldn't make this sort of mistake. I promised you that my administration would represent a change for the American people from politics as usual, and that we would be more transparent and forthcoming than any administration has ever been. I believed when I made that promise that the American people deserve no less, and I continue to believe it.

"Last week this administration claimed executive privilege with regard to Congressional investigations into an operation known as Fast and Furious. Key Republicans in Congress are asking some very tough questions — some of which are fair, and some of which appeared to us to be of a more political nature — and to tell you the truth, in part because this is an election season, and because we believe in our hearts that it is so vitally important that this administration is allowed to complete the work that it has begun, our initial reaction was to act as though these questions were primarily a political attack on this administration. I was briefed on the situation, recommendations were made to me, and I approved a course of action that now I have come to regret. Well, tonight, I am here as your president to correct this mistake..."

Even if someone wrote that statement for him, I doubt that he would ever have the guts to make the statement, that is unless he honestly would think that it would gain back some of the face he lost by invoking EP. Of course it would have to be accompanied by accepting Holder's resignation.