Obama asserts executive privilege on Fast and Furious documents

Originally posted by Destinyone
reply to post by MidnightTide

 

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

Des

So True........

This whole F&F thing is beginning to look like one big set up in advance of the UN Small Arms Trade Treaty negotiations in a few days. Consider this:

I have been on the UNODA site (specifically www.un.org...) doing a bit of research and the dots are starting to connect and light bulbs are going off. The timing is meticulous. Why?

Are "they" (TPTB???) using the F&F scenario to "prove" that we need a better global tracking method for small arms? The more I think about the absurdity of the whole thing, the more I think Fast and Furious is a quick and sudden move toward obliterating 2A.

Are "they" using us? Are they taking advantage of The People's frustration and anger over these weapons being "lost" in order to start some kind of UN Global Tracking regulation?

Originally posted by notionfreely

Originally posted by phantomjack

Originally posted by RealSpoke
reply to post by Eurisko2012

 

So you feel comfortable supporting and voting for a war monger. Great.

You have no clue if Romney would lower the unemployment rate. Presidents do not control the economy. Anyone who is running for president will claim they will lower it, to sucker people like you into voting for them.

A magical unemployment prediction rate that Romney pulled out of thin air holds more weight to you than human lives.

Your view on this is appalling. No wonder why the USA is crashing.

edit on 20-6-2012 by RealSpoke because: (no reason given)

Um, do you mean like how Obama promised to lower the Unemployment rate? Joe Biden, 2010: "we are going to create 500,000 new jobs per month!"

Do you meant Obama who sent troops into Libya without congressional approval?

Do you mean the magical unemployment rate that Obama predicted?

Are you on crack?

I am not going to waste my time citing sources, as this is all common knowledge that apparently only conservatives have heard for the last 3.5 years.

Presidents DO in fact control the economy -- they create an atmosphere that allows business to flourish, or, they create an atmosphere that causes businesses to clamp down on hiring. PERIOD.

If you do not understand that principal, then you have serious issues.

creating an atmosphere is influence, not control.

And what is the difference? They both are intertwined.

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.

Incredible point, brother! I had not thought of this angle. Wow...are we looking at a possible resignation?

No, no, no. Obama would NEVER do the right thing.

Originally posted by Indigo5

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.

Again, I ask the question, What is the difference? If Obama claims to have known NOTHING about FF, then why was he even included in conversation about FF after the investigation got rolling? And to that extent, what exactly is in the documents that he doesn't want us to see?

Where there is smoke, there is fire. And this one is ablaze!

I look forward to the constitutional crisis this scandal will produce!

Originally posted by Indigo5

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.

Yes, it is confidential -- for the CLIENT, not the lawyer. So in this case, by your example, Obama is consulting his attorney, Holder. About what?

ABOUT WHAT?

Originally posted by hangedman13
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.

Interestingly, the same can be said about the recent change in Immigration policy, outside of the Department of Immigration, and, the law suits against Florida for wanting to take DEAD PEOPLE off of the Voter Record Database.

Interesting timing, YES!

Originally posted by xyankee
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.

Oohhh! Ooohh! I can answer that question!

Vote for ANYONE BUT OBAMA in November. While it wont necessarily fix the problem, it WILL put a stop to the communist take over of this great country!

I guess at worse, it may mean that a lot of people currently on welfare will have to get creative or get a job.

There are PLENTY of jobs out there. But the welfare state has created a generation or two of people who refuse to work.

Originally posted by Xcathdra

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.

Thats the problem -- I dont think she can read....

"you have to pass it, so that you know whats in it", Nancy Pilosi, 2009 -- RE: Obamacare

reply to post by phantomjack


That is another can of worms itself. I had stated on some thread on this or another that Holder was a big bundler for Obama in the 2008 election. Protecting him this way seems a bit extreme unless there is more to this than the public is aware of. Holders role in F&F mat become a serious liability the closer the elections come and the sloppier the cover story gets.

reply to post by phantomjack


I don't think that is going to work, Look at the choices we have first of all and second they will fix the election to suit the one they want to continue the game. What are we to do when there is nothing else left!! Because that is where we are at I am afraid. I think we are done as a country of freedom and no one seems to care. I think I would get more results bitching to my dog.

Originally posted by xyankee
reply to post by phantomjack

 

I don't think that is going to work, Look at the choices we have first of all and second they will fix the election to suit the one they want to continue the game. What are we to do when there is nothing else left!! Because that is where we are at I am afraid. I think we are done as a country of freedom and no one seems to care. I think I would get more results bitching to my dog.

I totally agree with you. Romney would not have been my first choice. In fact, nobody who ended up in the final 5 would have been my choice.

But, in this case, we have to select the lesser of the two evils.

We know who Romney is. We know his background.

We know NOTHING about Obama. NOTHING! And what we DO know, contradicts everything he claims to be.

So, I will make the choice of the lesser of the evils.

reply to post by phantomjack


That does not answer the question of what can be done if the extreme happens, not that it has not already. What recourse do we have in that situation. When it is completely obvious of there intention to ignore the law.

Originally posted by xyankee
reply to post by phantomjack

 

That does not answer the question of what can be done if the extreme happens, not that it has not already. What recourse do we have in that situation. When it is completely obvious of there intention to ignore the law.

As long as you have the IRS in place, absolutely nothing can be done, in my opinion. I think that is what it all boils down to -- the IRS BOOT ON OUR NECK.

The IRS is the mafia of the federal government.

Obama has been busy the last couple days blocking documents....

Drone strikes: Obama moves to block release of files on kill programme

reply to post by Eurisko2012


Isn't that what basically happened to Clinton. He was impeached, but then an national emergency occurred and then the impeachment was postponed and then it was time for election. Figure it out. That's why there is so much dragging of feet on this and the WH leaks, etc. Just more of the same for this administration. I chuckle when I see the developments and the current administration can not dance fast enough. YEAH

Originally posted by sonnny1
reply to post by Eurisko2012

 

I see a GOP win,just running on the Fast and Furious scandal........



Obama couldn't save his Presidency,even if he made a movie of himself,as a Vampire Slayer.

As much as I would like to see the Republicans use this during the campaign, I doubt that they will much. They need to convince Obama backers to vote Republican, and pushing this too much could just alienate them. It's exactly the same reason Romney didn't want to offend Ron Paul people.

What amazes me is that people are actually defending this. This president has proven that there's no limit to what he will do to bypass the law, and even the Constitution, and that's just fine with some people. They argue "Well Bush did it!", like a 7-year old child. And Congress sits around making idle threats that in the end will amount to nothing.

I don't know man. That guy could probably eat a baby on MSNBC and it would be OK because Bush did something worse.

Originally posted by sonnny1
reply to post by Eurisko2012

 

I see a GOP win,just running on the Fast and Furious scandal........



Obama couldn't save his Presidency,even if he made a movie of himself,as a Vampire Slayer.

reply to post by Xcathdra


The people need to take serious more third party candidates at the federal level. Most do not though and it only causes a split along conservative or liberal lines and splits one side of the ticket allowing the party that does not have the third split to take control. Think if all those GOP voters had went with Paul last time? No, still no win maybe but it would have been a much closer race. Most voters will vote the lesser of evils along the two parties rather than "waste" their vote on a third party. And that is a shame that in the end will be the demise of the U.S. as we know it.

reply to post by Nspekta


My opinion is this is all political maneuvering to discredit Obama ahead of an upcoming election.

There simply is way too much speculation in MSM, and not enough solid evidence as yet. And based on my previous experiences with the conservative party, I find it’s nothing new for them exploit an emotion evoking calamity to elicit political gain.

We'll only know the truth when the dust settles and irrefutable facts come to light.

The main pushers behind this entire controversy are Republicans. They are politicians after all, and this wouldn't be the first time a political party attempted to demonize a political opponent before an election. So, I think there is definitely motive on their part.

Obama and Eric Holder both claim they didn't know about this. And this doesn’t necessarily surprise me as there are MANY functions inside our government. And we truly can’t expect Holder or Obama to be aware of them all.

Like others have said, there have been similar operations like this in the past. And we are fighting a literal war on drugs and gun smuggling. All conspiracies aside, there are always mistakes made in war. And with these mistakes we often have collateral damage. War is an ugly business. I think only the people who don’t understand this are the one’s who’ve never been to war.