Obama relents in fight over Fast and Furious documents

In an "unusual" move, the Obama Administration has decided to release some documents related to the failed Fast & Furious gun operation.

The House Committee requesting documents has been in court since 2011.

Obama claimed Executive Privilege until a Judge ordered specific documents be released.

The Administration could have dragged this on again, but has chosen not to.

I bet the Committee gets very little from the all-of-a-sudden release and most of it might be just jibberish.

The House will continue to seek orders to get all documents.

Eric Holder has been in Contempt of Congress over this mess, but the Justice Department has chosen not to prosecute the now "retired" former U.S. Attorney General.

Obama relents in fight over Fast and Furious documents

Four years after asserting executive privilege to block Congress from obtaining documents relating to a controversial federal gun trafficking investigation, President Barack Obama relented Friday, turning over to lawmakers thousands of pages of records that led to unusual House votes holding Attorney General Eric Holder in contempt in 2012.

In January, a federal district court judge rejected Obama's executive privilege claim over records detailing the Justice Department and White House's response to Operation Fast and Furious, a Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives investigation that may have allowed as many as 2,000 firearms to pass into the hands of Mexican drug cartels.

In her ruling, U.S. District Court Judge Amy Berman Jackson did not turn down Obama's privilege assertion on the merits. Instead, she said authorized public disclosures about the operation in a Justice Department inspector general report essentially mooted the administration's drive to keep the records secret.

2nd article
Barack Obama Backs Down Over Operation Fast and Furious, Drops Executive Privilege Claim Over Some Documents

What will be "Missing" ?

There is no doubt the documents won't be too damning to the administration.

a reply to: xuenchen
Only doing so by force of the Department of Justice (court ordered).

originally posted by: ArnoldNonymous
There is no doubt the documents won't be too damning to the administration.

Looking into "Fast and Furious" and "Benghazi" records that are not allowed NOW by the DOJ requests can continue to be kept secret by *Executive Privilege* are not at all too damning?

a reply to: ArnoldNonymous
You do not know that and the fingers of investigation continue to grow regarding the Clinton Dark Planet.

Given the current House's record of endlessly using its investigative powers for purely partisan political goals, who could blame the Administration?

Thirteen or so investigations into Benghazi and what was found? Everybody did their jobs.

I'd redact every document, and they'd have to sue me for the release of every word. What rot!

I think its simply a matter of covering up the governments deep involvement with the Sinaloa Cartel....
The US and Mexican Governments main drug partner.....
Los Zetas were getting too much control and they were/are a very wild card for the likes of governments to trust.....Propping up the Sinaloas with firepower needed to hold onto their turf......was paramount if the federales wanted to keep the money rolling in....

originally posted by: Gryphon66
Given the current House's record of endlessly using its investigative powers for purely partisan political goals, who could blame the Administration?

Thirteen or so investigations into Benghazi and what was found? Everybody did their jobs.

I'd redact every document, and they'd have to sue me for the release of every word. What rot!

It is only partisan because no democrat has the virtue to condemn any wrongdoings in their own party. This should be obvious enough even for someone with a high priority for believing all their favorite politicians can do no wrong. Ever.
Both parties have very large amounts of corruption, but only the democrat party covers each others criminal elements like you are so very familiar with supporting. All that does is pinpoint your own personal and spiritual corruption.

a reply to: NoCorruptionAllowed

Nah. It's partisan because the REPUBLICAN leadership of the House is repeatedly and treacherously abusing its investigative powers for political gain against a DEMOCRATIC President (not unlike the REPUBLICAN leadership of the Senate is ignoring its Constitutional duties in regard to advice-and-consent.) In the words of Mitch "the Turtle" McConnell, they're simply doing everything they can to thwart President Obama.

"This should be obvious enough even for someone with a high priority for believing all their favorite politicians can do no wrong. Ever."

My own "personal and spiritual" corruption? LOL. What rot! You don't know me or anything about me.

That you are arrogant and presumptuous enough to make such ludicrous comments regarding my "corruption" because you disagree with my politics?

You're either sadly mistaken or blatantly lying.

Not to mention *I* am not the topic here.

Look in your own warped mirror.

a reply to: xuenchen

Could you clarify for me, what you mean when you title your thread "Obama relents over Fast and Furious documents?"

Do you mean the administration, a body made up of scores of secretaries, spin doctors, advisors, and other assorted nobodies, or do you mean the president himself? I only ask because the two things are distinct from one another, and yet your title, and the wording of the OP suggests an unhelpful and unrealistic blending of the two, in terms of frame of reference.

a reply to: TrueBrit


Do you suppose an unnamed, faceless, bureaucratic cog in the "administration" proclaimed executive privilege in order to cover the wrong doings of other unnamed, faceless, bureaucratic cogs in the DOJ?

Or do you think the President did that for the AG?

originally posted by: Gryphon66
a reply to: NoCorruptionAllowed

Nah. It's partisan because the REPUBLICAN leadership of the House is repeatedly and treacherously abusing its investigative powers for political gain against a DEMOCRATIC President (not unlike the REPUBLICAN leadership of the Senate is ignoring its Constitutional duties in regard to advice-and-consent.) In the words of Mitch "the Turtle" McConnell, they're simply doing everything they can to thwart President Obama.

"This should be obvious enough even for someone with a high priority for believing all their favorite politicians can do no wrong. Ever."

My own "personal and spiritual" corruption? LOL. What rot! You don't know me or anything about me.

That you are arrogant and presumptuous enough to make such ludicrous comments regarding my "corruption" because you disagree with my politics?

You're either sadly mistaken or blatantly lying.

Not to mention *I* am not the topic here.

Look in your own warped mirror.

But when it comes to obvious crimes committed by democrats you are blind as a bat. You can't see that your own blanket protection of Obama, or any group of democrats is purposely oblivious to any wrongdoing on their part, and this mirrors your very own corruption, so YES, I do know you and what you are all about because you often make it very painfully obvious by what you say!

a reply to: NoCorruptionAllowed

What obvious crimes? You're gesturing wildly at the air.

What I see, for example, is 14 Benghazi "investigations" and 14 findings of "no issues."

What I see, is several Republican operatives who admitted that these "investigations" were nothing more than poliitical theatre intentionally contrived to harm Mrs. Clinton's political campaign.

... so NO you don't know me, and NO you don't have any basis to make pompoous comments about my "spiritual" corruption or otherwise.

Since you don't have the ability to understand basic English: I AM NOT THE TOPIC.

I don't care what you think about "me" ... I'm here to discuss the topic at hand. I'll be glad to review the facts of any matter, as I have done. Simply because you choose to swallow hook-line-and-sinker the Republican/right-wing media version of reality doesn't mean that a) I do or that b) any rational thinking person would.

Got facts?

a reply to: Gryphon66

Thank you for proving my point!

Like I said, Oblivious!

originally posted by: NoCorruptionAllowed
a reply to: Gryphon66

Thank you for proving my point!

Like I said, Oblivious!

So, having zero facts to support your blatantly irrational position, you crow and claim victory.

This discussion is a waste of time. Again "Got facts?"

Let's see if there's a discernable pattern here ...

Benghazi: No finding of wrong-doing on the part of the Obama Administration (or Secretary Clinton) despite MILLIONS of taxpayer dollars being wasted in endless searches for political fodder ...

IRS Scandal: No finding of wrong-doing on the part of the Obama Administration ... ibid the ridiculous waste of money

Fast and Furious: No finding of wrong-doing ...

Clinton Email Server: No finding of wrong-doing ...

/shrug

a reply to: Gryphon66


If you were investigating yourself do you realize how much you could get away with?

Capone innocent of all charges says Frank Nitto!
George Bush was 100% on the money says Dick Cheney!
All priests victims of a conspiracy decries the Pope!

Funny how it only works when the Dems do it. They must have more experience at the victim game. I'll gladly leave them to it.

originally posted by: 200Plus
a reply to: Gryphon66


If you were investigating yourself do you realize how much you could get away with?

The implications for innuendo are so great here I'll have to pass on an explicit answer, but the answer is, I usually get away with quite a lot ... *wink wink nudge nudge*

originally posted by: 200Plus
a reply to: Gryphon66


Capone innocent of all charges says Frank Nitto!
George Bush was 100% on the money says Dick Cheney!
All priests victims of a conspiracy decries the Pope!

What interesting scarecrows you have there! Which of them would you say has the most to do with anything we are discussing here?

originally posted by: 200Plus
a reply to: Gryphon66

Funny how it only works when the Dems do it. They must have more experience at the victim game. I'll gladly leave them to it.

... and then you wander off into purely partisan muttering, and abandon any semblance of addressing the matter at hand.

We'll gladly leave you to it too, Plus!

a reply to: xuenchen

and in this instance relent actually means comply with court ruling?

originally posted by: 200Plus
a reply to: TrueBrit
Do you suppose an unnamed, faceless, bureaucratic cog in the "administration" proclaimed executive privilege in order to cover the wrong doings of other unnamed, faceless, bureaucratic cogs in the DOJ? Or do you think the President did that for the AG?

Why yes, all of it. The Executive Branch seems to believe it can bully the Judicial and Legislative Branches to suit its own needs (depending upon the crisis *a fire needs extinguishing*).