Fast and Furious scandal: Obama exerts executive privilege; House panel moves forward

General Buck Turgidson said:
Actually, the answer is yes, he can. The deliberative process of Executive branch personnel is protected by the Executive Privilege (at least as asserted by the Executive branch over time). The president need not be involved.
Click to expand...


Actually, the answer is no, he can't....this has nothing to do with the president on a personal basis....he isn't involved.....
This is plain and simple stonewalling to hinder the Congress doing its duty to oversee and prevent agency's from breaking the law......

This is not witch hunt as that happened during the Eisenhower years. This is a legitimate investigation into a gov. program that caused the death
of a border patrol agent and put thousands of guns into the hands of Mex. drug cartels in spite of the known failure of a similar program just one or two years before....

The Supreme Court confirmed the legitimacy of this doctrine in United States v. Nixon, but only to the extent of confirming that there is a qualified privilege. Once invoked, a presumption of privilege is established, requiring the Prosecutor to make a "sufficient showing" that the "Presidential material" is "essential to the justice of the case."(418 U.S. at 713-14). Chief Justice Burger further stated that executive privilege would most effectively apply when the oversight of the executive would impair that branch's national security concerns.

IMO....this issue does not satisfy the reguirements set forth by the SC
 
bravo said:
Actually, the answer is no, he can't....this has nothing to do with the president on a personal basis....he isn't involved.....
This is plain and simple stonewalling to hinder the Congress doing its duty to oversee and prevent agency's from breaking the law......

This is not witch hunt as that happened during the Eisenhower years. This is a legitimate investigation into a gov. program that caused the death
of a border patrol agent and put thousands of guns into the hands of Mex. drug cartels in spite of the known failure of a similar program just one or two years before....

The Supreme Court confirmed the legitimacy of this doctrine in United States v. Nixon, but only to the extent of confirming that there is a qualified privilege. Once invoked, a presumption of privilege is established, requiring the Prosecutor to make a "sufficient showing" that the "Presidential material" is "essential to the justice of the case."(418 U.S. at 713-14). Chief Justice Burger further stated that executive privilege would most effectively apply when the oversight of the executive would impair that branch's national security concerns.

IMO....this issue does not satisfy the reguirements set forth by the SC
Click to expand...

Then it all needs to be investigated, including the Bush administration official, Issa should not cherry pick.
 
bravo said:
Actually, the answer is no, he can't....this has nothing to do with the president on a personal basis....he isn't involved.....
This is plain and simple stonewalling to hinder the Congress doing its duty to oversee and prevent agency's from breaking the law......

This is not witch hunt as that happened during the Eisenhower years. This is a legitimate investigation into a gov. program that caused the death
of a border patrol agent and put thousands of guns into the hands of Mex. drug cartels in spite of the known failure of a similar program just one or two years before....

The Supreme Court confirmed the legitimacy of this doctrine in United States v. Nixon, but only to the extent of confirming that there is a qualified privilege. Once invoked, a presumption of privilege is established, requiring the Prosecutor to make a "sufficient showing" that the "Presidential material" is "essential to the justice of the case."(418 U.S. at 713-14). Chief Justice Burger further stated that executive privilege would most effectively apply when the oversight of the executive would impair that branch's national security concerns.

IMO....this issue does not satisfy the reguirements set forth by the SC
Click to expand...


U.S. v. Nixon doesn't address the issue of presidential invocation of Executive Privilege in response to congressional demands for information.
 
Derp Derp said:
Ya'll lack of consistency is sooo grossly hypocritical. Bush invoked executive privelage over issue far, far, far more significant than this six times and not a peep from you folks. Why the double standard, hmm?
Click to expand...

Not a peep, eh? Link us up to your complaints and me "not peeping"...

And as I tell my children (well not anymore because they don't use this "defense" any longer) "they did it too" is not a defense, it is a confession.

Let's go through that GWB thing...

1st time was in answer to an investigation into how they used Mob Informants. Nobody died and not one friendly neighbor was subjected to what they call an act of war.

2nd time was in answer to meetings at the WH involving energy execs. Nobody died and not one friendly neighbor was subjected to what they call an act of war.

3rd time was when they subpoenaed documents from Presidential Advisors Harriet Miers and Sarah Taylor. This one seems legit, and nobody died and not one friendly neighbor was subjected to what they call an act of war.

4th time, again for subpoenaed documents from Presidential Advisors Harriet Miers and Sarah Taylor. Nobody died and not one friendly neighbor was subjected to what they call an act of war.

5th time, regarding Pat Tillman's friendly fire death in Afghanistan. Pat died, and Afghanistan was definitely subjected to acts of war, but we were at war with them and they were never considered either a neighbor or friendly. This particular issue doesn't even come close to F&F and not one friendly neighbor was subjected to what they call an act of war.

6th time, over firing US Attorneys, which every President has a right to do, they subpoenaed Karl Rove, a Presidential Advisor, once again, this was not even close to having a friendly neighbor subjected to an act of war and nobody died.

I reject your premise that these were "more significant".
 
Damocles said:
Not a peep, eh? Link us up to your complaints and me "not peeping"...

And as I tell my children (well not anymore because they don't use this "defense" any longer) "they did it too" is not a defense, it is a confession.

Let's go through that GWB thing...

1st time was in answer to an investigation into how they used Mob Informants. Nobody died and not one friendly neighbor was subjected to what they call an act of war.

2nd time was in answer to meetings at the WH involving energy execs. Nobody died and not one friendly neighbor was subjected to what they call an act of war.

3rd time was when they subpoenaed documents from Presidential Advisors Harriet Miers and Sarah Taylor. This one seems legit, and nobody died and not one friendly neighbor was subjected to what they call an act of war.

4th time, again for subpoenaed documents from Presidential Advisors Harriet Miers and Sarah Taylor. Nobody died and not one friendly neighbor was subjected to what they call an act of war.

5th time, regarding Pat Tillman's friendly fire death in Afghanistan. Pat died, and Afghanistan was definitely subjected to acts of war, but we were at war with them and they were never considered either a neighbor or friendly. This particular issue doesn't even come close to F&F and not one friendly neighbor was subjected to what they call an act of war.

6th time, over firing US Attorneys, which every President has a right to do, they subpoenaed Karl Rove, a Presidential Advisor, once again, this was not even close to having a friendly neighbor subjected to an act of war and nobody died.

I reject your premise that these were "more significant".
Click to expand...
It's not the point Damo. Transparency in government is a very serious issue. So why do you have one standard for Bush and another for Obama? Why did we hear very little about those who walked in lockstep with their Messiah Bush but invoking executive privelage by Obama is cause for a constitutional crises? It smacks of partisan hackery.
 
Derp Derp said:
It's not the point Damo. Transparency in government is a very serious issue. So why do you have one standard for Bush and another for Obama? Why did we hear very little about those who walked in lockstep with their Messiah Bush but invoking executive privelage by Obama is cause for a constitutional crises? It smacks of partisan hackery.
Click to expand...

How about Obama calling Bush out for it as a candidate in '07 and now doing it himself?
 
Derp Derp said:
It's not the point Damo. Transparency in government is a very serious issue. So why do you have one standard for Bush and another for Obama? Why did we hear very little about those who walked in lockstep with their Messiah Bush but invoking executive privelage by Obama is cause for a constitutional crises? It smacks of partisan hackery.
Click to expand...

Again, link me up to where I said "not a peep"... The reality is you remember based on partisanship rather than reality. I was often here telling you what I thought of Bush, and not much of it was good. The guy wasn't a conservative by any measure. Although now that I've seen the "transparency" you call for here I fully comprehend that you don't give a whip about it when there is a D in the office. What smacks of hackery is pretending that this is less "significant" than asking for records of meetings with energy execs.

This is far more important than any of the issues I listed in that post, and instead of seeking answers you seek to compel others to stop asking. People died here and an act of war was perpetrated on a friendly neighbor and this Administration is dragging their feet and trying to keep people from finding out what happened.
 
cawacko said:
How about Obama calling Bush out for it as a candidate in '07 and now doing it himself?
Click to expand...

And that one was over firing US Attorneys which every President has done for a very long time. In that particular interview he even mentioned how "transparent" his Administration would be. I've never seen any transparency in this Administration.

Does anybody remember the "will be posted for three days before I sign it" crap? Doesn't happen, never did, and especially not with the craptacular piece of legislation called the ACA...
 
cawacko said:
I saw this link to the Jon Stewart show on Facebook where he discusses this issue. I haven't paid attention to all the details of the Fast & Furious program but would anyone like to point out where Jon Stewart is wrong if he is?


http://hotair.com/archives/2012/06/...exactly-buying-the-executive-privilege-claim/
Click to expand...

Right here is where he goes wrong...

Maybe NBC might consider following Stewart’s lead and report honestly on the story now.
Click to expand...

Of course that isn't Stewart saying that, but it is incredibly naive to think the National Barack Channel would report honestly on this story. Maybe See BS news will, or even Always Barack Channel.... But National Barack Channel? Hahahahahaha!
 
The Wild Conspiracy Theory Driving The Fast And Furious Investigation

Issa-Holder-Hearings-e1340381303298.jpg


Here is theory that some Congressional Republicans believe: The Obama Administration intentionally handed over automatic weapons to Mexican drug cartels, who they knew would commit violent acts, because they wanted to scare Americans into supporting stricter gun laws.

That supposed series of events has now led Congress to hold Attorney General Eric Holder in contempt.

Holder is caught up in a scandal over what happened during Operation Fast and Furious, one in a series of efforts started under former President Bush, in which firearms owned by the U.S. government are intentionally sold to criminals with the hopes that they can be traced back, and criminal activity can be monitored. One such firearm turned up at the crime scene where border patrol agent Brian Terry was killed.

Republicans cite the case as a national security issue, but they’ve simultaneously turned it into an indictment over what they believe is a conspiracy aimed at taking away their own firearms. They argue that this was all a ploy to expose how dangerous guns can be. Here are the facts you should know about the conspiracy, and who’s behind it:

The man who started the conspiracy theory also rallied people to break congressional windows. Mike Vanderboegh, a man who once called for militias to break the windows of members of Congress because of the passage of the Affordable Care Act, started this conspiracy theory. Rachel Maddow uncovered that Vanderboegh has been encouraging members of Congress to embrace the theory.

Major Republicans, including Darrell Issa, endorse this conspiracy theory. Among those are Rep. Darrell Issa (R-CA), who is Chair of the House Oversight Committee and is heading up the investigation of Eric Holder. In an interview on FOX, Issa said, “very clearly, they made a crisis, and they’re using this crisis to somehow take away or limit people’s Second Amendment rights.” He also pushed the theory at an NRA convention. But Issa isn’t the only one who is buying in: former Presidential candidate Newt Gingrich just two days ago agreed with the theory. Sen. Jeff Sessions (R-AL), Sen. Chuck Grassley (R-IA), Rep. Trent Franks (R-AZ), and many other Republicans have voiced support for this theory too.

The NRA is driving the conspiracy theory paranoia though ads. The National Rifle Association is furthering the paranoia as a way to rally gun owners by running advertisements and a petition calling on President Obama to fire Eric Holder. The ads don’t specifically mention the gun control conspiracy, but the Executive Director of the NRA’s Institute for Legislative Action is a full-throttle conspiracy believer. The NRA also threatened members of Congress who voted on the contempt charge yesterday, saying that a vote against contempt would reflect poorly on that member’s pro-gun ratings.

Conspiracy theorists blame Holder for a new gun law he didn’t make. Even if one were to believe the vast conspiracy theory, a linchpin in the theorists’ argument is based on a false premise. They say that recently Holder ordered the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, and Firearms (ATF) to report anyone who bought more than one large gun in five day as a way to track American gun owners. In reality, ATF made a request about reporting gun purchases and the Justice Department only approved it after a delay.

Issa defended Bush for the same thing of which he is accusing Holder. Issa has been tearing apart Holder for not wanting to hand over private communications from the Justice Department that could compromise ongoing criminal investigations. But when George Bush refused to do the same thing in 2007, Issa blasted the move as a “political witch hunt.”

Last year, the Vice President of the NRA said that there is “a massive Obama conspiracy to deceive voters and hide his true intentions to destroy the Second Amendment.” This conspiracy theory feeds directly into that sentiment. But there is absolutely no evidence that the President has any intention of tightening gun laws. In fact, he’s loosening regulations on firearm exports.

http://thinkprogress.org/politics/2...y-driving-the-fast-and-furious-investigation/
 
First, the Supreme Court in United States v. Nixon (1974) held that executive privilege cannot be invoked at all if the purpose is to shield wrongdoing. The courts held that [President] Nixon’s purported invocation of executive privilege was illegitimate, in part, for that reason. There is reason to suspect that this might be the case in the Fast and Furious cover-up and stonewalling effort. Congress needs to get to the bottom of that question to prevent an illegal invocation of executive privilege and further abuses of power. That will require an index of the withheld documents and an explanation of why each of them is covered by executive privilege—and more.
 
http://www.politico.com/story/2016/...ge-claim-over-fast-and-furious-records-217970

A federal judge has rejected President Barack Obama's assertion of executive privilege to deny Congress access to records pertaining to Operation Fast and Furious, a gunrunning probe that allegedly allowed thousands of weapons to flow across the border into Mexico.
U.S. District Court Judge Amy Berman Jackson ruled Tuesday that the Justice Department's public disclosures about its response to the so-called "gun walking" controversy undercut Obama's executive privilege claim.

"There is no need to balance the need against the impact that the revelation of any record could have on candor in future executive decision making, since any harm that might flow from the public revelation of the deliberations at issue here has already been self-inflicted," Jackson wrote. "The Department itself has already publicly revealed the sum and substance of the very material it is now seeking to withhold. Since any harm that would flow from the disclosures sought here would be merely incremental, the records must be produced."
 
annata said:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/polit...ontempt-vote/2012/06/20/gJQAGImIqV_story.html
President Obama asserted executive privilege over documents related to the “Fast and Furious” operation Wednesday as a House panel moved to hold Attorney General Eric H. Holder Jr. in contempt after he failed to hand over documents related to a congressional inquiry into the scandal.

In a letter sent to Obama late Tuesday, Holder urged Obama to exert executive privilege, because sharing internal documents with lawmakers could "have significant, damaging consequences.”

.Sharing the documents “would inhibit candor of such Executive Branch deliberations in the future and significantly impair the Executive Branch’s ability to respond independently and effectively to congressional oversight,” Holder wrote to Obama. :hide:
Click to expand...

not the first time judges disagree on law
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top