Obama asserts executive privilege on Fast and Furious documents

Originally posted by Indigo5

Originally posted by Nspekta
Yet again, you are pretending to know what is in those documents without seeing them. You have not responded to my questions but i'll try sgain.. What makes you SO sure, that these documents will not provide evidence? Were you cc'd on them?!? Lol

And that sentiment is exactly what is termed "fishing"...there might be something there, so we are entitled to it...without demonstrating that useful evidence is likely there.

While at the same time...what is "likely" there is the Obama administration discussing how the GOP is going after them, how the media crapstorm will effect the election etc. etc. ALL of which will be immediately released to the media by Issa.

Fishing...but not even fishing for truth...

I am all for a real F&F investigation...it was a complete clusterF...I am just confused why you guys are settling for a political attack ad in place of that investigation....Well I am not really confused why...

Well, Obama hid them at the 11th hour, so there must be something more to it, no? You say that is what is 'likely' there.. Earlier you were adament that you knew.. Im not trying to be a prick, i just want you to admit that you DONT know! And again, then why not let a special committee selection view them to ensure Obama's innocence?
Also, this is the way congress investigates.. So can you tell us what a better process would be? Since you say that this whole thing is a political witch hunt, whats the better option? How, in your opinion, is the truth going to be investigated properly?
Ps, please remember, Bush is not president anymore so going back to his admin, imo, doesnt help And allows people responsible now, to deflect the blame back onto a long gone admin...

Originally posted by Nspekta
Well, Obama hid them at the 11th hour, so there must be something more to it, no? And again, then why not let a special committee selection view them to ensure Obama's innocence?

That would be one of the offers on the table...But Issa will not accept that offer, again because the aim is to air embarrassing strategy discussions by the President and his advisors. It is not fruitful if they can't use non-relevant material and air it publicly.

Holder will, if he hasn't already, offer to have the communications reviewed in private by the committe.
Issa will turn down the offer.

Originally posted by Nspekta

Also, this is the way congress investigates.. So can you tell us what a better process would be? Since you say that this whole thing is a political witch hunt, whats the better option? How, in your opinion, is the truth going to be investigated properly?

Better way....effen crawl all over the ATF agents who led the operation, including ATF Newell who headed both F&F and Wide-Receiver since "gun walking" was apparently his brilliant love child.

Raid the ATF offices in AZ and seize all information and communication records...emails..hard-drives etc.

If it leads to the White House...so be it.

But to start with the White House...have Holder testify 9 times, ask for and get 7800 pages of material from DOJ and STILL focus on the Whitehouse just trying to make it stick...now asking for the Whitehouse and Holders communications about the media storm and investigation???? poltical..and we all get screwed out of a real investigation and seeing those responsible held accountable.

If any one of us were running the investigation...we'd start at the scene and show up at ATF AZ un-announced with a truck to load all of thier files, hard-drives and records as well as a warrant for Lead ATF Newell...

Instead what we get is Issa on Fox News ranting about Obama..

reply to post by Indigo5


My mistake and my appologies...

I got my agents names mixed up.

Originally posted by Maxmars

I can't argue with you there... sadly political sentiment seems to be muddying what could have been addressed long ago. Opportunism and expedience are a political mainstay strategy. The media enjoys exacerbating the fractious nature of the conflict.

I have no doubt that were the 'political' tables reversed (if you can believe that generally possible) this argument would be exactly the same.

Bush invoked Exec Priviledge I think 7 times? 8? Some of it warranted, most of it not....but indisputably every time they went after him it was 60% politically motivated...anyone actually think our representives wake up in the morning thinking about "Justice and Truth"?? It is just a bonus if they are "in the right" in going after a President, but if their evidence of wrongdoing by the potus is lacking...they will go after them anyways...political opportunity first...that truth and justice thing comes 2nd or 3rd...maybe.

Does anyone in their rational mind...I say rational mind...believe this was President Obama's idea? If not shouldn't we go after people that are actually accountable for the Gun-Walking? Newell, the ATF agent in charge of both Wide-Reciever and F&F? Geez he got shut down with Wide-Receiver, but opted to do it again with F&F once his immediate supervisor was replaced...Instead we have Issa and Obama..

Originally posted by Xcathdra
reply to post by Indigo5

 

My mistake and my appologies...

I got my agents names mixed up.

If we are doing the apologies thing, I apologize for any snark in my responses. Being the lone voice of disagreement on a thread populated with folks eager to take shots tends to keep my fists up.

For what it is worth...Your posts are one of the few that seem more interested in factual debate vs. partisan/emotional debate and the reason I am still here. You and Maxmars...who while sometimes veering right, usually holds to the center lane with intelligent and often wise input. He's an equal-opportunity/politicans-suck kind of observist.

Originally posted by Indigo5
I have done that and you don't seem to be understanding.

A premise I reject because its based on speculation. Which is the exact same argument on the other side.

Originally posted by Indigo5
Issa's latest request, the one of which has provoked the contempt charge and the invoking of executive priviledge is specifically for communications after Feb. 2011 between white house officials and their response to the media storm and GOP led investigation.

Again privilege does not apply to criminal activity. This is a criminal investigation by the AG's office as well as by congressional oversight. Since the operation was illegal and there appears to be little going on to resolve it, congress has the right to do their own.

Originally posted by Indigo5
These communications will involve frank and honest discussions about the crap-storm the Administration was facing as F&F was all over the press.

Those communications were after the operation had ceased. Holder has provided over 7K pages of communications that were requested regarding the operation when it was active.

Again completely within the perview of congressional oversight. As has been pointed out the agent was killed in 2010 and to date nothing has come from that. There has been nothing done to resolve the issue of criminal actions by those supervisors on up. We have either resignations and invocation of the 5th amendment or people are reassigned to washington dc.

Originally posted by Indigo5
This latest request is pure political theater and is aimed at embarrassing the President.

This has been going on since 2010 and no resolution to date so no this is not political. This started long before this years elections.

Originally posted by Indigo5
Issa is playing politics when he should be holding the ATF accountable....

I am fine with that but at the same time this had to have been known to people higher up because of what the operation entailed. Intentionally leaving Mexican law enforcement out of the loop raises more questions. The head of DHS as well as AG should be investigated and if its determined they in fact had knowledge of this then they should resign / be fired / or impeached.

Originally posted by Indigo5
He is doing it so successfully that you weren't even aware that the same ATF Agent ran both Wide Receiver under GWB that ran F&F under Obama...all you can focus on is Holder and Obama...nothing happened before 2009...politics...

I appologized for my mistake as I got the names wrong.

The Atorney's General is not suppose to be a political position. Their purpose is to enforce the law regardless of political ideology.

I have stated it time and time again - This is a criminal investigation at 2 levels. The actual operation itself and then those who planned it, knew about it and authorized it. Holder can easily provide Congress with a privilege log, which shows what documents are being withheld and why. It does not detail any content, just the topic and yet for some reason the AG is refusing to do that as well.

Why, after 2 years, uis there no resolution in the border agents death?
Why, after a couple of years of investigation by the oversight committee, are the Democrats raising the political issue?

Lets clear a few other things up. The Supreme Court (Nixon ruling) agreed with the concept of executive privilege however their ruling was specific - United States vs. Nixon

The Court rejected Nixon's claim to "an absolute, unqualified Presidential privilege of immunity from judicial process under all circumstances." [US v. Nixon] Nixon resigned 15 days later.

also

"To read the Article II powers of the President as providing an absolute privilege as against a subpoena essential to enforcement of criminal statutes on no more than a generalized claim of the public interest in confidentiality of nonmilitary and nondiplomatic discussions would upset the constitutional balance of 'a workable government' and gravely impair the role of the courts under Article III." Because Nixon had asserted only a generalized need for confidentiality, the Court held that the larger public interest in obtaining the truth in the context of a criminal prosecution took precedence.

They can either deal with Congress or they can deal with the judge who can issue a subpoena for the files.

As for Holder and Obama and "nothing before 2009" comment I am still confused as to what it is you are trying to argue. If its why didnt an oversight committee go after Bush and his AG, that would be a question for Democrats since they controlled the House during that operations timeframe.

Trying to argue the topic by using the word political as many times as possible doesnt make the investigation political.

Originally posted by Indigo5
If we are doing the apologies thing, I apologize for any snark in my responses. Being the lone voice of disagreement on a thread populated with folks eager to take shots tends to keep my fists up.

Understandable so no worries.. From here on out lets send each other a quick U2U if something comes across in the wrong manner. I would rather take the extra time to clear up the mixup than derail a thread over a miscommunication.

Originally posted by Indigo5
For what it is worth...Your posts are one of the few that seem more interested in factual debate vs. partisan/emotional debate and the reason I am still here. You and Maxmars...who while sometimes veering right, usually holds to the center lane with intelligent and often wise input. He's an equal-opportunity/politicans-suck kind of observist.

My position on this topic, as well as almost all others that deal with law enforcement, is to put the facts out in terms of the law so we are all on the same page. If we understand the basic principles involved, it (imo) allows us to better represent our respective positions.

As far as Holder and this incident my position is there needs to be an investigation from top to bottom to find out the who what when where why and how. During an investigation, any investigation, there are 2 main principles that apply -

#1 - The goal of any investigation is to rule people out as suspects as much as it is to locate suspects.
#2 - The goal of any investigation is to find the truth, regardless if we like that truth or not.

Personally speaking I respect the right of an individual to invoke their 5th amendment rights. I respect the concept of executive privilege up to a point.

In these situations we are not dealing with one person on a personal basis. Holder is not a private individual when testifying in front of Congress. Holder is the Department of Justice when he testifies to Congress. Just as Congress are not individuals when dealing with Holder but are the peoples representatives.

For me unless their is a legitimate national security issue involved, I dont feel any government agency / department should be allowed to refuse to answer questions / turn over documents during a legitimate investigation.

- Please bear in mind when I say legitimate its in the context of
*investigating to determine if any laws / wrongdoing are present.
*investigating those found violations to determine how we arrived at those particular violations.
*investigating to include / exclude people as suspects.
*investigating to locate and have all relevant information / facts / evidence that confirms or rules people out as a suspect.

To me (imho) invoking executive privilege in this case is tantamount to obstruction of justice and hindering prosecution (the elements are present we just need the action to trip them).

I dont care for Obama or Holder as President or AG. On a personal level ive never met either of them so I go with my automatic default of them being good people.

With that being said I do not nor ever will agree with the concept of hiding documents from a congressional committee who is investigating potential criminal activity that very well may extend up to the cabinet level or higher.

As a US citizen I demand my President and Attorney's General do whats right for the public interest and notfor their political careers.

Sorry, but I apparently can't find a way of wording this question intelligently enough for someone to answer it.

Why did Holder (the Attorney General of the US- top law enforcement official in the country) lie when he testified before the Senate committee regarding Operation Fast and Furious?

ETA:
Maybe it's not the wording, eh?

Probably has more to do with the fact that there is no good excuse for the AG to have lied to them.....

No matter how much of that Koolaid you are sipping.

Originally posted by butcherguy
Sorry, but I apparently can't find a way of wording this question intelligently enough for someone to answer it.

Why did Holder (the Attorney General of the US- top law enforcement official in the country) lie when he testified before the Senate committee regarding Operation Fast and Furious?

ETA:
Maybe it's not the wording, eh?

Probably has more to do with the fact that there is no good excuse for the AG to have lied to them.....

No matter how much of that Koolaid you are sipping.

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

He lied to cover his own six as well as the sixes of others (on both sides of the aisle) who could hang his out to dry for more than just F&F. I suppose the more religiously inclined might call all these guys and gals the 666 gang. But one thing is certain, this little dust up with Holder is barely the tip of the proverbial iceberg that the USS Titanic is aiming for. We'd probably be shocked to discover who all has had a hand at steering our little boat to its doom, probably including more than a few we thought were upstanding and honest and on the right side of things.

Centralized government did this to us and the anti federalists warned us what would happen if that ever came to be. We've been warned over and over and over again ever since then and no one ever listens. The amazing thing is, that despite hundreds of years of evidence that a big impersonalized government is dangerous to our lives, liberty and property, some people think it needs to even bigger and more centralized than it is.

Me? I'm with that guy they threw in jail for "lying". Remember JamesTraficant's speech on the house floor back in 1993 about how the US was bankrupted by international bankers? What a whopper that was. Jail was too good for him. [/sarcasm]

www.givemeliberty.50megs.com...

Tell the truth, go to jail. You think Holder doesn't know that?

reply to post by frazzle

They did their best to portray Traficante as a total nutcase back then. That was sad.

Of course Holder lied just to save himself. The trouble is that the public has come to expect that from our public servants.

Originally posted by butcherguy
reply to post by frazzle

 

They did their best to portray Traficante as a total nutcase back then. That was sad.

Of course Holder lied just to save himself. The trouble is that the public has come to expect that from our public servants.

To save just himself? You think he hasn't been warned that blowing the whistle on the rest of the gang won't end up being very deadly for him? That warning probably contained some very graphic details of just how painful that ending would be, too. Holder took/takes his marching orders from higher powers just like everyone else, up to and including the president. Just because we can't see them or name the ones giving the orders doesn't mean that we don't all know they're there behind the scenes pulling their visible puppet's strings. Its a puppet show.

Traficant wasn't the type to take orders or bow to threats and the years he spent behind bars for telling the truth were pretty horrrible. We don't appreciate the real heroes.

So really, the thing that we should be pushing for is a complete top-to-bottom review of the operations which the Department of Justice - directly subordinate to the Executive branch, has been doing for say.... 60 years.

Then we can ask any questions about anything and the politicians would have to shut the hell up about it. Right?

Odds of that happening? 45:1 against.

Originally posted by Maxmars
So really, the thing that we should be pushing for is a complete top-to-bottom review of the operations which the Department of Justice - directly subordinate to the Executive branch, has been doing for say.... 60 years.

Then we can ask any questions about anything and the politicians would have to shut the hell up about it. Right?

Odds of that happening? 45:1 against.

Infinity:1 against, more likely.

The thing is, you start reviewing the DoJ operations, you start finding clandestine involvement. The CIA is an amorphous blob that identifies any and all possible avenues of "win", then exploits them in such a way that you don't know they were really exploited. I mean, other than a little Vaseline residue and a slight soreness.

If there were a review of any "operations", the strands of the web would be laid bare for full and complete discovery.

Originally posted by Maxmars
So really, the thing that we should be pushing for is a complete top-to-bottom review of the operations which the Department of Justice - directly subordinate to the Executive branch, has been doing for say.... 60 years.

Then we can ask any questions about anything and the politicians would have to shut the hell up about it. Right?

Odds of that happening? 45:1 against.

I'd say its probably closer to 15000000:1 lol
Imagine what would be uncovered and who's heads would roll!! It would sure wake up the sheeple though!

reply to post by frazzle


In the end, yes, to save himself.

If they didn't have the ever present 'accident' waiting to happen to him, he'd squeal like a little pig.

And the 'accident' would definitely happen, remember Ron Brown?

Originally posted by butcherguy
reply to post by frazzle

 

In the end, yes, to save himself.

If they didn't have the ever present 'accident' waiting to happen to him, he'd squeal like a little pig.

And the 'accident' would definitely happen, remember Ron Brown?

edit on 23-6-2012 by butcherguy because: (no reason given)

Of course I remember Ron Brown, and the fact that they'd take out an entire plane load of people to shut him up (he publicly threatened to take Bill Clinton down with him just days earlier) just emphasizes the fact that Holder might be holding on to facts that could get him and another plane load of people ~ or his wife and three kids killed.

I'm not exhonerating him or defending him in any way, just saying that he wittingly or unwittingly threw in with the legalized mafia and there's no getting out unscathed if you know too much. We can assume that he knows too much. And no one in a position of power's going to be waterboarding him to get to the truth, the ones who could order that already know the truth.

If anyone is interested, ATS live radio is going to be discussing this topic on tonights radio show..

Here is the thread for more info,

www.abovetopsecret.com...

reply to post by smarterthanyou


You have one thing wrong. The hedge funds are the ones steering the ship.

Originally posted by MsAphrodite
reply to post by smarterthanyou

 

You have one thing wrong. The hedge funds are the ones steering the ship.

Hedge funds are inanimate objects and computer data entries. Don't you mean the hedge fun-derz like Goldman Sachs, JP Mogan and a few others? Their lobbyists have the fed bailing out the bilge and pumping computer entries back into their coffers like there's no tomorrow. And thanks to them there just might not be much of a tomorrow for the rest of us.

Lobbying should be a capital crime. Congressional and regulatory takers of the lobbyists "gifts" should be drawn and quartered in the public square. Like they've done to entire nations.

With them gone, the markets would reboot.