Return to the Hot Topics Forum | Post a Follow-Up

 o
Executive privilege really??

Posted by mrskjun 9 (My Page) on
Wed, Jun 20, 12 at 18:49

Brian Terry's family just wants to know why their son had to die by a gun supplied by our own country, and who set that in motion. Why is it necessary to hide the truth?


Follow-Up Postings:

 o
RE: Executive privilege really??

  • Posted by ohiomom 3rdrockfromthesun (My Page) on
    Wed, Jun 20, 12 at 19:03

....well it is an election year, and the boys on the hill need raw meat. We the people should be advised through the mass media of any and all operations, foreign or domestic. In fact I demand they be published on the front page of every paper from sea to shining sea every morning. Transparency I say !

This is President Obama's first use of executive privilege, despite having previously criticized his predecessor George W. Bush for using the power, saying Bush had a tendency "to hide behind executive privilege every time there's something a little shaky that's taking place." All of the past 10 presidents have invoked executive privilege, with George W. Bush using it six times and Bill Clinton using it 14.

The Department of Justice has turned over between 7,000 and 8,000 documents, but the congressional committee wants access to others they have declined to provide. (USNews)


 o
RE: Executive privilege really??

You are not keen on providing links eh Mrs? Are we supposed to know what you are talking about from your previous? Obama is a bad guy type of thing, democrats are crap, what?


 o
RE: Executive privilege really??

Sorry ink, I figured it had been on the news all afternoon. The congressional committee had subpenaed documents in relation to Fast and Furious, the gun running operation. Out of something like 140,000 documents, 7,000 were delivered to the committee. No one seems to take responsibility for the gun running operation, or seemed to know much about it. Brian Terry, a US border agent was killed by one of those guns. His family wants answers. Today, Obama invoked executive privilege in order to keep more documents from being turned over to the congressional committee. Not sure what his reasons would be.


 o
RE: Executive privilege really??

A sitting U.S. President throws a blanket of secrecy in the guise of 'executive privilege' over a horribly botched gun-running scandal by the U.S. Department of Justice called 'Fast & Furious' and people still talk about Nixon's Watergate cover-up to be of noted significance??? remember the whole country being up in arms because Nixon refused to release the "Watergate tapes". Where the hell's that same outrage? It's only wrong when the GOP does it???

You guys keep talking about the power and reach of the NRA. If this keeps going in this direction, you're going to see just how powerful and far reaching their pull really is. Holder's not going to get away with this, and if Obama keeps covering up for him, he'll go down with him. Mark my words.


 o
RE: Executive privilege really??

Not sure what his reasons would be.

If you understood Security and why Bush invoked Executive Privilege 6 times. No one should have to look up the reasons Presidents invoke Executive Privilege for you if you are interested.

Silly, silly....but that is getting to be expected/


 o
RE: Executive privilege really??

I would imagine President Obama invoked his power in not releasing certain documents to keep a Congressional dog and pony show at bay during this, an election year. I suspect we'll find out once the nation settles down somewhat.

The rumor mill will continue to churn out suppositions, while the truth remains... we simply don't know at this point in time.


 o
RE: Executive privilege really??

  • Posted by ohiomom 3rdrockfromthesun (My Page) on
    Wed, Jun 20, 12 at 20:17

Where the hell is the outrage for the past 10 presidents who used executive privilege to LIE to the American people?

Obama is going down anyway, wallstreet picked their horse in this year's race.

I am sure Romney will be the president of your dreams ... and all will be well in the land of nod once more.


 o
RE: Executive privilege really??

I'm waiting for further information to come out - on the surface, It doesn't sound good to me either.

In a week, all of what it is we are going to find out should be out there.

Keeping in mind that it won't be the first time, certainly, that this sort of thing has goine on, and since the conservatives have held that office the most often in the last 30 years, I'd say that nobody has a lot of genuine outrage alloted to them.

Which still doesn't make it right, but it is something to keep in mind when registering on the high end of the outrage meter.

I feel there has to be more to this story - something like this would NOT bode well for the future of the campaign of the President, who is, after all running for office with Nov. looming.

I think there is probably more to this story and am willing to wait to see what it might be precisly because of the looming election and the big, negative spin that can be played forever until then.

My take on it.


 o
Ohiomom

Ohiomom, I don't give a CRAP about executive priveledge. What I DO care about is the FACT that this administration, with Holder as its "foot soldier", tried to effect an operation to give them a reason to ban certain firearms. It blew up in their face, and now, just as with Watergate, they're trying to cover up their indiscretions. ALSO, just as with Watergate, the coverup stinks even worse than the original act, especially when it's so OBVIOUS that it's a coverup.


 o
RE: Executive privilege really??

This has to be the watershed moment for this incarnation of the republican party I hope. Smearing a man's reputation to get to the pres for political reasons.

Issa, one of the most correct members of congess at that leading an inept and embarrasing investigation.

Not calling any members from the Bush adminstration to answer questions about this program.

Asking for documents that are AGAINST federal law to turn over including grand jury transripts and idenity of informants.

Holder has been before them 9 times and they keep moving the goal post.

They are a disgrace to our country and the truth.


 o
RE: Executive privilege really??

Uhhh, Bill this is a Bush program that Obama ended.


 o
I take it...

You're talking about Holder, right?


 o
Issa

Issa is corrupt and this is a witch hunt. Pathetic and an injustice to all.


 o
RE: Executive privilege really??

whatt?


 o
answering

Those in Bush's admin responsible for this should be held up to scrutiny, as well, including Bush.


 o
RE: Executive privilege really??

  • Posted by ohiomom 3rdrockfromthesun (My Page) on
    Wed, Jun 20, 12 at 20:40

Well then they better go back to 2006 when all these little "gun walking" operations across the border began under someone who is anyone but Obama.

Not excusing the prez ... have made my feelings clear on the current occupant of that chair.

Just not playing the partisan gotcha games that the puppet masters expect, no demand, we play.

Tis boring...


 o
Post script

unlkike many, this isn't a partisan thing to me. I really want those responsible for this, no matter on WHICH side of the aisle they reside!


 o
RE: Executive privilege really??

Sure, Ohiomom that is all it is...

Then why aren't they part of the investigation? Why did Issa call none of them? Why is Issa asking for things that are against federal law to turn over.

What a joke! You interpret this as a reason for this administration to ban firearms!!! OMG would be funny!...if it wasn't!!!

WASTE OF TIME! This is the worst congress in our history bumbling most inept congress ever.


 o
RE: Executive privilege really??

Too late Bill.

Had your chance already - now all you can try to go after is Obama in the last half of an election year!

Which, conservatively speaking, is very revealing, isn't it.

The sputtering outrage will be interesting to watch/read/listen to.


 o
RE: Executive privilege really??

What a joke! You interpret this as a reason for this administration to ban [assault] firearms!!!

Back when Brian Terry was first killed, there was a whistleblower from inside DOJ who came out with that.


 o
not exactly

now all you can try to go after is Obama in the last half of an election year!

We've been going after this since Terry was killed on 2010.


 o
RE: Executive privilege really??

Apparently many presidents have used executive privilege in one form or another; it's just humourous that the President stated to Larry King (Live) in 2007 that Bush was "hiding behind executive privilege and that the American people deserved to know the truth." This was in regard to the firing of the group of U.S. attorneys.

Seems like most of these guys change quite a bit once they move into the BIG HOUSE.

Same old same old.


 o
RE: Executive privilege really??

So they are starting at the end rather than beginning the of investigation they don't wish to call the Bush era participants in the program.
Mrs K only does polls not links nor investigation for that matter.
I think Bush would also claim executive privilege on this also to prevent the exposure of Mexicans which will make them immediate targets for death.
Just the usual order of partisan play.
I think Holder should spill the beans and then listen to the farting of the right as they ignore posts about reprisal killings in mexico on some future date.


 o
RE: Executive privilege really??

  • Posted by vgkg 7-Va Tidewater (My Page) on
    Wed, Jun 20, 12 at 23:19

Just watching Hannity's blood pressure skyrocket is worth at least one executive privilege.


 o
RE: Executive privilege really??

I don't care for Hannity either, but watching anyone's blood pressure skyrocket doesn't sound good.


 o
RE: Executive privilege really??

obama as law professor should know most claims of executive privilege
have been thrown out by the courts.
Obama action shows he definitely has something to hide.
Holder will be held in contempt soon. then he get Scooter Libby old cell.
but lets just remember that this whole fast furious scandal was Holders baby nothing to do with bush's AG like the Obama team originally claimed.
Since some one was killed due to the incompetence of the whole Obama law enforcement team. you can bet several people will go to jail. for usual government screw up with scandals. this will be one nail in balloon for reelection campaign. can't wait to see the rest. which will be bubbling out in next 150 days till election day.


 o
RE: Executive privilege really??

That was a nice first post, thegreatcob. I can already tell that you will be around a long time.


 o
RE: Executive privilege really??

Fast and Furious has nothing to do with the Bush program. That program was done in conjunction with the Mexican government. The guns were tracked and taken off the streets. This was an entirely different program, in fact the Mexican government knew nothing about it.

If Brian Terry was your son, would you want answers? I don't know how some can claim that it is about going after Obama. He has said from the very beginning that he knew nothing at all about Fast and Furious. So why doesn't he allow this investigation to go forward?


 o
RE: Executive privilege really??

  • Posted by ohiomom 3rdrockfromthesun (My Page) on
    Thu, Jun 21, 12 at 6:35

...same op, different name.


 o
interesting....

  • Posted by ohiomom 3rdrockfromthesun (My Page) on
    Thu, Jun 21, 12 at 6:38

Intelligence business has always been like this that is why it is call covert operations. As for the ends they will go to guarantee the safety of country usually is more important then the methods used carry it out (thegreatcob)

.....on another thread defending "secret covert" ops.

:)


 o
RE: Executive privilege really??

Consider the source.


 o
RE: Executive privilege really??

Consider the source.


 o
RE: Executive privilege really??

A man with no principles.

A non-transparent president.

A man who terrorizes civilians with drone warfare.

and some of you expect responsible, transparent behavior?

Please.


 o
RE: Executive privilege really??

well, I guess Romney can be called "transparent". You can see right through him and know that whatever he says, just wait a minute and he'll flip flop and say something else.

Kind of like the old saying in New England, "if you don't like the weather, just wait a minute".

Funny thing, MA is in New England, Romney was governor of MA, maybe that's how he learned to flip flop so much, He follows the weather, and the "old saying."

of course it could be he just has lots, and lots of "epiphanies". You just never know with the "king of the flip flops."


 o
RE: Executive privilege really??

  • Posted by ohiomom 3rdrockfromthesun (My Page) on
    Thu, Jun 21, 12 at 7:11

Romney will be the next prez ... wallstreet is putting their money where their mouths are and all will be well in the land once more when the "right"ful white king sits on the throne.

......the end


 o
RE: Executive privilege really??

You just never know with the "king of the flip flops."

"it's just humourous that the President stated to Larry King (Live) in 2007 that Bush was "hiding behind executive privilege and that the American people deserved to know the truth." '

"The fact that we are here today to debate raising America 's debt limit is a sign of leadership failure. It is a sign that the US Government cannot pay its own bills. It is a sign that we now depend on ongoing financial assistance from foreign countries to finance our Government's reckless fiscal policies. Increasing America 's debt weakens us domestically and internationally. Leadership means that, "the buck stops here.' Instead, Washington is shifting the burden of bad choices today onto the backs of our children and grandchildren. America has a debt problem and a failure of leadership. Americans deserve better."
~ Senator Barack H. Obama, March 2006

littleone, you and I finally agree on something.


 o
RE: Executive privilege really??

Ohiomom, I don't give a CRAP about executive priveledge. What I DO care about is the FACT that this administration, with Holder as its "foot soldier", tried to effect an operation to give them a reason to ban certain firearms

What a load of NRA crap - manufacturing a reason for gun nuts to fear Obama. I can't believe anyone would be taken in by such silly conspiracy theories. The operation was started by Bush NOT Obama. It screwed up bad - no one questions that but for a party of 2nd Amendment fanatics and Executive Privilege abusers to start crying crocodile tears over guns lost by the Gov't in a botched sting while shrugging their shoulders at the un-regulated flow of guns from commercial gun dealers across the border is pathetic. Conservatives don't give a sh$t about guns flowing to Mexico or the plight of US Gov't workers/agents.

I remember Executive Privilege being used over and over in the Bush administration to cover up the reasons for a botched occupation that killed thousands of Americans and hundreds of thousands of innocent civilians without one peep from conservatives about getting the complete story of why their loved ones had to die in the 911 attacks and two wars. I guess the lack of actual attempts to control firearms by this administration requires that stories be concocted based on paranoid fantasies about Obama and conservatives swallow it hook, line, sinker, and pole.


 o
RE: Executive privilege really??

Try as you might kt, you cannot connect the two. Operation Wide Receiver in conjunction with the Mexican government began in 2006 and ended in 2007. Also, no one died as a result of Operation Wide Receiver. Operation Fast and Furious began in 2009. And Brian Terry's family deserves answers.

You are right about one thing, Bush invoked executive privilege six times, something that Obama took him to task for, lack of transparency and all that. And I believe Bush's executive privilege was overturned in almost every case. As hopefully will be done here.


 o
RE: Executive privilege really??

Paranoid fantasies? Read the following link.

Here is a link that might be useful: Holder tells Congress the Obama administration wants to ban guns


 o
RE: Executive privilege really??

Do we need another Deep Throat?


 o
RE: Executive privilege really??

Ban on "assault weapons".


 o
RE: Executive privilege really??

Bill, your parroting the strange conspiracy theory Issa has about it being all about Obama wanted gun regulation which is bizarre and zero evidence of...this is an embarrassment ala Newt's days in the house when the repugs did nothing but investigate a blow job. Everybody wants justice for this fallen oficer but you advocate the admisntration to put others in danger and release documents that they are not permitted to by law.

All this while a transporation bill collects dust that could create 1.6 million jobs ad a bill for vets.

A trumped up controversary that shows this congress to be even more exteme than known and you and Mrs. on here trumpeting your bad information because it fits your pre-cooked hatred and Brush as usual adding nothing of intelligence but petty snipes.

Thank yo urepublicans...going back to Newt in congress and the tea party for sinking our country. You suck!


 o
remember

You might remember, the republicans told us their number one priority was to take down Obama...not jobs baby! Oh no...this is where our taxpayer money is going.

I am so done playing nice with an obstructionist party enablers. The lies that come out of Fox News and that are repeated here are mind blowing.


 o
RE: Executive privilege really??

"I'm waiting for further information to come out - on the surface, It doesn't sound good to me either."

They're hiding something. The DOJ hasn't been able to get its story straight about who knew what and when. Congress cannot even find out who authorized Fast and Furious. Who is the White House trying to protect? By invoking executive privilege, the president has put himself in the middle of something he has previously claimed to know nothing about. There is something in the documents Congress requested that the administration does not want members of Congress, or the American people to see.

Lanny Davis, former special counsel to Bill Clinton, says the documents are going to come out regardless of what the White House wants, and they might as well comply now. Holder has had months to comply. Did he think Issa was going to just go away? He should have done what the oversight committee told him to do, and this would not be happening now. His own stonewalling, not Congress, has put him where he is today.


 o
RE: Executive privilege really??

If you read some of the other news, Holder has been trying to negotiate with Congress on releasing some but not others. They insist on having everything.

Disputes over legislative access to executive documents occur in almost every presidential administration. Their resolution inevitably entails a set of legal and political considerations that change from episode to episode.

Unfortunately for the House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform, its legal position is uncertain at best, and almost all political considerations would seem to favor the White House.

Whether or not the full House votes Attorney General Eric Holder in contempt, the likeliest resolution will be an informal settlement in which the Justice Department expands slightly on its current offer of disclosure, the committee narrows the range of documents it is demanding, or both compromise in a mutual, face-saving gesture. At least, that would be likely in politically "normal" times.

The form of executive privilege at stake in the current dispute is "deliberative privilege."

Deliberative privilege aims to protect documents generated anywhere in the executive branch that embody only the executive's internal deliberations, not final policy decisions.

Deliberative privilege is not a legal absolute. The executive branch concedes that when another branch of government demands privileged documents within the executive's control, they sometimes have to be turned over.

They have to be turned over when the demanding branch can articulate a compelling need for the information to fulfill one of its own constitutional functions -- a need that outweighs the executive branch's interest in confidentiality.

A key problem now for the House Oversight Committee is thus far it has yet to state in a very concrete way why it needs the particular documents it is demanding.

In contrast, the executive branch has articulated a strong and highly specific reason for withholding the documents at issue: Forced disclosure to Congress of internal deliberations concerning how best to interact with Congress would undermine the executive's capacity to function as a co-equal branch. It would undermine the prospects for future candid deliberations about interactions with the other institutions of government.

The House could ask the U.S. attorney for the District of Columbia to prosecute Holder for contempt, but the Justice Department long ago took the position -- in a very careful opinion written by then Assistant Attorney General Theodore Olson -- that the department is not required by law to prosecute executive officials for contempt when the ground for subpoena noncompliance is a claim of executive privilege.

So that would leave the House with the one remaining legal option of launching an impeachment investigation, which brings us to the political side of things.

The reality Congress faces in separation of powers disputes, no matter how genuine or how principled, is that the public will almost certainly not rally around Congress if it perceives the dispute as more political food fight than anything else.

Here is a link that might be useful: cnn


 o
RE: Executive privilege really??

At the link is an interesting take on all this, within is a link to a WSJ editorial, which is a good read. The article has a dead-end link to another Washington Post column on the subject, but that can be accessed here: http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/in-congress-blowing-gunsmoke/2012/06/20/gJQA4eULrV_story.html?hpid=z2

Point being that what is likely a very important issue is now being turned into a political circus, with the end result that now, with the contempt vote, Eric Holder - as the AG - will have to decide if he should investigate himself.

Here is a link that might be useful: link


 o
RE: Executive privilege really??

The problem with that statement as I see it esh, is that Obama has claimed all along that he knew nothing about Fast and Furious, that he had never read any documents pertaining to Fast and Furious, so why is he claiming executive privilege?


 o
RE: Executive privilege really??

I believe he is claiming executive privilege to protect the release of the documents. Only he can invoke it. You say he is doing it to protect HIMSELF, it seems, but according to what I posted above, it is a matter of the Administration, not necessarily Obama himself.


 o
RE: Executive privilege really??

They're after DOJ documents and correspondence after the agent was shot.

Not before the shooting, which were all released, indicating that they didn't know about it - as they stated.

IMOHO, this is a classic SNAFU with some hot-shot underlings in the DOJ who took some initiative to try and follow the guns, and it turned out horribly, and then they tried to cover their arses, and that didn't work to well either.

But I don't at all buy into the idea that this is part of some Obama-Librul conspiracy to take away Americans' semi-automatic weaponry.


 o
RE: Executive privilege really??

Did anyone watch Rachael Maddow this morning? I could only half listen as I was extremely busy, but very depressing - this issue began by nuts and embraced by nuts and nuts will be elected to rule the nuts who voted them in.

The problem is they will rule everybody else, too.

How about those tea creatures, doing a good job are they with the alarming brand new farm subsidies and cutting food stamps dramatically - 50 percent of those using them being children and the elderly.

What a fine job your Tea creatures are doing!

When are you going to hold them responsible, I wonder? Or is that another "that was then, this is now" topic.

The country has been taken over by voting conservative nuts who want to believe nutty things because it's so much nutty fun.

I used to think they were really good people who just didn't grasp the harm they did to their own countrymen.

I know better, now.


 o
RE: Executive privilege really??

Issa keeps trying to silence his own witnesses. Says it all. Also explains the purpose of this thread.


 o
RE: Executive privilege really??

mrsj..I agree with you . Why is no one listening to the Brian Terry family.
Their son went to work one day....not a safe job anytime...
he didn't come back home......he was killed with a gun furnished to the drug cartel by the US govnmt....and then our WH has been on the defensive from day 1.

They feel betrayed. I feel guilty and the buck doesn't even stop at my desk.

Bill, I do think Fast & Furious was connected to a plan of hopefully a show-down on gun control.
It got out of hand and an innocent man was killed defending our borders.

This is what happens when you have inexperienced, super inexperienced and highly ineperienced people playing games in the WH.

Obama said , "The buck stops here", referring to his desk.
I believe he knew .
He is too egotistical and too controlling to NOT demand to be enformed on something that paramount.


 o
RE: Executive privilege really??

He is too egotistical and too controlling to NOT demand to be enformed on something that paramount.

Of course it never crossed your mind, based on the above statement, that
"he knew nothing about Fast and Furious, that he had never read any documents pertaining to Fast and Furious"

Heaven forbid that Obama says something that is true, that just couldn't happen, could it?


 o
RE: Executive privilege really??

So what are you saying littleonefb? He invoked executive privilege over documents that he knows nothing about and doesn't have a clue what is in them?


 o
RE: Executive privilege really??

mrskjun - if you had people that worked for you (and perhaps you do) - and they told you what you needed to understand about these documents and what it would mean if they were released ... and you trusted these people ... would you necessarily have to see those documents yourself to decide what to do?

I get the sense he probably knows generally what is in them and understands the ramifications of releasing them. Not sure if you read what I posted earlier:

In contrast, the executive branch has articulated a strong and highly specific reason for withholding the documents at issue: Forced disclosure to Congress of internal deliberations concerning how best to interact with Congress would undermine the executive's capacity to function as a co-equal branch. It would undermine the prospects for future candid deliberations about interactions with the other institutions of government.


 o
RE: Executive privilege really??

Posted by tobr24u z6 RI (My Page) on
Thu, Jun 21, 12 at 8:23

Do we need another Deep Throat?

*

I think that would be a good description of the American citizens in regard to Obamacare.
*

This is going to be fun.

Whatever Obama and Holder are wanting to hide is way worse than what they knew would be this fervor over invoking executive privilege when Obama and Holder don't know nothing bout birthin no firearms to kill Brian Terry and Mexican citizens.

I'm getting my coconut oil and organic popcorn out, this will be interesting!


 o
RE: Executive privilege really??

A couple of questions esh. They have been waiting for the documents for over a year...why executive privilege now? Also Carney said today that Holder ended the Fast and Furious program. The program ended in December of 2010. Holder has testified under oath that he knew nothing about the program until May of 2011. Brian Terry's family wants answers, do they deserve them? Now, after a year and a half dems want to claim this is just about politics, I don't think so.


 o
RE: Executive privilege really??

"Now, after a year and a half dems want to claim this is just about politics, I don't think so."

What happened, happened. The question of whether the furor is because of politics means what? That in an election year discussion of things that reflect badly on the candidate are off limits for investigation?


 o
RE: Executive privilege really??

  • Posted by ohiomom 3rdrockfromthesun (My Page) on
    Thu, Jun 21, 12 at 19:10

Take off your partisan panties for just a moment and "think" about this. Yes I know I am wasting my breath (keyboard).

"......some conservatives are treating Fast and Furious like a nefarious conspiracy, rather than just a botched program. The head of the NRA called it "just one part of Barack Obama's agenda to attack gun owners and our Second Amendment rights." And one conservative blogger called it "the Reichstag fire of the Second Amendment." What are they talking about?

.....a conspiracy theory that originated in the far-right blogosphere argues that the program was designed to deliberately provoke an increase in gun violence, giving the administration a convenient excuse to then crack down on gun rights (just as the Nazis set fire to the Reichstag building soon after coming to power and blamed it on their political opponents, giving them an excuse to crack down on political dissent). It's of a piece with the general idea pushed by among gun-rights supporter like NRA president Wayne LaPierre that the fact that the President Obama hasn't yet done anything to limit gun rights only serves as evidence that he plans to limit gun rights. He's lulling gun owners into a false sense of security, you see.

Here is a link that might be useful: source


 o
RE: Executive privilege really??

snip .... One after the other, Republicans on the panel waved the bloody shirt. "Here's the proof!" hollered Rep. Trey Gowdy (S.C.), claiming he had evidence that President Obama knew about a botched federal program that contributed to Terry's death. Gowdy's proof: that Obama cited executive privilege in denying the committee all the documents it sought. "If he's not part of it, then he's got no business asserting executive privilege," Gowdy concluded.

Terry's death is indeed a scandal, part of the "Fast and Furious" operation in which the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives lost track of 2,000 guns it was planning to trace on their way to Mexican drug cartels; two of those firearms were found near Terry's body. After that, the Justice Department shut down the program (which followed similar "gun-walking" operations during the George W. Bush administration), fired or reassigned several people who ran the program out of ATF's Phoenix office, requested an inspector-general investigation and handed over about 7,600 pages of records to Issa's committee.

Republicans want to know whether top officials at Justice or the White House knew about the gun-walking program, which, although they haven't turned up evidence of this, would be a reasonable line of inquiry. But casting doubt on their motives are the documents they are demanding: only those since February 2011 - two months after Terry was killed and the program was shut down.

Rep. Gerald Connolly (D-Va.) accused Issa of setting up a "kangaroo court" to convict Holder. "If this were a genuine attempt to make sure that the Terry family had closure, we'd have an open investigation," he said, and call witnesses involved in the program over the past six years. But, Democrats complained, Issa never sought public testimony from people in the Phoenix ATF office who ran the operation, or from the former head of the ATF, who told committee investigators that he never informed Justice Department higher-ups of the operation because he didn't know about it.

In unusually caustic terms, the committee's ranking Democrat, Elijah Cummings (Md.), accused Issa of "highly inflammatory personal attacks" on Holder (including calling him a "liar" on television) and said Issa "had no interest in resolving this issue."

The committee's Republicans had essentially one answer to all of this: agent Terry. snip

The indignation would sound more genuine if Republicans weren’t going after Holder over what has happened since Terry died.

Here is a link that might be useful: link


 o
RE: Executive privilege really??

They have been waiting for the documents for over a year...why executive privilege now?

If you've been reading even a little about this then you know that he has been negotiating with Issa for some time about it. They invoked executive privilege as a last resort.

If Holder lied then he needs to be held accountable. Sounds like even you know enough to prove that.

Sure Brian Terry's family deserves answers. No one disputes that.

I hope you read what I posted earlier from CNN on one man's opinion about why this is politics.

A key problem now for the House Oversight Committee is thus far it has yet to state in a very concrete way why it needs the particular documents it is demanding.

Issa's committee is seeking documents that show why the Justice Department decided to withdraw as inaccurate a February 2011 letter sent to Congress that said top officials had only recently learned about Fast and Furious.

The subpoenas issued last year originally cited a broad array of documents, including wiretap requests and other materials involving confidential sources that Holder argued he was prevented by law from supplying. Issa narrowed the request in negotiations with Holder in recent weeks to focus on documents pertaining to decision-making on withdrawing the February 2011 letter.

However, Holder refuses to turn over materials containing internal deliberations, and he asked Obama to assert executive privilege over such documents before Wednesday's committee meeting.

Now that you've read the above quote, do you think that what is being withheld really helps the Terry family understand? Remember, only some of the documents are being withheld, not all of them. You understand that, right?

Weapons got into the wrong hands. The weapons were found at the scene of the killing. Knowing any more than that won't bring him back and I doubt they will get anyone prosecuted.

Here is a link that might be useful: cnn


 o
RE: Executive privilege really??

Bill, your parroting the strange conspiracy theory Issa has about it being all about Obama wanted gun regulation which is bizarre and zero evidence of...

Maggie, did you read the link? It's no theory, unless Holder's putting words in Obama's mouth. Zero evidences? I'd say that's pretty hard evidence. I won't address the rest of your post.

I believe he is claiming executive privilege to protect the release of the documents.

I agree. Now take that a step further. WHY is he protecting the release of the documents? It has nothing to do with security. THey could always black out names. He's protecting Holder. Only now, because of involking executive priveledge, he owns it, and it's HIS a$$ on the line now. He just screwed himself. You can disagree all you like, but watch and see if I'm right.

Not before the shooting, which were all released, indicating that they didn't know about it - as they stated.

David, if you think for one minute that Holder AND Obama didn't know about this op before it all blew up, I have a bridge to sell you.

Of course it never crossed your mind, based on the above statement, that
"he knew nothing about Fast and Furious, that he had never read any documents pertaining to Fast and Furious"

No way in hell. At the very least, he was aware of the operation (if he wasn't, Holder'd be history already, if for no other reason than as a sacrificial lamb), and I'd be surprised if he wasn't completely informed.


 o
RE: Executive privilege really??

Bill, 124,000 people work in the Department of Justice. Its possible that the head of Department, let alone the President, doesn't know all the stuff they get up to, particularly if its some lightbulb initiative of, say, some guy in Phoenix.

Again, I'm not excusing them, its a real SNAFU with real dead people, and people should lose their job. But the Republicans are making fools of themselves trying to pin something, anything, on Holder.

If they wanted to know what happened, why not subpoena the guys from Phoenix?


 o
forgot this

Issa never sought public testimony from people in the Phoenix ATF office who ran the operation, or from the former head of the ATF, who told committee investigators that he never informed Justice Department higher-ups of the operation because he didn't know about it.

Here is a link that might be useful: link


 o
RE: Executive privilege really??

What evidence?...and OM...good post...and :(


 o
RE: Executive privilege really??

All the right wing blogs have been touting it why should'n Bill. The last year we kept hearing Obama is going to take your guns, Obama's buying up all the bullets.


 o
RE: Executive privilege really??

How does a President impose gun control or even limit it fo that matter?

I am forever bewildered by the powers that people confer upon the President. Powers he simply does not have.
If the President could impose his will you would have a single payer system of health care, increased taxes on the super wealthy and lots more money invested in education and infrastructure.

The President is only one person in a system with significant checks and balances. The only thing he can control on his own is defense and foreign policy and in that regard he is seen as doing a relatively good job.


 o
RE: Executive privilege really??

  • Posted by ohiomom 3rdrockfromthesun (My Page) on
    Fri, Jun 22, 12 at 5:32

....now Chase don't go ruining a good outrage du jour by using facts. You will spoil all the fun. From my link:

the fact that the President Obama hasn't yet done anything to limit gun rights only serves as evidence that he plans to limit gun rights. He's lulling gun owners into a false sense of security, you see.


 o
RE: Executive privilege really??

Sneaky is'nt he as sneaky as ISSA trying to neuter the ATTORNEY GENERAL before the election cycle.


 o
RE: Executive privilege really??

Yeah the left leaning media/blogs think that Issa is doing this to get rid of the Attorney General in retaliation for voter suppression push back in Florida and other places.

Everybody's got a conspiracy theory.


 o
RE: Executive privilege really??

Sometimes it's fun to watch our system work.

Right now the president and AG claim Congress has all the documents they're going to get.

Congress says we'll see about that.

Next week we will find out if the Obamacare mandate stands.

Any president with fantasies of bypassing the American people has his work cut out for him when both parties are in play. How cool is that?


 o
RE: Executive privilege really??

when both parties are in play. How cool is that?

It would be cool if the Republicans would participate with the average American's best interest at heart. 3.5 years of saying "no" with no real good proposals to do better is getting pretty un-cool. Now Romney wants keep from telling people about improvements in the economy just so that he can keep people in fear.

I guess Nik that both parties are in play only when you say so.


 o
RE: Executive privilege really??

  • Posted by ohiomom 3rdrockfromthesun (My Page) on
    Fri, Jun 22, 12 at 10:15

Oh cool the global economy is on a boat called the Titanic, people are still losing homes and/or dealing with underwater mortgages, wages are stagnant and jobs are few, the climate is all over the place, folks have lost their life savings, healthcare and pensions, but lets be entertained by the jacka$$es on the hill.

Oh yeah big fun.


 o
RE: Executive privilege really??

Thanks ohiomom, we have been saying this for a while now. I'm glad dems are finally realizing what a lousy job Obama has done.

Go back to the beginning of this. For ten months, Eric Holder denied that Fast and Furious even existed. Then we find out, he ended the program in Dec. of 2010, yet testified before congress that he learned of the program in Feb. 2011. No one has been fired, no one has been held accountable for the death of Brian Terry. No one seems to be willing to give truthful answers. He has promised to turn over the documents yet has never done so. Now we have the president claiming executive privilege. Shades of Watergate. The dems are doing just what the republicans did back then.


 o
RE: Executive privilege really??

" The dems are doing just what the republicans did back then."

And what to do double down once more!


 o
RE: Executive privilege really??

  • Posted by ohiomom 3rdrockfromthesun (My Page) on
    Fri, Jun 22, 12 at 11:01

Anyone who believes this is a "one party" issue is naive and/or blind.

Petty partisan politics is not entertainment for me, but hey have fun with that.


 o
RE: Executive privilege really??

It is so funny that people are comparing this to Watergate.

fyi, Bill...the link you posted was written by an NRA peep. lol Im starting to think that anyone capable of believing their lies, should not own guns. I already got the fear factor call from them on this issue. Full speed ahead they should have another banner 4 years.


 o
RE: Executive privilege really??

Petty partisan politics.

Here is a link that might be useful: link


 o
RE: Executive privilege really??

Great piece, Mrs...so according to John your a hypocrite. ppp when righties point to Stewart or Maher when it suits them but ignore everything else.


 o
RE: Executive privilege really??

Posted by maggie2094 (My Page) on Fri, Jun 22, 12 at 19:06

Great piece, Mrs...so according to John your a hypocrite
____________________

"In the segment, Stewart echoed Republicans who have charged that Attorney General Eric Holder has engaged in a cover-up and that the president's assertion of executive privilege in the case is hypocritical."

____________________

You say Mrs is a hypocrite according to Stewart because he said that? Maggie, that is so lame.

___________________

"point to Stewart or Maher when it suits them..."

Of course. Mrs is not stupid. Speaking for myself, it's nice to refer to something positive about Stewart for a change. He's very talented, and it's such a shame that he wastes it most the time on hopeless causes. It's very freeing to find the humor in this, instead of speaking hatefully about the man just because he opposes my beliefs most the time.

I like it.


 o
RE: Executive privilege really??

Elvis, did you watch the entire segment? Brilliant Stewart as usual. He also showed republicans defended executive privedlge during the Bush years...hence my statement. That was my point - funny when righties cherry pick Jon Stewart.

As I stated aleady, this investigatino is a sham and an inept one at that asking for documents that are against federal law to release and not calling key players while making references to Watergate and gun control. A joke..


 o
RE: Executive privilege really??

This "investigation" is only interesting for people who watch wayyyyyyy too much Fox News.

It is hyper-partisan and has been spun into ridiculous theories including that the program was set up to discourage gun ownership in the US. LOL.
Only idiots believe that kind of spin and God knows there are a lot of them in this country.

Meanwhile, have Republicans done anything to address the impact on this country that the deadly drug running crime syndicate in Mexico has had? Have they offered any solutions to help Mexico?
Nopre, they are just too busy with these pimpy attacks trying to get to Obama.


 o
RE: Executive privilege really??

I'd like to know how this is trying to get Obama? It was never about Obama. Didn't he say he knew nothing about Fast and Furious? You don't believe him?

This is about an operation that put a couple of thousand guns in the hands of hardened criminals with no way to track them and no oversight. It is about the death of an American Border Patrol agent and hundreds of Mexicans when the Mexican government knew nothing about the operation. And the people who want to know why it happened. It is about an attorney general who works for the American people first and foremost, who lied under oath.

And now the president of the United States invokes executive privilege over papers pertaining to something of which he claims no knowledge.

So maggie, I'm a hypocrite when I point out that one of the most partisan lefties can see the wrong in this? What an absolutely silly statement. I hear one of maddies snorts coming on.


 o
RE: Executive privilege really??

Posted by maggie2094 (My Page) on Fri, Jun 22, 12 at 19:38

"...funny when righties cherry pick Jon Stewart."

Because it WAS funny. Why bother paying attention to him when he's just being his usual self? That's why it's an extraordinary pleasure when he's fun for me to watch; so rare.

"...asking for documents that are against federal law to release.."

Now, whose word do we take for that?

_______________
Posted by heri_cles 10 (My Page) on Fri, Jun 22, 12 at 19:49

"his "investigation" is only interesting for people who watch wayyyyyyy too much Fox News."

So you watch a LOT of Fox News. Nothing to be ashamed of, Heri. Just remember, they're not REALLY "fair & balanced".

"...ridiculous theories including that the program was set up to discourage gun ownership in the US."

Ridiculous? Hmmm. As a supporter of the right to bear arms, I'm always suspicious about motivations in that regard. It could be true.

"Only idiots believe that kind of spin and God knows there are a lot of them in this country."

Your opinion. And it's nice to know you believe in God.

"Have they offered any solutions to help Mexico?"

Help Mexico? With what; why? If the demand for drugs wasn't here in the U.S., the problem would go away. Tell everyone to stop using illegal drugs. And stop treating illegal drug abusers as sick people instead of the criminals they are.

"Nopre, they are just too busy with these pimpy attacks trying to get to Obama."

This is not a news flash.


 o
RE: Executive privilege really??

mrskjun - everything you post is about "getting Obama". Duh.


 o
RE: Executive privilege really??

It's all going to blow up in Issa's face eventually.


 o
RE: Executive privilege really??

This "investigation" is only interesting for people who watch wayyyyyyy too much Fox News.

You just made me realize-- I haven't watched Fox in MONTHS. :-) I gotta catch up-- don't want to lose my decoder ring. (or my tax breaks)


 o
RE: Executive privilege really??

LOL, Bill! I think the libs probably watch Fox more than the conservatives do~~they certainly enjoy talking about it!


 o
RE: Executive privilege really??

The difference in Fox News and the liberal media.

Fox News will play a clip and play all of it so you can get the whole picture.

Liberal Media will cherry pick a clip or statement, edit it to fit the liberal agenda, and leave you (if you are a liberal) thinking what a good job they do.

I can't imagine why a liberal wouldn't tune in to Fox News ever once in while to find out what is going on up at the WH.

I thought liberals said they made up their own minds.
If all you watch is Jon Stewart...Rachael Maddow, Bill Mahr and the liberal media how do you know you aren't being influenced ?


 o
RE: Executive privilege really??

No one on Fox measures up to any of the people you mentioned. Maddow could take on ANYONE at Fox with half her brain tied behind her back.


 o
RE: Executive privilege really??

  • Posted by ohiomom 3rdrockfromthesun (My Page) on
    Sat, Jun 23, 12 at 6:31

....and thank you very much for proving my above statement "petty partisan politics"

Those folks at those multi-thousand a plate dinners that run this country also said "thank you very much" for making their existence possible.


 o
RE: Executive privilege really??

Fox News will play a clip and play all of it so you can get the whole picture.

I think Jon Stewart has proven several times that that is not true.

I don't have to watch Fox News - I find out whatever their outrages are just by reading here. Are you saying they cover more than just political outrages?


 o
RE: Executive privilege really??

Comedian Jon Stewart reported on his November 10, 2009 broadcast of The Daily Show that Fox News pundit Sean Hannity misrepresented video footage purportedly showing large crowds on a health-care protest orchestrated by Rep. Michele Bachmann. Stewart showed inconsistencies in alternating shots according to the color of the sky and tree leaves, showing that spliced in the shots was footage from Glenn Beck's much larger 9/12 rally which had occurred two months earlier. Hannity estimated 20,000 protesters were in attendance, the Washington Post estimated 10,000 and Luke Russert reported that three Capitol Hill police officers guessed "about 4,000."[101][102] Sean Hannity apologized to his viewers for the error during his November 11, 2009 broadcast.[103]
On November 18, 2009, Fox News anchor Gregg Jarrett told viewers that a Sarah Palin book signing in Grand Rapids, Michigan had a massive turnout while showing footage of Palin with a large crowd. Jarrett noted that the former Republican vice-presidential candidate is "continuing to draw huge crowds while she's promoting her brand-new book", adding that the images being shown were "some of the pictures just coming in to us.... The lines earlier had formed this morning."[104] The video was actually taken from a 2008 McCain/Palin campaign rally. Fox senior vice-president of news Michael Clemente issued an initial statement saying, "This was a production error in which the copy editor changed a script and didn't alert the control room to update the video." Fox offered an on-air apology the following day during the same "Happening Now" segment citing regrets for what they described as a "video error" with no intent to mislead. (they just got caught)

Then there was this kind of sillyness that they engaged in

Then there was just plain old Glen Beck & the stories he just loved to make up as he went along.
Beck reported that Soros had helped send Jews to the Death Camps (disgusting creature Beck)
Then we have the dandy doozy that one poster could'nt wait to put on this forum I think shes still thinking about how to respond to the mockery flung at the Fox/Bachmann OBAMA 200 Million a day trip to India that one came back to me from a demented/fox/republican relative only about a month ago as fact.


 o
RE: Executive privilege really??

  • Posted by vgkg 7-Va Tidewater (My Page) on
    Sat, Jun 23, 12 at 10:26

Shepard Smith of FOX is the only one there I'd trust to present unbiased reporting of any news event. Now that Beck is gone Hannity is the most twisted & distorted of them all. For a religious kinda guy Hannity will have a lot to answer for on that pesky "bearing false witness against thy neighbor" thing.


 o
RE: Executive privilege really??

I agree; Hannity is a putz.


 o
RE: Executive privilege really??

  • Posted by ohiomom 3rdrockfromthesun (My Page) on
    Sat, Jun 23, 12 at 11:11

.....am sure that large corporate owned media is not partial to either party, and I also believe in the tooth fairy.


 o
RE: Executive privilege really??

Shepard Smith of FOX is the only one there I'd trust to present unbiased reporting of any news event.

Greta Van Sustern, too.


 o
RE: Executive privilege really??

  • Posted by vgkg 7-Va Tidewater (My Page) on
    Sat, Jun 23, 12 at 17:45

I'm not so sure about Greta, when she was on cnn just about every one of her shows was about the Clinton scandals all through the 1990's. After she switched to Fox I cannot recall one show of her's that covered any of the Bush scandals during those years. Yet now she's once again concentrated on Obama's possible scandals all of the time. Fair and balanced I think not.


 o
RE: Executive privilege really??

Photobucket


 o
RE: Executive privilege really??

Nice summary, Bill. Greta's a favorite at our house, too. She is too fair and balanced for some on the right, which is fine by us.


 o
RE: Executive privilege really??

Would someone explain to me how this SNAFU was supposed to build a case against the gun dealers and the 2nd amendment, when the gun dealers involved were telling the ATF agents they were straw purchases, and the ATF told them to go ahead anyway?


 o
RE: Executive privilege really??

The only time I like Greta is when Kristin Wiig plays her on SNL. Other than Shepard Smith, who I heard was a Democrat, there is not one person on Fox who could actually be called a journalist. They are entertainers for the sheeple like Limbaugh is on the radio.


 o
RE: Executive privilege really??

Lily, they don't read the news anymore; you know that. It's entertainment, including opinion. It's all about presentation.


 o
RE: Executive privilege really??

  • Posted by ohiomom 3rdrockfromthesun (My Page) on
    Sun, Jun 24, 12 at 9:23

Elvis I totally agree that our so-called news is just entertainment and opinion, which means those who watch it should be aware of that. But are they?

Speaking of news .. why is it that Yahoo news has gone from words to video ? I would rather read an article than watch a film clip, if I wanted to do that I would turn on the lamestream media.


 o
RE: Executive privilege really??

Posted by ohiomom 3rdrockfromthesun (My Page) on Sun, Jun 24, 12 at 9:23

Elvis I totally agree that our so-called news is just entertainment and opinion, which means those who watch it should be aware of that. But are they?
________________

Sometimes not. I have elderly relatives who truly believe that if it's reported on the news, it is fact (used to be, except for War of the Worlds, from what I hear). When gently corrected, the reaction I got was: "Isn't it against the law for the news to lie?"

Seriously; these people are from a generation when liars were not the norm. It's pathetic. :(


 o
RE: Executive privilege really??

This morning on FOX News Sunday, Issa told Chris Wallace that he had no evidence to indicate that Obama knew about F&F. None, nada.

Here is a link that might be useful: Too bad, so sad, can't denigrate Obama on this


 o
RE: Executive privilege really??

Well, that's good; that would have been bad news. So why invoke Executive Privilege?


 o
RE: Executive privilege really??

The report is in. Should there be an apology?

"The report found no evidence that Holder was informed about the Fast and Furious operation before Jan. 31, 2011, or that the attorney general was told about the much-disputed gun-walking tactic employed by the department�s Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives."

Here is a link that might be useful: Fast and Furious'


 o
RE: Executive privilege really??

Don't hold your breath, Marquest.


 o
RE: Executive privilege really??

  • Posted by vgkg 7-Va Tidewater (My Page) on
    Thu, Sep 20, 12 at 9:05

Awwww, poor Issa didn't bag that Eric Holder head trophy to mount on his office wall. Good luck Issa on your future stone turning, maybe you should crawl back under one.


 o
RE: Executive privilege really??

An apology? From Issa and the minions who parrotted it here?

That'll be the day.


 o
RE: Executive privilege really??

An apology would be a bit much to expect; an admission they were wrong would suffice. Mind you I know that will never happen because, I guarantee, you they are thinking the report was rigged somehow....you see it can't be that they were fed a lot of carp and bought it.


 o
RE: Executive privilege really??

She's still waiting for Fox News to tell her how this still implicates Obama ... then she'll respond.


 o
RE: Executive privilege really??

Issa isn't giving up. I mean, really? How do people like Issa continue to get reelected?

House Oversight and Government Reform Chairman Darrell Issa (R-Calif.) is vowing to continue pursuing Attorney General Eric Holder's contempt of Congress citation in court and said the report is all the more reason to continue his own probe with new zeal.

Issa will "absolutely" continue pursuing the civil lawsuit attempting to compel Holder to hand over more documents about the gun-running investigation, spokesman Frederick Hill said.

Hill said the findings of the IG report and some of its loose ends "only enhances the importance of the House moving forward in its civil action against President [Barack Obama's] flawed claim of executive privilege."

Here is a link that might be useful: Crazy


 o
RE: Executive privilege really??

As always, quietly dropping the subject and walking away. For now, that is.

Give it a coupla weeks. There will be a new thread.


 o
RE: Executive privilege really??

You're too right, Maddie, more's the pity. I'm guessing a new talking point to cover this hasn't been released yet...


 o
RE: Executive privilege really??

she is too fair and balanced for some on the right, which is fine by us.

elvis: Are you aware of the fact that news is not supposed to be Fair and Balanced. It's supposed to be Accurate.


 o Post a Follow-Up

Please Note: Only registered members are able to post messages to this forum.

    If you are a member, please log in.

    If you aren't yet a member, join now!


Return to the Hot Topics Forum

Information about Posting

  • You must be logged in to post a message. Once you are logged in, a posting window will appear at the bottom of the messages. If you are not a member, please register for an account.
  • Please review our Rules of Play before posting.
  • Posting is a two-step process. Once you have composed your message, you will be taken to the preview page. You will then have a chance to review your post, make changes and upload photos.
  • After posting your message, you may need to refresh the forum page in order to see it.
  • Before posting copyrighted material, please read about Copyright and Fair Use.
  • We have a strict no-advertising policy!
  • If you would like to practice posting or uploading photos, please visit our Test forum.
  • If you need assistance, please Contact Us and we will be happy to help.


Learn more about in-text links on this page here