Obama asserts executive privilege on Fast and Furious documents

reply to post by MuonSpin

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.

I believe that this operation, running guns to drug cartels into a foreign country that shares a border with the US, should not be done without the knowledge of the President.

Do you really believe that some ATF underling decided to do this without the Presidents knowledge?

reply to post by butcherguy


I agree with you. Ideally, the President should be notified of an operation like this. It makes rational sense.

Still, a quick look back at history shows us some pretty big events went on right under the nose of many past Presidents.

I am not a Politician. I don't know the intricacies of the daily life of a politician, or high-level government officials.

For reference, I have only history, media, accessible information, and the word of others employed by Uncle Sam.

But, from the Uncle Sam shoe-shiners I do know, the different branches are not as cohesive as people think they are or ought to be. Apparently, there is a signification amount of information which does not traverse the divisional voids. And this makes sense to me considering the tremendous magnitude of variables involved – something neither you nor I or the average person could fathom from the outside. That is assuming you are an average person like myself. You could be director of the CIA for all I know. 

reply to post by MuonSpin

Obama either knew or he didn't.

If you were the POTUS, and one of your subordinates started a a stupid and flawed program such as Fast and Furious, (without your knowledge) wouldn't you make some heads roll?

Yet, Obama is stonewalling the investigation. If he is clean, he should bring it all out into the open, then make some heads roll!

ETA: I'm definitely not the DCIA!

reply to post by queenofswords


Yes, but one point - the weapons were not "lost" really - they were handed over willingly and then put under a cover of Lost to wag the dog. I am not really upset. I think the people are upset with the coninued bold faced lies of our government.

Is the UN going to use this, I don't see how they wouldn't. Regardless of how it spins. They can use it to press their case. I for one am tired of the UN and the fact every other nation in the world can act nationalistic except the USA.

Ugh... We need to pull out, tell the UN to vacate, cancel NATO and just tell the world good luck. Bring it all home and let each nation fend for itself. Won't happen - pretty much just a rant. LOL

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

I noticed a pattern from the dem talking heads last night.

When it's good news, it's i, i, i but when it's bad news then suddenly it's " we ".

The dem was saying last night that Fast & Furious is "our" problem.

"We are all Americans."
---------

Nice try.

But "We" do not ALL have an - Anti 2nd Amendment Agenda - !

They are trying to spread the blame.

Originally posted by MuonSpin
reply to post by butcherguy

 

I agree with you. Ideally, the President should be notified of an operation like this. It makes rational sense.

Still, a quick look back at history shows us some pretty big events went on right under the nose of many past Presidents.

I am not a Politician. I don't know the intricacies of the daily life of a politician, or high-level government officials.

For reference, I have only history, media, accessible information, and the word of others employed by Uncle Sam.

But, from the Uncle Sam shoe-shiners I do know, the different branches are not as cohesive as people think they are or ought to be. Apparently, there is a signification amount of information which does not traverse the divisional voids. And this makes sense to me considering the tremendous magnitude of variables involved – something neither you nor I or the average person could fathom from the outside. That is assuming you are an average person like myself. You could be director of the CIA for all I know. 

That's just it. Obama did know about F & F.

Eric Holder did know about F & F from the very start.

The documents prove that so Holder is sitting on them until after the election.

Originally posted by butcherguy
reply to post by MuonSpin

 

Obama either knew or he didn't.

If you were the POTUS, and one of your subordinates started a a stupid and flawed program such as Fast and Furious, (without your knowledge) wouldn't you make some heads roll?

Yet, Obama is stonewalling the investigation. If he is clean, he should bring it all out into the open, then make some heads roll!

ETA: I'm definitely not the DCIA!

edit on 22-6-2012 by butcherguy because: (no reason given)

Oh, heads would roll alright.

If they turned over the documents, Holder would resign AND Obama would have to

resign. That would give us President Joe Biden for a few months!

I called congressman fred upton's dc office today and asked about his position on this. He is voting for the contempt charges. They told me this is completely unacceptable what holder and obama are doing. Thank god some of our congress has some common sense on some things. I think everyone needs to call their congressman about this.

Originally posted by SyphonX
Impeachable offense, in my opinion.

Activating Executive Privilege because you want to claim it may breach national security, or safety of operations.. etc, is one thing.

Using it to try and halt a case from potentially filing criminal charges, against someone in your administration, is something entirely different.

I don't care if "Bush did it too". This is 2012, and I don't have a time machine.. though if this was his presidency today and he was doing the same thing, I would say exactly the same. It's the deed, not the doer. You really can't chalk this one up to partisan bickering.. this is really sleazy and criminal. We're talking real crime here, botched operations, and deaths of civilians and government agents as a direct result.

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

I agree!

I watched on C-span yesterday where Nancy Pelosi stated that this was simply a Republican conspiracy as a response to the Voter ID situation....

How in the world does she figure that?

Originally posted by ButterCookie

Originally posted by SyphonX
Impeachable offense, in my opinion.

Activating Executive Privilege because you want to claim it may breach national security, or safety of operations.. etc, is one thing.

Using it to try and halt a case from potentially filing criminal charges, against someone in your administration, is something entirely different.

I don't care if "Bush did it too". This is 2012, and I don't have a time machine.. though if this was his presidency today and he was doing the same thing, I would say exactly the same. It's the deed, not the doer. You really can't chalk this one up to partisan bickering.. this is really sleazy and criminal. We're talking real crime here, botched operations, and deaths of civilians and government agents as a direct result.

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

I agree!

I watched on C-span yesterday where Nancy Pelosi stated that this was simply a Republican conspiracy as a response to the Voter ID situation....

How in the world does she figure that?

She doesn't figure anything.

They hand her a 3 X 5 card and tell her to read it.

Originally posted by Xcathdra
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)

The Supreme Court has affirmed Executive Priviledge as a neccesity of the Seperation of Powers Docterine.

When Pres GWB invoked the priviledge he summarized it as such...

The reason for these distinctions rests upon a bedrock presidential prerogative: for the President to perform his constitutional duties, it is imperative that he receive candid and unfettered advice and that free and open discussions and deliberations occur among his advisors and between those advisors and others within and outside the Executive Branch.

It is not without qualifications..

CRS Congressional Research Service on Executive Priviledge Summary 2008, legal precedent, rulings etc.

The presidential communications privilege remains a qualified privilege that may be overcome by a showing that the information sought “likely contains important evidence” and the unavailability of the information elsewhere by an appropriate investigating authority.

www.fas.org...

Seeing as Issa's request for which Executive Priviledge has been evoked is specifically for the time period after F&F ceased and is requesting internal communications between the Whitehouse and advisors...As well as the fact that Holder has provided over 7600 pages of transcripts and communications for when Fast and Furious was an active operation...I would imagine that all neccessary information is available for the investigation within the docs already provided.

Originally posted by queenofswords
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.

Wasn't there a criticism coming out of China about US Gun Laws not too recently? I mean UN Small Arms Trade Treaty negotiations has been going on for a while so we know about that.

reply to post by Indigo5

As well as the fact that Holder has provided over 7600 pages of transcripts and communications for when Fast and Furious was an active operation...I would imagine that all neccessary information is available for the investigation within the docs already provided

Again, as I mentioned before, and that you chose not to reply to,
Have you seen the documents?! No, so you 'imagining' that the necessary information has already been provided is a total, unfounded guess. There is a REASON why Obama hid these documents from the Committee.. If he had nothing to hide, then why would he hide them??

Originally posted by Nspekta
reply to post by Indigo5

 

As well as the fact that Holder has provided over 7600 pages of transcripts and communications for when Fast and Furious was an active operation...I would imagine that all neccessary information is available for the investigation within the docs already provided

Again, as I mentioned before, and that you chose not to reply to,
Have you seen the documents?! No, so you 'imagining' that the necessary information has already been provided is a total, unfounded guess. There is a REASON why Obama hid these documents from the Committee.. If he had nothing to hide, then why would he hide them??

Issa held up a few of the documents: White paper with big black square in the middle.

It's a joke.

We may see more documents from Eric Holder November 7, 2012.

BTW, here are those documents you were asking for. I lost them in my closet

and my dog ate the really important ones.

Originally posted by Nspekta
reply to post by Indigo5

 

As well as the fact that Holder has provided over 7600 pages of transcripts and communications for when Fast and Furious was an active operation...I would imagine that all neccessary information is available for the investigation within the docs already provided

Again, as I mentioned before, and that you chose not to reply to,
Have you seen the documents?! No, so you 'imagining' that the necessary information has already been provided is a total, unfounded guess. There is a REASON why Obama hid these documents from the Committee.. If he had nothing to hide, then why would he hide them??

Plus, almost half of the only 7,000+ documents that were handed over, out of 80,000 subpoenaed, were so heavily redacted, whole pages were totally blacked out. Nothing to hide my happy ass....:

Des

reply to post by Indigo5


I am not sure if you misunderstood my post or I misunderstood your response.

Executive priviledge and attorney client protection are 2 separate issues.

For the attorney client privildge, it does not apply to the White House lawyers since they represent the office and not the President personally.

As for executive priviledge it cannot be invoked to conceal criminal activity and in this case there is criminal activity.

Originally posted by Nspekta
reply to post by Indigo5

 

As well as the fact that Holder has provided over 7600 pages of transcripts and communications for when Fast and Furious was an active operation...I would imagine that all neccessary information is available for the investigation within the docs already provided

Again, as I mentioned before, and that you chose not to reply to,
Have you seen the documents?! No, so you 'imagining' that the necessary information has already been provided is a total, unfounded guess. There is a REASON why Obama hid these documents from the Committee.. If he had nothing to hide, then why would he hide them??

And this logic doesn't work. If you have nothing to hide, then....

The investigation into Fast and Furious is warranted and absolutely neccessary.

It was a clusterEf of epic proportions. It started under Pres. Bush and continued under the Obama administration.

Holder, Issa, Obama, GOP and Democrats all agree on the above and have stated the same.

Unfortunately Issa isn't focused on finding out how this happened or how to prevent it from happening in the future. He isn't drilling down on the ATF who thought up this nonsense and golding those folks accountable...nope....

He is focused on Holder and Pres. Obama and while even that partisan, political focus should be indulged and responded to, asking for communications between WhiteHouse officials AFTER the crapstorm hit in the media and the operation had long eneded is not only fishing for election year political ammunition, it is a diservice to Brian Terry and the Mexicans that have died as a result. It is pure partisan political hackery.

If the claim is that the Whitehouse or Holder was somehow running the operation rather than the local ATF etc. then that could be and would have been disclosed in the tonnage of documents that Holder has turned over already in response to earlier requests...7600 pages plus emails, interview transcripts...nine times Holder has personally testified in front of the committee.

The communications for which Executive Priviledge has been invoked are all for after Feb. 2011.

What we have now in requesting communications between Whitehouse officials after the investigation began is for pure political purposes in an election year. It is a "cover-up", but it is a "cover-up" of deliberations about how the investigation is going to impact the administration and how they should respond to the media-storm.

Not relevant to making sure F&F doesn't happen again, not relevant to preventing similair programs from evolving...pure political, partisan BS.

reply to post by Indigo5

It was a clusterEf of epic proportions. It started under Pres. Bush and continued under the Obama administration.

I wish you would pick up on this one..... F&F did not exist while President Bush was in office, it began well after President Obama's inauguration.

ATF Gunwalking scandal

From the link:

2009–2011: Operation Fast and Furious On October 26, 2009, a teleconference was held at the Department of Justice in Washington, D.C. to discuss U.S. strategy for combating Mexican drug cartels. Participating in the meeting were Deputy Attorney General David W. Ogden, Assistant Attorney General Lanny A. Breuer, ATF Director Kenneth E. Melson, Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA) Administrator Michele Leonhart, Director of the Federal Bureau of Investigation Robert Mueller and the top federal prosecutors in the Southwestern border states. They decided on a strategy to identify and eliminate entire arms trafficking networks rather than low-level buyers.[3][28][29] Those at the meeting did not suggest using the "gunwalking" tactic, but ATF supervisors would soon use it in an attempt to achieve the desired goals.[30] The effort, beginning in November, would come to be called Operation Fast and Furious for the successful film franchise, because some of the suspects under investigation operated out of an auto repair store and street raced

Seriously, you keep tagging the Bush Administration with F&F, and it isn't true.
There were 'gunwalking' operations done during the Bush Administration, but they were operated and controlled differently, to the end that they didn't result in the deaths of American agents and citizens.

Originally posted by Xcathdra
reply to post by Indigo5

 

I am not sure if you misunderstood my post or I misunderstood your response.

Executive priviledge and attorney client protection are 2 separate issues.

For the attorney client privildge, it does not apply to the White House lawyers since they represent the office and not the President personally.

As for executive priviledge it cannot be invoked to conceal criminal activity and in this case there is criminal activity.

I thought you understood that I was using attorney/client priviledge as an analogy, not a literal application.

The premise behind attorney/client priviledge is that in order for a defendant to prepare the best defense, he must have the priviledge to speak freely and openly with his attorney knowing it will not be provided in transcripts etc. during his trial.

The premise behind executive priviledge is that for the President to "perform his constitutional duties as President" he must be free to consult with advisors and counselors without it automatically becomming fodder for partisan politics or media scrutiny.

Would you like to address my other points in my post?

Originally posted by butcherguy
reply to post by Indigo5

 

It was a clusterEf of epic proportions. It started under Pres. Bush and continued under the Obama administration.

I wish you would pick up on this one..... F&F did not exist while President Bush was in office, it began well after President Obama's inauguration.

ATF Gunwalking scandal

From the link:

2009–2011: Operation Fast and Furious On October 26, 2009, a teleconference was held at the Department of Justice in Washington, D.C. to discuss U.S. strategy for combating Mexican drug cartels. Participating in the meeting were Deputy Attorney General David W. Ogden, Assistant Attorney General Lanny A. Breuer, ATF Director Kenneth E. Melson, Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA) Administrator Michele Leonhart, Director of the Federal Bureau of Investigation Robert Mueller and the top federal prosecutors in the Southwestern border states. They decided on a strategy to identify and eliminate entire arms trafficking networks rather than low-level buyers.[3][28][29] Those at the meeting did not suggest using the "gunwalking" tactic, but ATF supervisors would soon use it in an attempt to achieve the desired goals.[30] The effort, beginning in November, would come to be called Operation Fast and Furious for the successful film franchise, because some of the suspects under investigation operated out of an auto repair store and street raced

And I wish you would acknowledge this..The first paragraph on the page you are citing, but hoping no one will actually visit?

During Operation Fast and Furious, dozens of semiautomatic AK-variants might be purchased in one day.[1]
The Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (ATF) ran a series of "gunwalking" sting operations[2][3] between 2006[4] and 2011.[2][5]

This was done under the umbrella of Project Gunrunner, a project intended to stem the flow of firearms into Mexico by indicting straw purchasers and gun traffickers within the United States.[6] "Gunwalking" or "letting guns walk" was a tactic whereby the ATF knowingly allowed thousands of guns to be bought by suspected arms traffickers ("gunrunners") working through straw purchasers on behalf of Mexican drug cartels.[7]

See ATF Doc from 2008
www.atf.gov...

* Believe it or not I appreciate many of the points opposing my own posts, that have been made on this thread. Some of them good. But the thread is muddied with folks who disregard facts and that muddies the debate to the point where it seems near pointless to discuss.