Author Topic: Executive privilege explained: What Obama's Fast and Furious document claim mean  (Read 6812 times)

Dos Equis

  • Moderator
  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 63777
  • I am. The most interesting man in the world. (Not)

Karl Rove Electional Map, RealClearPolitics Electional Map....and practically every poll out there

The RCP electoral college map shows a toss up. 

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2012/president/2012_elections_electoral_college_map.html

The RCP poll shows a dead heat. 

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2012/president/us/general_election_romney_vs_obama-1171.html

Soul Crusher

  • Competitors
  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 39450
  • Doesnt lie about lifting.


Posted on June 20, 2012


Judge Napolitano: Executive Privilege Only Applies If Obama Involved





"Executive privilege protects communications with the president, the human being of the president, not with people that work for him and the Justice Department," Judge Andrew Napolitano said on FOX News today.
 
"If the attorney general sat down and discussed it with the president, he probably doesn't want the Congress and the public to know that, because we know of the awful events that occurred as a result of the Fast and Furious escapade. But we also know that executive privilege only pertains to military, diplomatic, and sensitive national security matters. Now, was fighting the drug gangs at the border a sensitive national security matter? And, if so, was the President of the United States of America personally involved in making decisions as to how to conduct that fight? If that's the case, this has reached a different level and we now know why the attorney general has ferociously defended these documents," he said.

Roger Bacon

  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 20957
  • Roger Bacon tries to be witty and fails
I just want him out of office so he return to his hometown of Chicago, start his speech tour, work on world peace, etc.  Maybe he'll turn out like Carter:  lousy president, very good former president.

Why do you seem to take crimes committed by our President so lightly?  Bush and Obama should be sitting in a cell at Guantanamo Bay.

Soul Crusher

  • Competitors
  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 39450
  • Doesnt lie about lifting.
Obama Made Pre-Inaugural ‘Pledge’ on Stopping Guns to Mexico; Holder, Napolitano Worked Issue From First Month

By Terence P. Jeffrey

June 20, 2012

Subscribe to Terence P. Jeffrey's posts




   
President-elect Barack Obama and then-Mexican President Felipe Calderon at the Jan. 12, 2009 meeting where Obama pledged to work to stop flow of guns to Mexico. (AP Photo/Charles Dharapak)

 
(CNSNews.com) - Three and a half years before he invoked executive privilege in refusing to hand over to Congress internal Justice Department documents about Operation Fast and Furious--and just eight days before his inauguration--President-elect Barack Obama met with Mexican President Calderon over lunch at the Mexican Cultural Institute in Washington, D.C., and “pledged” that he would take action aimed at stopping the flow of guns into that country from the United States.
 
Public statements from both Attorney General Eric Holder and Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano demonstrate that they were both personally working on this issue from their first month in office.
 
Explaining the pledge that Obama made to Calderon at their Jan. 12, 2009 lunch, incoming White House Press Secretary Robert Gibbs released a statement that day indicating that Obama would ask incoming Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano to lead part of the administration’s effort in stopping the movement of guns to Mexico.
 
In particular, Napolitano was supposed to "increase information sharing."
 
“President-elect Obama expressed support for efforts in the border states in both the United States and Mexico to eradicate drug-related violence and stop the flow of guns and cash,” said Gibbs. “He told President Calderón that he intends to ask the Secretary of Homeland Security to lead an effort to increase information sharing to strengthen those efforts.
 
“He pledged to take more effective action from the United States to stem the flow of arms from the United States to Mexico,” said Gibbs.
 

A month later, the newly confirmed Napolitano testified in the House Homeland Security Committee that she was already working with the White House national security adviser, Attorney General Eric Holder and the ATF, to do just that.
 
Napolitano told the committee that stopping the southbound flow of guns into Mexico was “going to be of real priority interest over these coming months.”
 
That same day, Feb. 25, 2009, Attorney General Holder held a press conference in which he discussed a conversation he had had with the Mexican attorney general about guns being smuggled from the U.S. into Mexico. In the same press conference, Holder also highlighted the role of the ATF in stopping the gun smuggling.
 
He also pointed to President Obama’s commitment to seeking reinstatement of the assault weapons ban as one means of achieving the administration goal of stemming the flow of guns to Mexico.
 
“In our conversations yesterday and in a phone conversation I had with the attorney general [of Mexico], I guess in the week before, that was a concern that he raised, about the number of illegal weapons that are finding their way to Mexico; not only the number, but I guess the caliber, the size of the weapons that you see in Mexico,” Holder said at that 2009 press conference.
 
“ATF is doing all that it can to ensure that we stanch the flow of those weapons to Mexico,” Holder continued. “As good partners, I think that is one of the things that we have to do. If Mexican authorities, Mexican law enforcement personnel are going to put their lives on the line, we in the United States, it seems to me, have a responsibility to make sure that they are not fighting substantial numbers of weapons or fighting against AK-47s or other similar kinds of weapons that have been flowing to Mexico.
 
“And," Holder said, "it was also one of the reasons why--and you'll forgive me for the Spanish that I use--to try to express to our friends, our colleagues in Mexico, in their language, our determination to stand with them in this courageous fight that President Calderon and the attorney general have started."
 
A reporter then asked Holder about the Mexican government’s desire to see the assault-weapons ban reinstated in the U.S.
 
“Well, as President Obama indicated during the campaign, there are just a few gun-related changes that we would like to make, and among them would be to reinstitute the ban on the sale of assault weapons,” Holder said. “I think that will have a positive impact in Mexico, at a minimum.”
 
Ironically, in a letter Holder sent to Obama this Tuesday, asking the president to invoke executive privilege in refusing to comply with a subpoena from the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee seeking documents related to the Fast and Furious gun-walking operation, Holder used language to describe the operation that echoed the language Gibbs had used in 2009 to describe the substance of Obama’s gun-stopping pledge to Calderon.
 
“The subpoena relates to the Committee’s investigation into Operation Fast and Furious, a law enforcement operation conducted by the Bureau of Alcohol Tobacco and Firearms, and Explosive (‘ATF’) and the United States Attorney’s Office for the District of Arizona to stem the illegal flow of firearms from the United States to drug cartels in Mexico (‘Fast and Furious’),’ Holder wrote the president. “The Committee has scheduled a meeting for June 20, 2012, to vote on a resolution holding me in contempt of Congress for failing to comply with the subpoena.”
 
Obama granted Holder’s request to invoke executive privilege in refusing to comply with the subpoena, and today the committee voted on party lines in favor of a resolution recommending that the House of Representatives hold Holder in contempt.
 
Rather than “stem the flow of arms from the United States to Mexico,” as Obama pledged to Calderon he would seek to do, the administration, under Operation Fast and Furious, actually allowed guns to be purchased within the United States by known straw buyers for Mexican drug cartels.
 
In its resolution recommending that the House hold Holder in contempt, the Oversight  Committee describes the essence of Fast and Furious, which began in November 2009--ten months after Obama made his anti-gun-trafficking pledge to Calderon, and nine months after Holder and Napolitano publicly indicated they were personally working on the gun-trafficking issue.
 
“During Fast and Furious, ATF agents used an investigative technique known as ‘gunwalking’--that is, allowing illegally-purchased weapons to be transferred to third parties without attempting to disrupt or deter the illegal activity,” says the contempt resolution. “ATF agents abandoned surveillance on known straw purchasers after they illegally purchased weapons that ATF agents knew were destined for Mexican drug cartels. Many of these transactions established probable cause for agents to interdict the weapons or arrest the possessors, something every agent was trained to do.
 
“Yet,” says the Holder contempt resolution, “Fast and Furious aimed instead to allow the transfer of these guns to third parties. In this manner, the guns fell into the hands of DTOs, and many would turn up at crime scenes. ATF then traced these guns to their original straw purchaser, in an attempt to establish a connection between that individual and the DTO.”
 
The administration’s gun-walking operation continued for more than a year until two of the firearms that had been allowed to walk ended up at the scene of the murder of U.S. Border Patrol Agent Brian Terry.
 
“Starting in late 2009, many line agents objected vociferously to some of the techniques used during Fast and Furious, including gunwalking,” says the Holder contempt resolution. “The investigation continued for another year, however, until shortly after December 15, 2010, when two weapons from Fast and Furious were recovered at the murder scene of U.S. Border Patrol Agent Brian Terry.”
 
Almost two years before Agent Terry was murdered, but just one month after Obama pledged to Calderon that he would take steps to stop guns from flowing to Mexico, Homeland Security Secretary Napolitano testified in the House Homeland Security Committee that she was working toward that end with the Mexican government--as well as with the White House national security adviser, Attorney General Holder, the ATF, and Customs, the Homeland Security agency to which the Border Patrol belongs.
 
“We are working to support President Calderon in his efforts,” Napolitano said in her Feb. 25, 2009 testimony. “I believe this is going to require more than the Department of Homeland Security, so that we are reaching out to the national security adviser, to the attorney general and others about how we within the United States make sure we are doing all we can in a coordinated way to support the president of Mexico.
 
“I've met with the attorney general of Mexico and the ambassador already,” Napolitano said. “One of the things that I particularly am focused on is southbound traffic in guns. Particularly assault weapons and cash are being used to funnel and fund these very, very violent cartels.
 
“So working with Customs, working with ATF, we're looking at ways that we can help suppress that traffic,” said Napolitano. “But in my view, from a Homeland Security standpoint, this is going to be an issue, working with Mexico, that is going to be of real priority interest over these coming months.”
 
It was in his own testimony that day that Holder had insisted "ATF is doing all that it can to ensure that we stanch the flow of those weapons to Mexico."
 
The House Oversight and Government Reform committee has reported that via Fast and Furious the “U.S. government helped fuel Mexican violence allowing straw purchasers to buy approximately 2,000 assault-type weapons many of which walked into Mexico.”
 
As result, the committee says, at least 150 Mexican were “murdered by Fast and Furious weapons.”


http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/2897839/posts

Soul Crusher

  • Competitors
  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 39450
  • Doesnt lie about lifting.
Newsmax

Heritage Foundation’s Spakovsky: Obama Wrong on Executive Privilege

Thursday, June 21, 2012 10:20 AM

By: Newsmax Wires




President Barack Obama had no justification to assert executive privilege in refusing to hand over documents to Congress concerning the Fast and Furious operation, says Hans von Spakovsky, a senior legal fellow at The Heritage Foundation.

“The assertion of executive privilege appears to be just the latest gambit to keep any of the political appointees within a highly politicized Justice Department from having to take responsibility for the serious mistakes in judgment made in this operation,” he writes in The Hill.

Fast and Furious, run by the Justice Department’s Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives, involved allowing U.S. weapons into the hands of Mexican criminals. The idea was to trace those weapons to Mexican drug kingpins. Instead they were found at the site of the murder of a U.S. border agent.

The operation’s mistakes “killed a U.S. agent and many Mexican citizens,” von Spakovsky writes. “It would be a rank abuse of the Constitution for the president to use executive privilege simply to prevent political embarrassment and to shield political appointees from the consequences of their ill-considered and careless judgment and actions.”

Executive privilege is an important constitutional tool, he acknowledges. “But it is not carte blanche for presidential secrecy. A president must have a legitimate reason to assert executive privilege. It cannot be used for the purpose of hiding wrongdoing by administration officials, especially to block a contempt citation.”

The House Oversight and Government Reform Committee voted to hold Attorney General Eric Holder in contempt of Congress Wednesday.

© 2012 Newsmax. All rights reserved.


Vince G, CSN MFT

  • Competitors II
  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 25737
  • GETBIG3.COM!
The RCP electoral college map shows a toss up. 

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2012/president/2012_elections_electoral_college_map.html

The RCP poll shows a dead heat. 

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2012/president/us/general_election_romney_vs_obama-1171.html


You can click on the toss up states as well...the majority of them show Obama in the lead...
A

Soul Crusher

  • Competitors
  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 39450
  • Doesnt lie about lifting.

You can click on the toss up states as well...the majority of them show Obama in the lead...


Soul Crusher

  • Competitors
  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 39450
  • Doesnt lie about lifting.
by Ken Klukowski

http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Government/2012/06/20/Holder-will-lose-exec-priv-claim



President Obama’s assertion of executive privilege to prevent Attorney General Eric Holder from complying with congressional subpoenas on the Operation Fast and Furious fiasco will blow up in the White House’s face. But not for the reasons you’ve heard on the first day of this legal fight.

Some Republicans are saying—and some media commentators are reporting—that executive privilege only applies when the president himself is involved. That’s incorrect as a matter of law.

It’s important to get this right, because some are suggesting that today’s invoking of the privilege means Obama himself is involved, a smoking gun that could make this the next Watergate. Not true. The White House might be involved, but we don’t know one way or another… yet.

As I’ve written before, there are two types of executive privilege. One is a strong form rooted in the Constitution, called the presidential communication privilege. But there is another type, much weaker and rooted in common law instead of the Constitution, called the deliberative process privilege. That second, weaker variety is what President Obama invoked today regarding Holder.
 
It’s still the White House asserting the privilege, because only the president can assert executive privilege for his entire administration. (Except that the vice president can also assert it, but only for matters directly involving the VP.) So Obama has invoked it on Holder’s behalf.

Others are also incorrect in saying executive privilege only applies to military matters, diplomatic secrets, or national security situations. The courts have repeatedly held that executive privilege covers much more than that, most recently in 2004 in Cheney v. U.S. District Court, where the Supreme Court considered whether the VP’s conversations with energy industry leaders was protected by the privilege. Executive privilege is strongest when those three issues are on the table, but it’s broader than that.

There are several factors courts look to. The most important is whether the president was involved, since that determines which privilege (presidential communications versus deliberative process) is in play. Beyond that, several factors weigh in favor of Congress and against Holder here. This was domestic policy (not foreign), in an operation out of an agency (not the White House), where crimes may have been committed, and none of the president’s constitutional prerogatives are implicated by the case. Factors favoring Obama are that this is not legislative policymaking, and it does have a diplomatic angle because of relations with Mexico. But surveying 200 years of court precedent shows that Congress has the better claim here.

The only way to beat an executive privilege claim is by court order. To take this issue to court, the full House must vote to hold Holder in contempt of Congress, then—when federal prosecutors predictably inform the House that they will not prosecute their boss—the full House must pass a second resolution authorizing Rep. Darrell Issa to file suit in the U.S. District Court for D.C. on behalf of the entire U.S. House.

Holder will lose the court fight. He’ll appeal, of course, but eventually the appeals will be over, and we’ll all learn the truth of what really happened in Fast and Furious.

And whom to hold accountable.

Breitbart News legal contributor Ken Klukowski is on faculty at Liberty University School of Law, and author of Making Executive Privilege Work, published by Cleveland State Law Review.


Dos Equis

  • Moderator
  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 63777
  • I am. The most interesting man in the world. (Not)
Why do you seem to take crimes committed by our President so lightly?  Bush and Obama should be sitting in a cell at Guantanamo Bay.

Because they haven't committed crimes.

Dos Equis

  • Moderator
  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 63777
  • I am. The most interesting man in the world. (Not)
Can the president rewrite federal law?
By Judge Andrew P. Napolitano
Published June 21, 2012
FoxNews.com

Here we go again. Is the Constitution merely a guideline to be consulted by those it purports to regulate, or is it really the supreme law of the land? If it is just a guideline, then it is meaningless, as it only will be followed by those in government when it is not an obstacle to their purposes. If it is the supreme law of the land, what do we do when one branch of government seizes power from another and the branch that had its power stolen does nothing about it?

Late last week, President Obama, fresh from a series of revelations that he kills whomever he pleases in foreign lands, that the US military is actually fighting undeclared wars in Somalia and Yemen, and that the CIA is using cyber warfare -- computers -- to destabilize innocents in Iran, announced that he has rewritten a small portion of federal immigration law so as to accommodate the needs of young immigrants who came to the US as children and remained here. By establishing new rules governing deportation, rules that Congress declined to enact, the president has usurped the power to write federal law from Congress and commandeered it for himself.

Immigrants should not be used as political pawns by the government. When government does that, it violates the natural law. Our rights come from our humanity, and our humanity comes from God. Our rights are natural and integral to us, and they do not vary by virtue of, and cannot be conditioned upon, the place where our mothers were physically located at the time of our births. Federal law violates the natural law when it interferes with whom you invite to your home or employ in your business or to whom you rent your property or with whom you walk the public sidewalks.

When the government restricts freedom of association based on immutable characteristics -- like race, gender or the place of birth -- it is engaging in the same type of decision-making that brought us slavery, Jim Crow and other invidious government discrimination. Regrettably, the feds think they can limit human freedom by quota and by geography. And they have done this for base political reasons.

Along comes the president, and he has decided that he can fix some of our immigration woes by rewriting the laws to his liking. Never mind that the Constitution provides that his job is “to take care that the laws be faithfully executed,” and that “all legislative power” in the federal government has been granted to Congress. He has chosen to bypass Congress and disregard the Constitution. Can he do this?

There is a valid and constitutional argument to be made that the president may refrain from defending and enforcing laws that he believes are palpably and demonstrably unconstitutional. These arguments go back to Thomas Jefferson, who refused to defend or enforce the Alien and Sedition Acts because, by punishing speech, they directly contradicted the First Amendment. Jefferson argued that when a law contradicts the Constitution, the law must give way because the Constitution is the supreme law of the land and all other laws are inferior and must conform to it.This argument is itself now universally accepted jurisprudence -- except by President Obama, who recently and inexplicably questioned the jurisdiction of the Supreme Court to invalidate the Affordable Health Care Act on the basis that it is unconstitutional.

Nevertheless, there is no intellectually honest argument to be made that the president can pick and choose which laws to enforce based on his personal preferences. And it is a profound violation of the Constitution for the president to engage in rewriting the laws. That’s what he has done here. He has rewritten federal law.
Only Congress can lay down specifics such as in order to avoid deportation and qualify for a two-year work visa, one must have entered the U.S. prior to age 16 and possess a valid American high school diploma or be a military veteran, as the president now requires. By altering the law in this manner -- by constructing the requirements the government will impose -- the president has violated his oath to enforce the laws as they are written. His second responsibility in the Constitution (the first is to defend the Constitution) is to enforce federal laws as Congress has written them -- hence the employment of the word “faithfully” in the Constitution -- not as he wishes them to be.

Congress should have enacted years ago what the president is now doing on his own, because it is unjust to punish children for the behavior of their parents, and it is unjust to restrict freedom based on the place of birth. But this can be remedied only by Congress. If the president can rewrite federal laws that he doesn’t like, there is no limit to his power. Then, he will not be a president. He will be a king.

To find out more about Judge Napolitano and to read features by other Creators Syndicate writers and cartoonists, visit www.creators.com.
COPYRIGHT 2012 ANDREW P. NAPOLITANO
Andrew P. Napolitano, a former judge of the Superior Court of New Jersey, is the senior judicial analyst at Fox News Channel. Judge Napolitano has written six books on the U.S. Constitution. His latest is “ It is Dangerous To Be Right When the Government Is Wrong: The Case for Personal Freedom.”

http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2012/06/21/can-president-rewrite-federal-law/

avxo

  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 5605
  • Iron Pumping University Math Professor
By and large that's actually a pretty sensible article by Napolitano...

Dos Equis

  • Moderator
  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 63777
  • I am. The most interesting man in the world. (Not)
By and large that's actually a pretty sensible article by Napolitano...

I don't agree with everything he says, but most of what he says makes a lot of sense.

Soul Crusher

  • Competitors
  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 39450
  • Doesnt lie about lifting.
 :)

Soul Crusher

  • Competitors
  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 39450
  • Doesnt lie about lifting.
ATIONAL REVIEW ONLINE          www.nationalreview.com           PRINT


Hiding Behind Executive Privilege


By The Editors

June 21, 2012 4:00 A.M.

 




President Barack Obama has long tried to distance himself from the “Fast and Furious” scandal at the Justice Department, which stems from a program under which Mexican drug cartels were allowed to acquire U.S. firearms that were later used against U.S. law-enforcement personnel. By invoking executive privilege to stymie congressional investigation of the case, the president has placed himself squarely in the center of it.
 
President Obama, who had been a bitter critic of the Bush administration’s use of executive privilege, today through his representatives protested that he is only doing what the Bush administration did before him. The same man who once accused President Bush of “hiding behind executive privilege” is now hiding behind George W. Bush.
 
Executive privilege serves a necessary function in our constitutional order, reinforcing the separation of powers and protecting sensitive deliberations within the executive branch, and it is especially strong when the president or his closest advisers in the White House are involved in the communication. In this case, the administration has long denied that the president was directly involved. Instead, Attorney General Eric Holder wasted everyone’s time invoking a spurious form of deliberative privilege that was completely decoupled from executive privilege. Such a privilege has no force vis-à-vis Congress. By finally invoking executive privilege yesterday, the president belatedly acknowledged that his attorney general was full of it.
 
Executive privilege has legitimate uses — and illegitimate uses. For instance, it is not intended to be used merely to protect the president from political embarrassment stemming from grievous errors in judgment by members of his cabinet or officers of the departments over which they preside. There is good reason to believe that in this case the privilege is being abused.
 
Fast and Furious became public knowledge only when dissatisfied agents within the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives blew the whistle on the program after the murder of Brian Terry, a Border Patrol agent gunned down by criminals wielding semiautomatic rifles, at least two of which were sold to arms traffickers with the foreknowledge of the Justice Department as part of the program. Congress has the right to make inquiries of the executive branch in the course of undertaking its constitutional lawmaking duties — for example, while studying whether to pass laws forbidding U.S. law-enforcement agencies to knowingly allow bloodthirsty drug cartels to acquire firearms. In such situations, executive privilege is by no means absolute. The privilege is qualified and contingent. One limiting factor is an allegation of official misconduct, and there is reason to believe that official misconduct has occurred in this case, not least Holder’s conflicting and inconsistent accounts of the case and the presence of evidence suggesting that his accounts have been in some part untrue. Indeed, the claim of executive privilege will only increase the sense that Holder has been more dishonest in his congressional testimony than is already evident.
 
The case is quickly turning into a showdown between the executive and legislative branches of government, an undesirable development that the president could easily have prevented by simply waiving privilege in this matter (declining to invoke executive privilege in no way diminishes the president’s right to use it in the future) and instructing his attorney general, who is currently facing the prospect of being held in contempt of Congress, to cooperate with the investigation. If the full Congress holds Holder in contempt, it is unlikely that the Justice Department will choose to prosecute the man in charge of it. That leaves Congress with the option of filing a lawsuit to force the Justice Department to comply with the subpoena and release the documents in question. Congress should avail itself of that option. If the case is litigated, the administration will almost certainly lose. In the meantime, Mitt Romney should commit to a full investigation of Fast and Furious should he be elected in November.
 
Disputes between co-equal branches of government are best settled politically, and, fortunately for the American people, an election is at hand. What we already know about Fast and Furious bespeaks gross irresponsibility at the Justice Department — and an equally serious failure in judgment at the White House, which today has declared that it cares more about its immediate political prospects than about cooperating with a full and open investigation of government actions that abetted the murder of an American law-enforcement agent.
 
Permalink
 


240 is Back

  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 102396
  • Complete website for only $300- www.300website.com
suddenly the neocons of the board have a problem with executive orders.

Bush issued what, 270 or 280 of them?

I don't remember 270 threads on how illegal those were.

Soul Crusher

  • Competitors
  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 39450
  • Doesnt lie about lifting.
GOP senator: White House claims about document hand-over are 'hogwash'

www.thehill.com

By Jordy Yager - 06/21/12 06:31 PM ET






Sen. Chuck Grassley (R-Iowa) said comments made by the White House claiming the administration has given Congress every document related to Fast and Furious are “hogwash.”

Grassley’s remarks come as two more senators on Thursday joined the ranks calling for Attorney General Eric Holder to resign over his handling of the botched gun-tracking operation and refusal to give Congress related documents, which spurred a House panel to vote this week to hold the nation’s top cop in contempt of Congress. 

White House spokesman Jay Carney on Thursday vehemently defended President Obama’s decision to assert executive privilege over the documents and said the administration has given Congress everything related to Fast and Furious.

“Every document related to the Fast and Furious operation has long since been provided to congressional investigators,” said Carney to reporters.

“Every piece of documentation that relates to the operation itself, if the interest here is in the operation, how it came about, its origination, how it was approved, why such a flawed tactic was employed, that has been provided to congressional investigators.”

But Grassley, the ranking member on the Senate Judiciary Committee and the lawmaker who launched Congress’s probe of Fast and Furious, said that simply wasn’t true.

“His statement that the administration has ‘provided Congress every document that pertains to the operation itself’ is hogwash,” said Grassley. 

“Through my investigation, I know there are reams of documents related to ‘the operation itself’ that the Justice Department has refused to turn over to Congress."

The furor between the White House and Capitol Hill Republicans continued to rise in the upper chamber on Thursday as Sen. Marco Rubio (R-Fla.), a leading frontrunner for the GOP vice presidential ticket, and Sen. Dan Coats (R-Ind.) both called for Holder’s resignation.

“I think we’ve about reached the point of no return on this issue,” said Rubio at a Christian Science Monitor breakfast. “I think they’ve been given multiple opportunities to answer very legitimate questions that the Congress has.”

Rubio said, “yes” when asked by a reporter whether he though Holder should step down.

There’s been a growing chorus of calls for Holder’s resignation in the House, where a measure expressing the chamber’s lack of confidence in the attorney general because of Fast and Furious has 114 cosponsors. And Speaker John Boehner (R-Ohio) promised to hold a full vote on the contempt measure next week if Holder doesn't fork over the documents.

But the Senate has been comparatively silent, with only a handful of members calling for Holder to step down.  Sen. John Cornyn (R-Texas) made headlines last week when he told the attorney general to his face in a Senate committee hearing that he thought he should resign.

Coats became the latest senators to make such a call, when on Thursday he called attention not only to Holder’s role in Fast and Furious, but his refusal to appoint a special investigator to probe the recent series of national intelligence leaks to the press.

“I do not believe the attorney general has the level of support to provide the trusted leadership needed to investigate these damaging national security breaches,” said Coats in a statement. “It is my belief that Attorney General Holder’s resignation is in the best interest of the American people.”

dario73

  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 6467
  • Getbig!
i know.  F&F was more guns.  But you said your beef was that we didn't inform the corrupt govt of mexico.  not that many people were killed.  I was surprised.

Operation Wide Receiver:

1. Mexican government knew about from the get go. We had their cooperation.

2. NO ONE KILLED.

3. ALL GUNS RECOVERED.


Night and Day, son.

Soul Crusher

  • Competitors
  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 39450
  • Doesnt lie about lifting.
Operation Wide Receiver:

1. Mexican government knew about from the get go. We had their cooperation.

2. NO ONE KILLED.

3. ALL GUNS RECOVERED.


Night and Day, son.



240 is a pathetic troll and a liar.   He cant even keep track of his lies any more. 

240 is Back

  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 102396
  • Complete website for only $300- www.300website.com
you can't tell me we lost 400 guns into mexico after being sold to bad guys and that nobody was killed.

you can just tell me that nobody got hurt from those guns - I mean, you can tell me that there were no dead agents with machine guns dropped at the scene.  But realistically, we fed 400+ guns to mex criminals and they were all used for range trips lol.

Soul Crusher

  • Competitors
  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 39450
  • Doesnt lie about lifting.
you can't tell me we lost 400 guns into mexico after being sold to bad guys and that nobody was killed.

you can just tell me that nobody got hurt from those guns - I mean, you can tell me that there were no dead agents with machine guns dropped at the scene.  But realistically, we fed 400+ guns to mex criminals and they were all used for range trips lol.

Hey idiot - STFU and go read what occured under WR before spreading your lies and falsehoods. 

your trolling and sucking obama cock as his presidency implodes is nauseating. 


Shockwave

  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 20807
  • Decepticons! Scramble!
you can't tell me we lost 400 guns into mexico after being sold to bad guys and that nobody was killed.

you can just tell me that nobody got hurt from those guns - I mean, you can tell me that there were no dead agents with machine guns dropped at the scene.  But realistically, we fed 400+ guns to mex criminals and they were all used for range trips lol.

I think the point is that under WR - we actually TRACKED the guns in Mexico, and the Mexican government was cooperating. So there WAS an effort to follow the guns.

In F&F, they werent allowed to track the guns past the Mexican border, which is probably the most retarded thing Ive ever heard. There was no actual gun walking going on - they were literally arming the cartels.

dario73

  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 6467
  • Getbig!
you can't tell me we lost 400 guns into mexico after being sold to bad guys and that nobody was killed.

you can just tell me that nobody got hurt from those guns - I mean, you can tell me that there were no dead agents with machine guns dropped at the scene.  But realistically, we fed 400+ guns to mex criminals and they were all used for range trips lol.

So this is the way you want to play it?  You made a question. The answer was given. AN ANSWER THAT EVEN DEMOCRATS WON'T REFUTE. But, you somehow, know more than they do and you feel the need to bring up another conspiracy theory.

Don't you think Democrats back in 2006 or 2007 would have gone after the Bush administration if any of those guns had been lost and found at crime scenes?


"Wide Receiver" was a controlled gun release operation in order to track illegal gun smuggling. Guns were sold by agents, not by gun store owners. And the tracking system they used was not from Radio Shack.

MEXICAN GOVERNMENT KNEW, NO ONE KILLED, GUNS RECOVERED.  

NEXT!!!!

Soul Crusher

  • Competitors
  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 39450
  • Doesnt lie about lifting.
180 is also neglecting the fact that under WR the program was quickly shut down once the tracing mechanisms proved unworkable. 

Under FnF there were no tracing mechanisms and it was only shut down AFTER agent Dobbins went public and exposed the Brian Terry murder. 

Before that, the DOJ had evidence of these guns being used in 100's of murders. 


So 180 - STFU and stop spreading your baseless lies and obama dick sucking. 

you have become a pathetic lying troll and a shill. 

blacken700

  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 11873
  • Getbig!

Soul Crusher

  • Competitors
  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 39450
  • Doesnt lie about lifting.
Furiouser and furiouser
Claiming executive privilege puts Obama in an awkward spot, defending secrecy about a botched operation



http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/opinion/editorials/ct-edit-privilege-0622-jm-20120622,0,4057316.story


 
The White House could spare all of us a battle over executive privilege if U.S. Attorney General Eric Holder, second from right, would release Operation Fast and Furious files. (Chip Somodevilla, Getty photo / June 22, 2012)


For months, House Republicans have tried to pry documents from theU.S. Department of Justice about Operation Fast and Furious, the spectacularly botched government operation that put guns in the hands of Mexican drug cartel thugs.

And for months, the department has responded with some, but not all, of the papers.

This week the action escalated into a full-fledged constitutional clash between the White House and Congress. President Barack Obama backed Attorney GeneralEric Holder's refusal to release the documents. Obama invoked executive privilege — a move to protect the documents under the reasoning that their release could harm the president's ability to obtain candid advice from his aides.

In response, the Republican-dominated House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform voted Wednesday to recommend that Holder be held in contempt of Congress. A full House vote may come soon. And then, absent a settlement, you can expect months of political wrangling.

The White House could spare all of us a distracting and damaging battle over executive privilege — a murky principle not defined in the Constitution — if Holder would share these documents with the American people.

A brief recap of F&F: The Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosivesallowed guns to flow illegally into Mexico. The idea was to track the guns and snag some honchos in the Mexican drug cartels. The ATF lost track of guns that ultimately were used in crimes on both sides of the border. Most prominently, two of the guns were recovered after U.S. Border Patrol Agent Brian Terry was killed in Arizona.

Full public disclosure on F&F would have been the best way to defuse this crisis long ago: Whose idea was it? How did it go so spectacularly awry? Instead, the administration slow-walked document disclosures and invited more questions about who knew what and when. Remember what then-acting ATF director Kenneth Melson told congressional investigators last year? He said Justice was scrambling to protect its political appointees from taking the blame in the rapidly spreading scandal.

Obama's assertion of executive privilege now provokes more questions about possible White House involvement in Fast and Furious. Michael Steel, spokesman for Republican House Speaker John Boehner of Ohio, said Obama's decision to insert himself into this matter "implies that White House officials were either involved in the Fast and Furious operation or the cover-up that followed."

That's an assumption the withheld documents might confirm — or disprove. We in the American public don't know, and we won't know as long as these documents stay secret.

Sure, this confrontation is about politics in a campaign season. Republicans hope to find details in those papers to embarrass the White House, maybe even force Holder to wear the jacket for ATF bungling. Democrats are in a defensive crouch, eager to paint Republicans as motivated solely to ... embarrass the White House. Holder rightly describes this clash as "political theater," although both sides are playing to a national audience.

But there's much more at stake here than politics. Fast and Furious needs to be explored. And this standoff between the administration and Capitol Hill won't vanish with Obama's wave of the executive privilege wand. We'd like to hear him explain why he has claimed such a shield.

Until then, we're with George Washington University law professor Jonathan Turley, who describes Obama's privilege claim as "overbroad and excessive."

"The position of the Justice Department on the issue seems hopelessly conflicted," Turley writes. "On one hand, the White House and Justice Department have stressed that Obama did not review these documents to protect him from the political backlash over the operation. Yet, it is claiming sweeping privilege over Justice Department documents."

Obama officials point out that this is his first invocation of executive privilege, while his predecessors, Republican and Democratic, notched many more.

That's irrelevant. These aren't cumulative acts. Each case stands on its own, often clumsily.

This page's default mode on all such claims is, and long has been, extreme skepticism. The innate and overriding problem with executive privilege is on full display here: The public and courts have no way to be sure if the government is acting out of a well-founded need to protect sensitive sources and conversations or an avid desire, particularly in an election year, to conceal its own wrongdoing.

The more administration officials stonewall, the furiouser this scandal will grow.

Copyright © 2012, Chicago Tribune
ct-edit-privilege-0622-jm-20120622