It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Obama asserts executive privilege on Fast and Furious documents

page: 20
113
<< 17  18  19    21  22  23 >>

log in

join
share:
SM2

posted on Jun, 21 2012 @ 04:30 PM
link   
It's really been a long time coming for Holder. he is a dirty s.o.b and has been since the slick willy days. Let us not forget....


"Documents obtained by Salt Lake City attorney Jesse Trentadue in a Freedom of Information Act lawsuit show then Clinton Deputy Attorney General Eric Holder authorized members of the FBI to provide explosives to Oklahoma City bombing criminals Timothy McVeigh and Terry Nichols immediately prior to the April, 1995 bombing of the Alfred P. Murrah building.

Holder had authorized the FBI to provide the explosives to McVeigh and Nichols in conjunction with a Clinton Administration undercover operation named PATCON, an acronym for “Patriot Conspiracy.” As Jesse Trentadue describes it, “PATCON was designed to infiltrate and incite… militia[s] and evangelical Christians to violence so that the Department of Justice could crush them.”

source : www.westernjournalism.com...

The congress is investigating a possible cover up, so they are well within the scope of their duties to ask for documents after the close of fast and furious that pertain to the operation. As the main questions are who knew what and when, asking for correspondence related to but after the operation would be a standard operating procedure by any prosecutor. Do you think if you were involved in a murder the cops wouldnt want to use your conversations after the fact to convict you? Of course they would, they do it all the time. Would any random judge allow it? Of course they would, happens everyday. Is it legal, of course it is, it's called investigating and discovery. Why are some people so ignorant? I guess the methods of investigation need to change when Obama the chosen one and company are on the receiving end of it.




posted on Jun, 21 2012 @ 04:31 PM
link   
I wish to thank everyone for their input here. It proves that ATS, despite the babblings of a few inane detractors, is not a place for the politically-entrenched "party line."

It wasn't during the Bush administration - and it isn't now. (Many people called this site biased when questions about the former war-time president was lambasted for his performance as a President.)

It seems that each time some political hero gets in trouble - the supporters of his party feel they can hijack the narrative for political points. That doesn't work at ATS. If you want a 'crafted' narrative go to your favorite MSM source and live in their reality... it's safer there for people who can not tolerate the possibility that they were or are wrong about something the politicians or their media hirelings told them.

Sadly, realizing this, they think adopting a hateful stance somehow makes up for it.

The bottom line is this. Congress is investigating. Each partisan faction has their own b/s to fling. But we have to sort out what is and isn't fact. It's difficult and time consuming. Wasting energy on political tomfoolery detracts from the issue itself... which is:

Can presidents now rely on supreme executive authority to save political face? Can those who risk lives to further an agenda outside their scope of responsibility be utterly free from accountability because of "party" considerations? And is the "Executive Order" a presidential "blank check" to conceal law enforcement information despite the SCOTUS precedent that lacking "national security" justification he or she cannot.

Some would point to others, some would point to vacuous and immaterial political procedure as a means to negate the scrutiny.... I just want to know who is responsible, and why is it that they can lie, obfuscate, misrepresent... and "accidentally" misspeak without consequence.

(by the way, these are the same questions I asked during former non-Obama administrations.... so the partisan bias angle doesn't float.)


SM2

posted on Jun, 21 2012 @ 04:35 PM
link   
i do have some question as to how he can claim privilege.

Obama claims to have known absolutely nothing of Fast and furious and has seen no documents pertaining to it until it became a huge story. So how can he claim privilege on documents he has never seen, read or even heard about? I think this was a huge mistake for Barry.



posted on Jun, 21 2012 @ 04:41 PM
link   

Originally posted by SM2
i do have some question as to how he can claim privilege.

Obama claims to have known absolutely nothing of Fast and furious and has seen no documents pertaining to it until it became a huge story. So how can he claim privilege on documents he has never seen, read or even heard about? I think this was a huge mistake for Barry.


It was one of the reasons I feel dubious about his legal acumen. But then, deciding to appoint Holder as AG was an equally dangerous liability in my mind. Considering that the inbred and toxic community of politicians is nightmarish and Machiavellian; I'm sure there was little real "choice" in the matter.

Too bad these career thespians can't revolt on their masters.... it would be an amusing turn of events... which couldn't be any worse than the damage they have already done.



posted on Jun, 21 2012 @ 04:43 PM
link   
reply to post by Nspekta
 
YA here is a thought, why is anyone surprised at Obama covering up the lie he told about not knowing anything about Fast and Furious with "EP".

This person has done nothing but lie from the begening of his campaign to now and will continue to lie the rest of his life, this is who the man is. He is a narcissistic sociopath and when things go bad for these types of people they will do what ever it takes to keep there vanity in tact, lying is as natural to Obama as breathing.



posted on Jun, 21 2012 @ 04:49 PM
link   

Originally posted by SM2
i do have some question as to how he can claim privilege.

Obama claims to have known absolutely nothing of Fast and furious and has seen no documents pertaining to it until it became a huge story. So how can he claim privilege on documents he has never seen, read or even heard about? I think this was a huge mistake for Barry.


Follow...He has not ...and is not claiming privledge on those docs...he is claiming privledge on communications AFTER it hit the media and the investigation got rolling.



posted on Jun, 21 2012 @ 04:50 PM
link   
reply to post by Battleline
 


The only problem with that position is the underlying presumption that ANY of the rest of the politicians in office are any different.



posted on Jun, 21 2012 @ 04:50 PM
link   
From Rawstory.com


What is Obama’s view on executive privilege?

In 2007, in an interview with CNN, then-Sen. Obama criticized “a tendency on the part of [the Bush] administration to try to hide behind executive privilege every time there’s something a little shaky that’s taking place.” During his presidential campaign, Obama said that executive privilege “generally depends on the involvement of the president and the White House,” referring, presumably, to the narrower, presidential communications privilege.

Yesterday, the White House emphasized that this was the first time Obama has invoked the privilege.



posted on Jun, 21 2012 @ 04:57 PM
link   

Originally posted by Maxmars

Can presidents now rely on supreme executive authority to save political face?


IMO - Only in as much as the line of inquirey is aimed at pure political attack. Anything else that is wholey relevant to an investigation is fair and constitutional.

There is a reason that attorney/client deliberations are confidential and inadmissable in court, while all evidence relevant to the event in context of time is not.

Issa's request specifically for internal communications post media frenzy and investigation is the equivelant of a prosecutor asking the defense attorney for all communications between he and the defendant since the trial began.



posted on Jun, 21 2012 @ 05:05 PM
link   
reply to post by Indigo5
 


In F&F...on Holder's side, please identify just who is the attorney and who is the client regarding the documents Issa asked Holder for? I don't see the privileged attorney/client aspect here. Issa requested all documents pertaining to F&F, there was no court case going on at that time. Those documents were not covered. That is why Obama has ordered them sealed under executive privilege.

Des



posted on Jun, 21 2012 @ 05:17 PM
link   
I find this so funny the whole "election year" stunt. The investigation has been going on for over a year. If anything Holders stonewalling has turned it into an election issue. So people need to back off the democrat talking point and start asking the real reason this has been dragged out. Some interesting things have been said by members of this administration about gun control... The chance that more people being involved in the administration is pretty high and the executive privilege being used cements that idea in my mind.



posted on Jun, 21 2012 @ 05:19 PM
link   
President Øbama... with is 'Fast &^ Furious' coverup....


is just re-enacting the 'Iran Contra' snafu some 20+ years later
this might be his Watergate............


i only hope



posted on Jun, 21 2012 @ 05:20 PM
link   
reply to post by Indigo5
 


The White House lawyers fall under specialized rules / laws. White House lawyers do not enjoy attorney client protections. They represent the Office of the President in an offical government capacity and not a personal capacity. The standard established by the courts is government lawyers have a divided loyalty, with the second half doing what is in the best interest of the American people.

Secondly, as stated before, priviledge cannot be applied to conceal a criminal offense.
edit on 21-6-2012 by Xcathdra because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 21 2012 @ 05:22 PM
link   
Can someone please tell me where it ends? Seriously, what can we do? Anything, and I mean anything that they want to do, including genocide, yes genocide, I don't believe there is anything that we the people could do to stop it. Even if they tried to cover it up with "executive order" did not work, and said they were doing it wether we liked it or not, really, what could be done. Don't give me the "there is more of us than them" and the "gun behind every blade of grass" crap. You and I both know no one has the croutons to even try to organize a resistance because as soon as they found out, you would be squashed. Despite the fact that from a constitutional stand point you would be in the right you would be rounded up and put in jail.

My question is, what the hell is wrong with our military today. I have always held a great deal of respect for our military but because of what is going on today, while they sit by and watch even aid this travesty of justice, I don't care what happens to them. I would not give them a drink in a desert if I was driving a water tanker.
And I will make sure to voice my feelings to each and every solder I see.



posted on Jun, 21 2012 @ 05:24 PM
link   
REP. Trey Gowdy, part of the House Committee, getting angry!
Watch it! He states many questions that he STILL cannot get answers to! Especially watch at 4:45 to hear him talk about obamas switching position on exec priviledge and says that Obama MUST be involved or he wouldn't have exerted exectutive priviledge!


Rep. Trey Gowdy -> "We are being asked for more time, please wait, give it more time. Its been over a year Mr. Chairman! If congress has time to look into Major League Baseball, the BSC and invite Steven Colbert to come to a committee hearing, surely to goodness we have time to get answers on a fundamentally flawed, lethal investigation like fast and furious" - (at 2:25)- So true!




edit on 6/21/2012 by Nspekta because: spelling



posted on Jun, 21 2012 @ 05:26 PM
link   
Nancy Pelosi Says Obama Should Use Constitution To Avert Debt Crisis


WASHINGTON -- House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) said Wednesday that President Barack Obama should use the 14th Amendment to declare the debt ceiling unconstitutional in the event that Congress hurtles toward another debt showdown.


www.huffingtonpost.com...

So this is how things are going to be played out now? Don't like something, just pass an executive order? How long before we see an executive order declaring himself Emperor?



posted on Jun, 21 2012 @ 05:26 PM
link   

Originally posted by Maxmars
reply to post by Battleline
 


The only problem with that position is the underlying presumption that ANY of the rest of the politicians in office are any different.
And the only problem with your position is the underlying presumption that the rest of the politicians are equil to or the same as The President of the United States and if that is so then why not just let Congress or the Senate appoint a president.

I know, its all relative but I am still old fashon enough that I would like to think that we the people elect the prez and he should be a good guy with the people and our countrys interest at heart, I have never been through a "coup" attempt before......................and its not over yet.



posted on Jun, 21 2012 @ 05:31 PM
link   

Originally posted by MidnightTide
Nancy Pelosi Says Obama Should Use Constitution To Avert Debt Crisis


WASHINGTON -- House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) said Wednesday that President Barack Obama should use the 14th Amendment to declare the debt ceiling unconstitutional in the event that Congress hurtles toward another debt showdown.


www.huffingtonpost.com...

So this is how things are going to be played out now? Don't like something, just pass an executive order? How long before we see an executive order declaring himself Emperor?


If she read the constitution she would know Congree controls the pursestrings, not the President.

I am more and more in favor of requiring a con law test for people who are running for public office.



posted on Jun, 21 2012 @ 05:39 PM
link   
reply to post by MidnightTide
 

The more Pelosi, the Mad Red Queen opens her pie hole...the more absolutely insane she sounds....:


Des



posted on Jun, 21 2012 @ 05:45 PM
link   

Originally posted by RealSpoke
reply to post by sonnny1
 


So you're willing to support a war monger, debt monger, and anti-constitution candidate? Sound like you'd vote for Obama too then.



What makes you think hes going to have a worse record,for Unemployment,then Obama?


Presidents do not control the economy. Romney cannot magically end the recession. Why would I take his word for it anyway? That is just being gullible.


Will he Polarize the Nation,worse then Obama has?


He definitely has the potential to. All of the constitutionalists, anti-big government republicans won't like him...nor will democrats. I mean he has the same policies as Obama so he should. Though I guess he wouldn't have goofy birther/communist conspiracy theories against him.


Assume............

Thats ALL you have done,the whole time !!!

You Assume Mitt WILL be this horrible President. You Assume I support Mitt,by asking questions.

Sorry, Mitt is unproven. Thats the only fact we know,Next to Obama being a bad President.




top topics



 
113
<< 17  18  19    21  22  23 >>

log in

join