Sponsor Message:
Non Aviation Forum
My Starred Topics | Profile | New Topic | Forum Index | Help | Search 
Obama Claims Executive Privilege W Fast & Furious  
User currently offlineslider From United States of America, joined Feb 2004, 6787 posts, RR: 34
Posted (2 years 1 month 1 week 4 days 7 hours ago) and read 3198 times:

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/...-executive-privilege-over-ff-docs/

Obama has claimed Executive Privilege over the Fast & Furious scandal. Wow. Nevermind that then-candidate Obama decried the use of Executive Privilege to hide from Congress…

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bpwYh9TD6Nc&feature=youtu.be

http://www.desmoinesregister.com/vie...-executive-privilege-Fast-Furious-

Quote:
"The assertion of executive privilege raises monumental questions," Iowa Sen. Chuck Grassley said in a statement released Wednesday shortly after the president's move. "How can the President assert executive privilege if there was no White House involvement? How can the President exert executive privilege over documents he's supposedly never seen? Is something very big being hidden to go to this extreme? The contempt citation is an important procedural mechanism in our system of checks and balances. The questions from Congress go to determining what happened in a disastrous government program for accountability and so that it's never repeated again."

This is HUGE. Grassley nails it—in essence, if Obama is trying to cover for Holder by inappropriately applying EP, then he’s going to get spanked. But if he DOES know about it—and crimes were committed—Obama becomes instantly culpable. It’s not documented that Holder has lied to the Issa committee twice as well as retracting multiple statements after longer periods of time. Moreover, think about this: Executive Privilege has been determined, by SCOTUS, to ONLY apply to the president individually. And it has been interpreted to only apply to military, diplomatic, and sensitive national security issues, of which this is none of them.

United States v. Nixon, 418 U.S. 683


Quote:
{The Supreme Court did not reject the claim of privilege out of hand; it noted, in fact, "the valid need for protection of communications between high Government officials and those who advise and assist them in the performance of their manifold duties" and that "Human experience teaches that those who expect public dissemination of their remarks may well temper candor with a concern for appearances and for their own interests to the detriment of the decision making process." This is very similar to the logic that the Court had used in establishing an "executive immunity" defense for high office-holders charged with violating citizens' constitutional rights in the course of performing their duties. The Supreme Court stated: "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 non-diplomatic 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.}

So is Obama saying he knew about it? That would be the only reason to claim EP if the claim is legitimate (which it’s not) since EP doesn’t extend to breaking the law. For that Executive Immunity would have to be claimed. One thing’s for certain: Holder’s stonewalling will come to an end, one way or another. And it may take down this corrupt administration. Except unlike past incidents (and the left’s favorite pillar, that being Watergate), we have a dead body this time. Brian Terry deserves justice.

And this country deserves better.

67 replies: All unread, showing first 25:
 
User currently offlineMir From United States of America, joined Jan 2004, 21529 posts, RR: 55
Reply 1, posted (2 years 1 month 1 week 4 days 7 hours ago) and read 3160 times:

Quoting slider (Thread starter):
Moreover, think about this: Executive Privilege has been determined, by SCOTUS, to ONLY apply to the president individually. And it has been interpreted to only apply to military, diplomatic, and sensitive national security issues, of which this is none of them.

I seem to recall GWB using it to prevent Cheney, Rove, Miers and few others from testifying before Congress. In Cheney's case, it was about meetings with members of the energy industry. In the cases of Rove and Miers, it related to firings of federal judges. Those certainly aren't military, diplomatic or sensitive national security issues. At least Fast and Furious dealt with border security.

Quoting slider (Thread starter):
Except unlike past incidents (and the left%u2019s favorite pillar, that being Watergate), we have a dead body this time.

GWB also invoked EP in the investigation into the death of Pat Tillman. I'm assuming he had a body.

Quoting slider (Thread starter):
Nevermind that then-candidate Obama decried the use of Executive Privilege to hide from Congress%u2026

Of course, because he was in Congress at the time. People change when they get to the White House - that's nothing new, and Obama has certainly shown that the optimism that was many felt about him was unwarranted. But battles over executive privilege are nothing new either, and this just seems like one of those cases of "it's not our guy who's doing it, so let's get outraged."

-Mir



7 billion, one nation, imagination...it's a beautiful day
User currently offlineslider From United States of America, joined Feb 2004, 6787 posts, RR: 34
Reply 2, posted (2 years 1 month 1 week 4 days 7 hours ago) and read 3146 times:

Every president has invoked it--Bush 43 6 times, Clinton 12, EVERY POTUS has.

But there's a marked difference in one president doing it to cover something about how Federal judges were fired and another when there's a BODY COUNT.

Quoting Mir (Reply 1):
and this just seems like one of those cases of "it's not our guy who's doing it, so let's get outraged."

Tell the family of Brian Terry that.

Tell the family of Jaime Zapata that.

Tell the families of the hundreds of innocent Mexican citizens who've been killed as a result of illegal gun-running.


User currently offlineconnies4ever From Canada, joined Feb 2006, 4066 posts, RR: 13
Reply 3, posted (2 years 1 month 1 week 4 days 7 hours ago) and read 3142 times:

Quoting Mir (Reply 1):
few others

?? Few ?? I thought more or less it was all.

Quoting Mir (Reply 1):
GWB also invoked EP in the investigation into the death of Pat Tillman. I'm assuming he had a body.


That still leaves a bad taste in the mouths of many. I'm sure that includes the parents, who should know the real truth.

Quoting Mir (Reply 1):
Of course, because he was in Congress at the time.

Perspective is always a derivative of the seat you happen to have at any given time.



Nostalgia isn't what it used to be.
User currently offlineDreadnought From United States of America, joined Feb 2008, 8793 posts, RR: 24
Reply 4, posted (2 years 1 month 1 week 4 days 6 hours ago) and read 3131 times:

Quoting Mir (Reply 1):
I seem to recall GWB using it to prevent Cheney, Rove, Miers and few others from testifying before Congress. In Cheney's case, it was about meetings with members of the energy industry.

Did those discussions lead to the deaths of Americans? Any crime involved? In this case, there was a crime - guns were officially permitted to "walk" where normally they would have been stopped by currently valid gun control laws, and as a result one federal officer and at least 100 Mexican nationals are dead.

We want to know who approved the operation.

You know, the stupid thing here is that if, at the very beginning when the story first broke, Holder, Obama or whoever it was who gave the OK had owned up, said, "We screwed up. I'm sorry.", then this whole issue would have gone away pretty quickly. Nobody is expected to be perfect. But the cover-up - that's what gets under everyone's noses.

Quoting Mir (Reply 1):
In the cases of Rove and Miers, it related to firings of federal judges. Those certainly aren't military, diplomatic or sensitive national security issues.

And the firing of the judges was in no way illegal, nor did it leave a trail of bodies.



Veni Vidi Castratavi Illegitimos
User currently offlineJetsgo From United States of America, joined Jul 2003, 3080 posts, RR: 5
Reply 5, posted (2 years 1 month 1 week 4 days 6 hours ago) and read 3121 times:

Quoting Mir (Reply 1):
I seem to recall GWB

Is that all you can muster up? GWB did it? Does that somehow excuse Obama? GWB was a terrible president, but that does not excuse Obama's blatant misuse of EP. I hope SCOTUS slaps this back in his face.



Marine Corps Aviation, The Last To Let You Down!
User currently offlinewindy95 From United States of America, joined Dec 2008, 2713 posts, RR: 8
Reply 6, posted (2 years 1 month 1 week 4 days 6 hours ago) and read 3102 times:

Oh wait...Bush did it...Nice that Obama changed his mind on another thing he was against during the Bush admin. This guy is joke and he and Holder need to be impeached.


OMG-Obama Must Go
User currently offlineslider From United States of America, joined Feb 2004, 6787 posts, RR: 34
Reply 7, posted (2 years 1 month 1 week 4 days 6 hours ago) and read 3084 times:

Quoting Dreadnought (Reply 4):
You know, the stupid thing here is that if, at the very beginning when the story first broke, Holder, Obama or whoever it was who gave the OK had owned up, said, "We screwed up. I'm sorry.", then this whole issue would have gone away pretty quickly. Nobody is expected to be perfect. But the cover-up - that's what gets under everyone's noses.

But it’s not only a political condition to deny wrongdoing—regardless of party—but it is a specifically pervasive condition with this Narcissist in Chief…he’s pathologically unable to admit wrong. It’s his nature: Obama believes what he’s doing is right. And know why? Because he, as well as Holder and Hillary (I’ll dig up the quote and link), have said that we need to ban assault weapons because of the drug trade. With the Mexican cartels going crazy, all the violence and rampant murders, the goal from the beginning was to enact another assault on the Second Amendment.

Quoting Jetsgo (Reply 5):
Is that all you can muster up? GWB did it? Does that somehow excuse Obama? GWB was a terrible president, but that does not excuse Obama's blatant misuse of EP. I hope SCOTUS slaps this back in his face.

Precisely right---another display of Bush Derangement Syndrome in action. I concur with Dreadnought that Bush was a terrible president, but this far surpasses that.


User currently offlineWestJet747 From Canada, joined Aug 2011, 1830 posts, RR: 10
Reply 8, posted (2 years 1 month 1 week 4 days 6 hours ago) and read 3078 times:

Quoting connies4ever (Reply 3):
Perspective is always a derivative of the seat you happen to have at any given time.

   100% true.

Quoting Dreadnought (Reply 4):
You know, the stupid thing here is that if, at the very beginning when the story first broke, Holder, Obama or whoever it was who gave the OK had owned up, said, "We screwed up. I'm sorry.", then this whole issue would have gone away pretty quickly.

I don't believe that for a second. If either one of them admitted fault, they surely would have been crucified. Whoever is responsible knows this, and that's why they're backed into the corner they're in now. A lie begets a lie begets a lie, until the liar is caught, whomever that may be.

Quoting windy95 (Reply 6):
he and Holder need to be impeached.

We get you don't like Obama, that's fair, but if you believe this is an impeachable offense, then we would have seen a whole lot more impeachments than just good ol' Bill over the past century.

Quoting slider (Reply 7):
assault weapons
Quoting slider (Reply 7):
another assault on the Second Amendment

Sorry to stray off topic, but is there really ANY reason to possess an assault weapon unless you're serving in the military or part of a SWAT team?



Flying refined.
User currently offlinemt99 From United States of America, joined May 1999, 6574 posts, RR: 6
Reply 9, posted (2 years 1 month 1 week 4 days 6 hours ago) and read 3068 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting Dreadnought (Reply 4):
You know, the stupid thing here is that if, at the very beginning when the story first broke, Holder, Obama or whoever it was who gave the OK had owned up, said, "We screwed up. I'm sorry."

Like the previous admin said about Iraq?



Step into my office, baby
User currently online2707200X From United States of America, joined Mar 2009, 8467 posts, RR: 1
Reply 10, posted (2 years 1 month 1 week 4 days 6 hours ago) and read 3063 times:

Almost 1,300 pages of documents released and still Eric Holder get the eneditable contempt of congress.

It seems that the Republicans care more about show trials and contempt for their enemies, elected and voting than giving a damn about jobs, infrastructure, traditional bipartisan themes and the well being of this country.



"And all I ask is a tall ship and a star to steer her by." John Masefield Sea-Fever
User currently offlineMir From United States of America, joined Jan 2004, 21529 posts, RR: 55
Reply 11, posted (2 years 1 month 1 week 4 days 6 hours ago) and read 3062 times:

Quoting Jetsgo (Reply 5):
Is that all you can muster up? GWB did it? Does that somehow excuse Obama? GWB was a terrible president, but that does not excuse Obama's blatant misuse of EP.

If I had wanted to excuse Obama, would I have said:

Quoting Mir (Reply 1):
People change when they get to the White House - that's nothing new, and Obama has certainly shown that the optimism that was many felt about him was unwarranted.

My point was only that while you might get the impression from the OP that invoking executive privilege on this sort of thing is a wholly unprecedented thing, it's not, and, like many things in politics, it's something that people only get irritated about when it's the other side that's doing it.

Quoting Dreadnought (Reply 4):
Did those discussions lead to the deaths of Americans? Any crime involved?

Well, we don't know, do we? But if you think there was no corruption, at the very least, going on behind those closed doors, I've got some lovely oceanfront property in Kansas to sell you.

Quoting Dreadnought (Reply 4):

And the firing of the judges was in no way illegal

Well, if it wasn't illegal, then there's no reason not to testify before Congress, is there?

Quoting Dreadnought (Reply 4):
You know, the stupid thing here is that if, at the very beginning when the story first broke, Holder, Obama or whoever it was who gave the OK had owned up, said, "We screwed up. I'm sorry.", then this whole issue would have gone away pretty quickly. Nobody is expected to be perfect. But the cover-up - that's what gets under everyone's noses.

Yup. I think the program was developed with the best of intentions, I think it was a very flawed idea that left too many opportunities for things to go wrong, and that it blew up in people's faces. But that doesn't make it illegal.

-Mir



7 billion, one nation, imagination...it's a beautiful day
User currently offlineKen777 From United States of America, joined Mar 2004, 8191 posts, RR: 8
Reply 12, posted (2 years 1 month 1 week 4 days 5 hours ago) and read 3058 times:

Quoting Mir (Reply 1):
I seem to recall GWB using it to prevent Cheney, Rove, Miers and few others from testifying before Congress. In Cheney's case, it was about meetings with members of the energy industry. In the cases of Rove and Miers, it related to firings of federal judges. Those certainly aren't military, diplomatic or sensitive national security issues.

The Cheney use of EP is the most interesting as we may well be paying for the decisions made in that meeting.

I would also love to know if Halliburton was in EP Protected meetings with Cheney as Old Dick was building the case for the invasion of Iraq. If the GOP pushes down EP far enough on the Holder issue then the Democrats will be free to start investigations into this on the day they get a majority in the House.

Quoting windy95 (Reply 6):
This guy is joke and he and Holder need to be impeached.

Go ahead and go after Holder. Every step taken by the GOP will set new standards for future GOP Presidents to live with.

The comments Mir made in Reply 1 show just how important EP has been to the GOP in the past, and will be in the future. That is a pretty hefty, long term cost to pay for bit of political games this week.


User currently offlinePHX787 From Japan, joined Mar 2012, 7233 posts, RR: 17
Reply 13, posted (2 years 1 month 1 week 4 days 5 hours ago) and read 3051 times:

Quoting slider (Thread starter):
Obama has claimed Executive Privilege over the Fast & Furious scandal. Wow. Nevermind that then-candidate Obama decried the use of Executive Privilege to hide from Congress…

You can't just claim that it's "executive privilege." that's just corrupt dictatorship, especially when Americans are getting killed from our own Americans.

I have a feeling that if Obama is found to be covering up something, he will get impeached. I'm sick and tired of his crap already.



One of the FB admins for PHX Spotters. "Zach the Expat!"
User currently offlineMir From United States of America, joined Jan 2004, 21529 posts, RR: 55
Reply 14, posted (2 years 1 month 1 week 4 days 5 hours ago) and read 3042 times:

Quoting WestJet747 (Reply 8):
I don't believe that for a second. If either one of them admitted fault, they surely would have been crucified. Whoever is responsible knows this, and that's why they're backed into the corner they're in now. A lie begets a lie begets a lie, until the liar is caught, whomever that may be.

The cover-up is always worse than the crime. I agree that there would have been a lot of attempts at crucifying whoever took responsibility, but that will likely happen anyway, and now it'll be a bigger deal, whatever comes out of it.

-Mir



7 billion, one nation, imagination...it's a beautiful day
User currently offlineseb146 From United States of America, joined Nov 1999, 11533 posts, RR: 15
Reply 15, posted (2 years 1 month 1 week 4 days 5 hours ago) and read 3014 times:

Quoting slider (Thread starter):
And it has been interpreted to only apply to military, diplomatic, and sensitive national security issues, of which this is none of them.

Actually, this is all three of those. There is another soverign nation involved (I know that means nothing to the 'let's invade them and lie about it' crowd) so that brings up diplomatic and national security issues. In some states, the military is involved in border security. Plus, if any administraion ever hopes to launch any other undercover missions for any reason, they need to keep names secret.

Unlike Valarie Plame.

Quoting slider (Reply 7):
It’s his nature: Obama believes what he’s doing is right.

That same tired excuse was used for GWB pulling out of Afghanistan and doubling down on Iraq. So, it is okay for the rich white guy with the (R) behind his name, but not the self-supporting black guy with the (D) behind his name. We know. We get it. Money and privilige trumps working class. We get it.



Life in the wall is a drag.
User currently offlineslider From United States of America, joined Feb 2004, 6787 posts, RR: 34
Reply 16, posted (2 years 1 month 1 week 4 days 5 hours ago) and read 3013 times:

Quoting Ken777 (Reply 12):
The comments Mir made in Reply 1 show just how important EP has been to the GOP in the past, and will be in the future. That is a pretty hefty, long term cost to pay for bit of political games this week.

Ah, leave it to good old Ken to play the partisan. Hey, I agree with you on the Cheney thing...I still don't know fully what they didn't want to disclose nor understand the rationale for having invoked it. But the context of this is MUCH different from merely using it to cover discussions made about firing federal judges.

Here's a good little overview on modern use of EP:
http://www.nationaljournal.com/polit...ivilege-in-recent-history-20120620

Rather bipartisan invocation of it, isn't it? And for potentially damnable perceived transgressions right?

http://www.nationalreview.com/corner...ecutive-privilege-shannen-w-coffin

A little additional insight into how EP works above as well. It's important to know the 2 primary means of using it and WHY they're used. Gives context. You know, context is what helps is intellectually differentiate between the R and D behind the name, right?  

As one commenter put it:

Quote:
The most salient and recent precedents on executive privilege are the D.C. Circuit's rulings in the 1997 Espy case (involving Clinton's Agriculture Secretary) and the 2004 Judicial Watch case (involving Clinton's 2000 pardons). Under these precedents, as you suggest, there are two possible ways a President can assert executive privilege, either (a) the "deliberative process" privilege; or (b) the "presidential communications" privilege. President Obama has not invoked the latter, so what matters is what these cases say about the "deliberative process" privilege.

Importantly, under Espy, "where there is reason to believe the documents sought may shed light on government misconduct, the deliberative process privilege is routinely denied on the grounds that shielding internal governmental deliberations in this context does not serve the public interest in honest, effective government." Put differently, again by Espy, the privilege "disappears altogether when there is any reason to believe government misconduct has occurred." That threshold has clearly been met in Fast and Furious.

The context here in which the claim of executive privilege has been invoked undermines the integrity of the claim. By invoking executive privilege to specifically cover the administration's response to an investigation into its conduct eviscerates the underlying rationale for the privilege to exist.

So, shall we talk about context some more?

Quoting PHX787 (Reply 13):
You can't just claim that it's "executive privilege." that's just corrupt dictatorship, especially when Americans are getting killed from our own Americans.

I have a feeling that if Obama is found to be covering up something, he will get impeached. I'm sick and tired of his crap already.

I agree with you about the corruption part. This goes FAR beyond anything Tricky Dick did. As I said before, there was no body count in Watergate.


User currently offlineWestJet747 From Canada, joined Aug 2011, 1830 posts, RR: 10
Reply 17, posted (2 years 1 month 1 week 4 days 5 hours ago) and read 2988 times:

Quoting Mir (Reply 14):
The cover-up is always worse than the crime. I agree that there would have been a lot of attempts at crucifying whoever took responsibility, but that will likely happen anyway, and now it'll be a bigger deal, whatever comes out of it.

I totally agree with that. I was just pointing out that it wouldn't have been as peachy as suggested had they admitted to it early on. There's no such thing as leniency when it comes to Blue vs. Red.

Quoting slider (Reply 16):
Hey, I agree with you on the Cheney thing...I still don't know fully what they didn't want to disclose nor understand the rationale for having invoked it. But the context of this is MUCH different from merely using it to cover discussions made about firing federal judges.

The situation with Cheney was with respect to him having private interests in Haliburton, was it not? If so, it can be argued that there is a body count attached to that one as well.

I mostly agree with your Watergate remark, although a gross misappropriation of one's power (the highest power in the land, no less) is still a huge injustice whether someone dies as a result or not.



Flying refined.
User currently offlineslider From United States of America, joined Feb 2004, 6787 posts, RR: 34
Reply 18, posted (2 years 1 month 1 week 4 days 4 hours ago) and read 2983 times:

Quoting WestJet747 (Reply 17):
I mostly agree with your Watergate remark, although a gross misappropriation of one's power (the highest power in the land, no less) is still a huge injustice whether someone dies as a result or not.

I would also add that beyond the fact that we have fatalities involved in Fast & Furious, we also have what is at the least gross incompetence by the adminstration since they had ZERO controls in place to track the guns shipped to Mexico and at the worst a deliberate action to put our agents in harm's way in doing so. They had to relinquish their weapons once crossing over into Mexico and were ambushed.

The mainstream old media has done its best to ignore this story--another deliberate abdication of their duties as govt watchdog--but now? This story isn't going away. Nor should it. And if I were Romney--speaking as an opponent of Obama and not as a repub or conservative--I would absolutely hammer away on this.


User currently offlineKen777 From United States of America, joined Mar 2004, 8191 posts, RR: 8
Reply 19, posted (2 years 1 month 1 week 4 days 4 hours ago) and read 2956 times:

Quoting Mir (Reply 11):
Well, we don't know, do we?

Just like we don't know about all the discussions that led to invading Iraq. We do know some, especially from reading Woodward's book.

Quoting PHX787 (Reply 13):
that's just corrupt dictatorship

Not really. It is simply two branches of government with equal power and one (the legislative) trying to get an hand over the "opposition", which is the President.

The problems with political power struggles is that they set new standards for the future - and generally it is a lower standard.

Quoting PHX787 (Reply 13):
especially when Americans are getting killed from our own Americans.

Such as more Americans killed in Iraq than 9/11? We never have learned the whole truth on that one.

Quoting seb146 (Reply 15):
Unlike Valarie Plame.

ANother Cheney FUBAR. Or is simply because he is just a nasty little man missing in integrity?

Quoting seb146 (Reply 15):
That same tired excuse was used for GWB pulling out of Afghanistan and doubling down on Iraq.

Bush moved troops to Iraq because he eventually discovered he was taken to the cleaners on the WMD bit and was totally misled on how military operations would go in Iraq.

Quoting slider (Reply 16):
Ah, leave it to good old Ken to play the partisan.

LOL! And I thought I was being non-partisan by noting that both sides will lose in the future with lower standards.

Quoting slider (Reply 16):
Here's a good little overview on modern use of EP:

Nice, easy to understand article.

The difficult part is to really identifying what should be held under EP. Cheney lowered the standards with his visit from the oil men. A list of attendees should be protected? Guess so. :-i

Quoting slider (Reply 18):
I would also add that beyond the fact that we have fatalities involved in Fast & Furious, we also have what is at the least gross incompetence by the adminstration since they had ZERO controls in place to track the guns shipped to Mexico and at the worst a deliberate action to put our agents in harm's way in doing so.

Sort of like the previous administration when they had similar programs? I don't think the GOP really wants the public to know the full range of similar programs that were run under Bush/Cheney.

Don't push too hard for what will only be the "latest" program when you have the risks of previous programs becoming public.


User currently offlinePHX787 From Japan, joined Mar 2012, 7233 posts, RR: 17
Reply 20, posted (2 years 1 month 1 week 4 days 4 hours ago) and read 2951 times:

Quoting Ken777 (Reply 19):
Such as more Americans killed in Iraq than 9/11? We never have learned the whole truth on that one.

Ok This is what I tell everybody when they asked why we went to Iraq:

We led a coalition and was given a UN Security Council Resolution which basically TOLD us to go to Iraq. We just stayed there a little too long because of the insurgency.



One of the FB admins for PHX Spotters. "Zach the Expat!"
User currently offlineMir From United States of America, joined Jan 2004, 21529 posts, RR: 55
Reply 21, posted (2 years 1 month 1 week 4 days 1 hour ago) and read 2876 times:

Quoting PHX787 (Reply 20):
Ok This is what I tell everybody when they asked why we went to Iraq:

We led a coalition and was given a UN Security Council Resolution which basically TOLD us to go to Iraq.

Well, you're incorrect. Nobody was ever told to go into Iraq. There was a resolution that, as the Bush Administration (and others in the coalition) decided to interpret it, authorized an invasion (but did not require one). You can find other governments that drew different interpretations.

-Mir



7 billion, one nation, imagination...it's a beautiful day
User currently onlineltbewr From United States of America, joined Jan 2004, 13040 posts, RR: 12
Reply 22, posted (2 years 1 month 1 week 4 days ago) and read 2860 times:

The 'Fast & Furious' program was a volatile mix of the drug wars, our obscene demand for drugs, our absolutism as to 2nd Amendment gun 'rights', a classic example of the horrible decisions government bureaucracies can make, our relations with Mexico, and most of all - money. Many 1000's of important documents have been produced, AG Holder and others have testified giving much important information, some ATF persons fired or forced into retirement

But all that does not satisfy a number of Republicans who are seeking any and all weaknesses to explode upon the Obama administration. I also think they need a distraction issue, to divert attention from their weaknesses and lack of policies rather than offer something of substance.

While some fears exist that President Obama is trying to cover his and Holder's asses, some of the remaining information Republicans want disclosed is not legal to disclose, like Grand Jury testimony. Discussions by the AG and the President may be privileged for sound reasons. Some further information could ruin ongoing prosecutions as well as put LEO's, ATF agents and Mexican officials all at risk of death. Those may be factors that make it right to use the extreme of using Executive Privilege.


User currently offlineokie From United States of America, joined Jul 2003, 2988 posts, RR: 3
Reply 23, posted (2 years 1 month 1 week 4 days ago) and read 2858 times:

Quoting slider (Reply 16):
I agree with you about the corruption part. This goes FAR beyond anything Tricky Dick did. As I said before, there was no body count in Watergate.

Uni-vision and Calderon were on Obama early on and Obama denied any knowledge. Trying to use executive privilege would prove that not to be true and indicates White house involvement.

Considering the number of deaths involved in Mexico attributed to the Mexican Cartels that were being armed by the present administration, I would suspect some serious backlash coming from Mexico and the Mexican-American community as well. They were somewhat vocal early on.

The comment I heard was that from what is known at this point, Fast and Furious is going to make Watergate look like Motel 6.

Okie


User currently offlineRevelation From United States of America, joined Feb 2005, 12357 posts, RR: 25
Reply 24, posted (2 years 1 month 1 week 4 days ago) and read 2853 times:

Quoting slider (Reply 2):
Tell the family of Brian Terry that.

I thought the GOP and NRA standard line was "guns don't kill people, people kill people"?

Yet here guns kill people?

The GOP are cynically and hypocritically using Terry's murder for political muck raking instead of using it rally support around fixing the incredibly lax gun laws in the US in general and Texas in particular that responsible for literally millions of deaths.

DOJ has admitted the operation was a huge mistake, and the principals involved have either resigned or have been reassigned.

Last night the GOP were given a chance to back off but that's not what they are after, they simply are after political points.

Today they got their pure party line vote on their contempt motion, but in the end it will amount to nothing.



Inspiration, move me brightly!
25 Stabilator : Why are liberals always bringing up race in political threads? Stop race baiting. It's not cute, and derails the thread.
26 Post contains links fr8mech : So, Obama is using executive privelege. It's been used in the past and it will be used in the future. But, by using executive he is admitting that he
27 Mir : He can in order to grant members of his Administration immunity from the requirement to testify before Congress. The privilege extends to the executi
28 Stabilator : I think you misquoted. That was Fr8mech's post, not mine.
29 Dreadnought : The precedent quoted in the OP is pretty clear - if this goes to the USSC this immunity will be slapped down. But the point of this exercise is to pu
30 Post contains images Mir : Well, looks like I picked a whole bouquet of oopsy-daisies.... Obama would hardly be the first politician (or person) in the history of this country
31 Dreadnought : True, but rarely so blatantly. Hopefully the public will remember this in November (even though the MSM is desperately trying to downplay this). Not
32 Mir : If it's different, then that proves my point. -Mir
33 seb146 : Because there was not this much hate from the right when the Democrat was white. Especially when the black guy's policies are in line with St. Ronnie
34 Post contains links PHX787 : Here you go: all of the countries that entered Iraq in 2003. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Multi-National_Force_%E2%80%93_Iraq
35 Post contains links bjorn14 : 'We're the Most Transparent and Ethical Administration in U.S. History' http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OXWTdTnhebs Yeah right.
36 Post contains links and images casinterest : No , the Dow didn't. http://finance.yahoo.com/echarts?s=%...s=0;logscale=off;source=undefined; The Nasdaq was toast, but not 2/3 rds down. but I thin
37 Post contains images zkojq : LOL. For starters I recommend you google 'curveball'. I think the republicans also have a wider agenda of trying to get rid of the ATF and its associ
38 Revelation : Excellent summary. Thank you for your thoughtful posts. It does point out the issue that the right needs to be careful of - possible blowback because
39 slider : Hey, let's have that talk. How about Operation Wide Receiver.... And BTW, all such weapons were accounted for there. And no one was murdered with the
40 casinterest : they are not investigating the Dead bodies. the Contempt is over documents from after the operation ended. talk about corrupt. Issa stands at the top
41 seb146 : So, I can't go buy a gun anymore? BTW: the right promised when they were elected in 2010 they would give everyone jobs and reduce the deficit. Yet, t
42 Revelation : Yes, the estimate is around 50,000 over the last decade. It'd be nice if Congress got on with doing something about that, instead of fixating on the
43 Post contains links fr8mech : You mean like 'the War on Women'? Are we allowed only go on Obama Administration sponsored witch hunts? Hell, the idiot on MSNBC insinuated that this
44 Ken777 : Using EP is not an "admission" of anything. President use EP because there is an on-going battle between the Legislative & Executives. Lord Reaga
45 fr8mech : I didn't say there was anything wrong with it, Ken. I just wondered why exert the privlege if you're not involved...The White House has denied involv
46 Revelation : What are you on about now? How is the fact that a bunch of men were having hearings to decide womens' health issues anything other than a fact? So yo
47 Post contains images PHX787 : Either way we went in, we initially had a lot of public support. I saw direct parallels to the Libyan war last year except there was more direct acti
48 Post contains links zkojq : And how many convictions did Wide Reviever result in? Yes but most of that public support was based on distortions and lies, such as that there was a
49 Mir : Actually, we lost track of most of those weapons as well. And they may have well been used to murder people. In fact, I'd say it's likely. -Mir
50 seb146 : Seems like we know what happened. Seems like the right is just doing this in the run up to the election to make themselves look like they are doing s
51 Post contains links Dreadnought : I believe they have 6 convictions, one acquital, and two still on the run. Yes, which as I recall is why the operation was cancelled after a few mont
52 Post contains images casinterest : No. Tthe documentation Issa and his whitch hunters want is from AFTER the program was shut down. They already have the documents that would prove thi
53 Dreadnought : They are looking for documents which say, "This is what we are going to say, but THIS is what really happened". The ATF and all other government agen
54 Mir : There are accounts that cast some serious doubt about how seriously the ATF took the task of tracking them. I'm seeing quite a lot of parallels betwe
55 casinterest : If it isn't in the documents from Prior, then there was never an official edict. Anything after the fact is everyone sorting out the mess. Your state
56 Ken777 : EP has, in the past, been used by one President to maintain the separation of powers when it was his predecessor who was being reviewed. I believe it
57 Post contains images Revelation : Mitt Romney, apparently struggling with diaper rash Yet now we read: How are you going to do anything in one day? Hmm, could it be via executive order
58 Dreadnought : Just like Obama gave Obamacare waivers to his reelection fund donators - a blanket waiver for everyone. Surely that is fair, don't you think? Or shou
59 Revelation : Fair? No, not at all. Care to address the hypocrisy of Romney planning to use executive orders after railing against them in the F&F case?
60 Ken777 : Considering that the GOP SuperPAC is going to blow the Democrats away I wouldn't get too upset about cash buying politicians. Or didn't you read abou
61 Post contains links slider : He shouldn't. The fight is done, it needs to follow the rules. But funny how the left doesn't play by the rules but Romney would be expected to follo
62 Revelation : It's the cost the conservatives have to pay for wrapping themselves in the flag and pretending to obey the Constitution as much as they pretend to ob
63 slider : It should be, yes. For Executive Privilege, as with seemingly everything the govt does, nothing is consistent, much is arbitrary, and less is constit
64 Ken777 : And Chairman Darrell Issa has just given any future Administration sufficient reason to deny the guy with a Security Clearance. The guy simply isn't
65 L-188 : The only possible exception is J. Edgar Hoover but that was because he had dirt on everybody and basicly blackmailed them to keep his job.
66 Dreadnought : Ah, so you are fully and openly in support of political corruption, I see. Well, you are a Democrat, so I'm not surprised. I am not aware of any exec
67 Revelation : I guess I posted before the coffee kicked in. I'm not doing much better today so let's see how this goes... I misread the question. I think it's unfai
Top Of Page
Forum Index

This topic is archived and can not be replied to any more.

Printer friendly format

Similar topics:More similar topics...
2 Fast 2 Furious: Yay Or Nay? posted Sun Jun 8 2003 14:41:52 by UPSfueler
Soldier Won't Deploy: Claims Obama Not President posted Tue Jul 14 2009 20:55:38 by Falcon84
The Fast&the Furious: The Aircraft Version posted Thu Dec 1 2005 11:33:29 by KLMCedric
What Car Does Leti Drive In Fast And Furious posted Tue Feb 3 2004 04:52:06 by Sovietjet
The Fast And The Furious: Questions posted Mon May 19 2003 17:30:49 by Matt D
Fast And The Furious 2? posted Sun Sep 22 2002 03:39:21 by UALrampORD
"The Fast And The Furious" posted Wed Jul 17 2002 13:57:04 by Sudden
Your Chance To Meet Obama And The Working Class posted Fri Jun 15 2012 13:59:53 by Superfly
Bounty Offered On Obama And H Clinton Heads posted Sat Jun 9 2012 19:45:38 by Dreadnought
Astrologers Predict Obama Re-election posted Wed May 30 2012 09:17:16 by bmacleod