Ok, let me get this straight.
President Obama has just invoked Executive Privilege over the release of documents that Eric Holder claims he knows nothing about and were not generated by the White House.
I understand the need for and use of executive privilege, I just don't understand it's application in this matter. The only justification for EP in this case would be if the documents contained direct communications with the White House or the president.
It looks like this may evolve into an investigation of the White House rather than just the Justice Dept.
Quote from: Gaspar on June 20, 2012, 09:48:47 AM
Ok, let me get this straight.
President Obama has just invoked Executive Privilege over the release of documents that Eric Holder claims he knows nothing about and were not generated by the White House.
I understand the need for and use of executive privilege, I just don't understand it's application in this matter. The only justification for EP in this case would be if the documents contained direct communications with the White House or the president.
It looks like this may evolve into an investigation of the White House rather than just the Justice Dept.
So why didn't you ask the same questions of the times GWB invoked it (6 times)? This is the first time that I'm aware that this administration has.
Wait, what?
Quote from: Hoss on June 20, 2012, 09:55:24 AM
So why didn't you ask the same questions of the times GWB invoked it (6 times)? This is the first time that I'm aware that this administration has.
Wait, what?
Come on....you know that isn't in "The Script"!!
Good thing Congress didn't play politics with the mess and proceed to force the president's hand.
What would Congress do in an election year without someone, something, or some issue to threaten investigations over?
Quote from: Hoss on June 20, 2012, 09:55:24 AM
So why didn't you ask the same questions of the times GWB invoked it (6 times)? This is the first time that I'm aware that this administration has.
Wait, what?
Not defending Bush necessarily, but does it really justify what this administration is doing.
Like I've said before, bad behavior does not justify bad behavior.
Quote from: erfalf on June 20, 2012, 10:32:17 AM
Not defending Bush necessarily, but does it really justify what this administration is doing.
Like I've said before, bad behavior does not justify bad behavior.
Wrong question to ask; I wasn't saying what Bush did was bad or wasn't bad. I am asking why there was no criticism of him from Gas when he did it?
But I think we all know the answer to that.
I agree with you erfalf. Executive privilege was wrong before and it is wrong today.
But it is hard to read gaspar's one-sided rants without bringing up the other side, however. He fails to remember when republicans do bad things. It is called selective outrage.
Quote from: Hoss on June 20, 2012, 10:35:25 AM
Wrong question to ask; I wasn't saying what Bush did was bad or wasn't bad. I am asking why there was no criticism of him from Gas when he did it?
But I think we all know the answer to that.
Bush did invoke several times, and Reagan, Clinton et. al. even more.
The point is that when the Executive Branch invokes Executive Privilege it is to safeguard information and communications related to the Executive Branch and the president.
The difference here is that the Executive Branch, who claims to have no knowledge or connection to this Justice Department program is now invoking Executive Privilege beyond the Executive Branch. This is an 11th hour reaction, which means that the release of these documents represents significant political damage to the White House.
It doesn't look good.
Quote from: RecycleMichael on June 20, 2012, 10:39:06 AM
I agree with you erfalf. Executive privilege was wrong before and it is wrong today.
But it is hard to read gaspar's one-sided rants without bringing up the other side, however. He fails to remember when republicans do bad things. It is called selective outrage.
Fair enough, but Obama is President now. I'm a little green (I only started really being interested in the later Bush years so I only have my perspective. And my perspective is that politics is too political, if that makes sense. I guess what I mean is that we have representatives to do specific things, and all they seem to want to do is play politics and get re-elected. It is just maddening. Eventually, regardless of which party is in office, the hammer is going to come down on someone for all the nonsense that goes on. I guess they just have to be careful not to be to egregious.
Quote from: Gaspar on June 20, 2012, 10:43:29 AM
Bush did invoke several times, and Reagan, Clinton et. al. even more.
The point is that when the Executive Branch invokes Executive Privilege it is to safeguard information and communications related to the Executive Branch and the president.
The difference here is that the Executive Branch, who claims to have no knowledge or connection to this Justice Department program is now invoking Executive Privilege beyond the Executive Branch. This is an 11th hour reaction, which means that the release of these documents represents significant political damage to the White House.
It doesn't look good.
Ah, so now you claim to be clairvoyant. You've obviously missed your calling.
Quote from: Hoss on June 20, 2012, 10:46:08 AM
Ah, so now you claim to be clairvoyant. You've obviously missed your calling.
I don't know about past examples of invoking Presidential Privilege, but in this case in particular, the Attorney General is asking for Presidential Privilege to protect documents he claims he didn't know existed. See the problem?
Quote from: erfalf on June 20, 2012, 10:51:47 AM
I don't know about past examples of invoking Presidential Privilege, but in this case in particular, the Attorney General is asking for Presidential Privilege to protect documents he claims he didn't know existed. See the problem?
And do you think Cheney et al didn't ask for the same during those instances? This was a formality. Either way, it's wrong to do. But keep straying from my question as to why Gas didn't bring this up during the Bush administration.
Bush did it four times inside of six weeks in 2007. Where was the outrage then?
And why was Rove claiming EP from this article?
http://articles.cnn.com/2008-07-10/politics/rove.subpoena_1_robert-d-luskin-subpoena-longtime-political-guru?_s=PM:POLITICS
Quote from: Hoss on June 20, 2012, 10:56:01 AM
And do you think Cheney et al didn't ask for the same during those instances? This was a formality. Either way, it's wrong to do. But keep straying from my question as to why Gas didn't bring this up during the Bush administration.
Bush did it four times inside of six weeks in 2007. Where was the outrage then?
And why was Rove claiming EP from this article?
http://articles.cnn.com/2008-07-10/politics/rove.subpoena_1_robert-d-luskin-subpoena-longtime-political-guru?_s=PM:POLITICS
Maybe somewhere in 2007. Let's live for today how about.
Quote from: erfalf on June 20, 2012, 11:03:30 AM
Maybe somewhere in 2007. Let's live for today how about.
That's obviously what some here want to do. But ignore that fact that the outrage wasn't there in the past.
That was my whole point of replying.
Quote from: Hoss on June 20, 2012, 11:15:48 AM
That's obviously what some here want to do. But ignore that fact that the outrage wasn't there in the past.
That was my whole point of replying.
You mean like this outrage?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=bpwYh9TD6Nc#!
Just sayin...
Quote from: erfalf on June 20, 2012, 11:03:30 AM
Maybe somewhere in 2007. Let's live for today how about.
Because if you don't know history or understand it, then you are susceptible to fall for any old kind of carp that comes down the road. (Should we mention some of your past posts?)
Your quote;
Like I've said before, bad behavior does not justify bad behavior.
I happen to agree completely. I also apply an additional litmus test of relativity, which is one of the complaints about Gaspar's approach - if you have 1 unit of bad behavior compared to 10 units of bad behavior, yes, they are both bad. But which do you really think is the more critical and/or urgent at any given point of time? What is the relative "badness" between the two??
Classic case is Billy Bob's lying to Congress about his hanky panky in the oval office. Relative criticality/urgency compared to lying about getting us into a wasted war that has cost to date over 5,000 (approaching 6,000!) lives of YOUR contemporaries - and MY generation's kids and grandkids. Not to mention the tens of thousands of wounded!
Plus the approx $2 trillion that it has heaped onto our debt - much of it "off budget" to make it less obvious. Which one would you put the most weight on? Would you really hold these to be equal in magnitude/gravity??
Gaspar puts the 1 equal to the 10. Do you??
Quote from: Hoss on June 20, 2012, 10:56:01 AM
And do you think Cheney et al didn't ask for the same during those instances? This was a formality. Either way, it's wrong to do. But keep straying from my question as to why Gas didn't bring this up during the Bush administration.
Bush did it four times inside of six weeks in 2007. Where was the outrage then?
And why was Rove claiming EP from this article?
http://articles.cnn.com/2008-07-10/politics/rove.subpoena_1_robert-d-luskin-subpoena-longtime-political-guru?_s=PM:POLITICS
Was Gaspar even a member of the forum in 2007?
Why are you defending the Executive Branch trying to obstruct justice on behalf of the AG's office by referencing the actions of the previous administration? The article you cited was an investigation into firing U.S. attorneys by those within the executive branch. I might also add this is nothing new, as Presidents frequently do fire U.S. Attorneys. Clinton cleaned house when he came into office in 1993, firing all but one. The total was around 93. Bush fired eight of them midway through his second term. BFD.
The current investigation is regarding breaking numerous gun laws and trafficking weapons which have resulted in the death of U.S. law enforcement agents. There's a major effing difference as to the magnitude of the investigation, and it's inexcusable. A messed up arms operation which jeopardizes thousands of lives versus firing eight U.S. attorneys is a huge difference. Focus on the message not the messenger.
Quote from: erfalf on June 20, 2012, 11:19:09 AM
You mean like this outrage?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=bpwYh9TD6Nc#!
Just sayin...
Apples and oranges. You ignore the fact I'm specifically asking why Gas didn't have the outrage. That's my question. Keep rotating it around as you see fit, but the question remains to be answered.
Myself? At the time, it didn't bother me. I never said anything about it because back in 2007 I wasn't near as versed in policy and politics as I am now.
Quote from: Conan71 on June 20, 2012, 11:25:14 AM
Was Gaspar even a member of the forum in 2007?
Why are you defending the Executive Branch trying to obstruct justice on behalf of the AG's office by referencing the actions of the previous administration? The article you cited was an investigation into firing U.S. attorneys by those within the executive branch. I might also add this is nothing new, as Presidents frequently do fire U.S. Attorneys. Clinton cleaned house when he came into office in 1993, firing all but one. The total was around 93. Bush fired eight of them midway through his second term. BFD.
The current investigation is regarding breaking numerous gun laws and trafficking weapons which have resulted in the death of U.S. law enforcement agents. There's a major effing difference as to the magnitude of the investigation, and it's inexcusable. A messed up arms operation which jeopardizes thousands of lives versus firing eight U.S. attorneys is a huge difference. Focus on the message not the messenger.
You guys are not reading what I'm saying evidently. I'm NOT defending anyone here. I'm simply asking why Gas has the outrage now but didn't have it back then.
It's that simple people. You're twisting my intent. But, that's not surprising.
Quote from: Conan71 on June 20, 2012, 11:25:14 AM
Was Gaspar even a member of the forum in 2007?
Why are you defending the Executive Branch trying to obstruct justice on behalf of the AG's office by referencing the actions of the previous administration? The article you cited was an investigation into firing U.S. attorneys by those within the executive branch. I might also add this is nothing new, as Presidents frequently do fire U.S. Attorneys. Clinton cleaned house when he came into office in 1993, firing all but one. The total was around 93. Bush fired eight of them midway through his second term. BFD.
The current investigation is regarding breaking numerous gun laws and trafficking weapons which have resulted in the death of U.S. law enforcement agents. There's a major effing difference as to the magnitude of the investigation, and it's inexcusable. A messed up arms operation which jeopardizes thousands of lives versus firing eight U.S. attorneys is a huge difference. Focus on the message not the messenger.
That's exactly the point. We could have a hypocrisy competition all freaking day long. It still doesn't justify the behavior. I am not trying to justify Gas's opinion if and when he had them. I am saying that what is happening appears to be in the wrong, and let's focus on that now. In the present tense.
I'm not twisting Hoss's intent, I'm just saying it doesn't matter to the discussion. Hoss, like our current administration are trying to discredit the messenger regardless of the facts when presented. It is immaterial to the discussion at hand.
Quote from: erfalf on June 20, 2012, 11:30:33 AM
That's exactly the point. We could have a hypocrisy competition all freaking day long. It still doesn't justify the behavior. I am not trying to justify Gas's opinion if and when he had them. I am saying that what is happening appears to be in the wrong, and let's focus on that now. In the present tense.
I'm not twisting Hoss's intent, I'm just saying it doesn't matter to the discussion. Hoss, like our current administration are trying to discredit the messenger regardless of the facts when presented. It is immaterial to the discussion at hand.
I'm not trying to discredit the messenger any differently aside from the selective outrage. I know the facts here. It's YOU who are defending the messenger.
Quote from: Hoss on June 20, 2012, 11:26:56 AM
You guys are not reading what I'm saying evidently. I'm NOT defending anyone here. I'm simply asking why Gas has the outrage now but didn't have it back then.
It's that simple people. You're twisting my intent. But, that's not surprising.
No, I don't have it wrong, you are focusing on the messenger being hypocritical. I don't know that we ever discussed the dismissals of the U.S. Attorneys and whether or not Gaspar ever posted on it.
Would initiating a post about the Bush admin using executive privilege be a prerequisite for posting about it when the Obama admin uses it?
Quote from: Conan71 on June 20, 2012, 11:39:18 AM
No, I don't have it wrong, you are focusing on the messenger being hypocritical. I don't know that we ever discussed the dismissals of the U.S. Attorneys and whether or not Gaspar ever posted on it.
Would initiating a post about the Bush admin using executive privilege be a prerequisite for posting about it when the Obama admin uses it?
If so then why did you ask me this?
QuoteWhy are you defending the Executive Branch trying to obstruct justice on behalf of the AG's office by referencing the actions of the previous administration? The article you cited was an investigation into firing U.S. attorneys by those within the executive branch. I might also add this is nothing new, as Presidents frequently do fire U.S. Attorneys. Clinton cleaned house when he came into office in 1993, firing all but one. The total was around 93. Bush fired eight of them midway through his second term. BFD.
I never defended anyone here, either administration. Like you said, I was pointing out the selective outrage. Why ask me that question?
EDIT: To add...I can see why someone might think I'm defending the administration here. Fact of the matter is, I've NEVER liked the EP. It's a copout and always feels like something is being hidden.
If you want to answer questions about Scott's selective outrage ... fine. But otherwise I'm not getting baited again to answer about something I never asserted in the post. Silly I even have to say that. ::)
Quote from: Hoss on June 20, 2012, 11:54:48 AM
EDIT: To add...I can see why someone might think I'm defending the administration here. Fact of the matter is, I've NEVER liked the EP. It's a copout and always feels like something is being hidden.
That's all I was looking for and yes, that's where you lost me as the way you brought up Rove was almost like a justification for the current admin using EP. Thanks for the clarification.
Quote from: Hoss on June 20, 2012, 11:26:56 AM
You guys are not reading what I'm saying evidently. I'm NOT defending anyone here. I'm simply asking why Gas has the outrage now but didn't have it back then.
It's that simple people. You're twisting my intent. But, that's not surprising.
Ok, I'm back from lunch. I have outrage or at least suspicion every time any president invokes Executive Privilege. There are times when it seems more justified than others, such as in reasons for terminating employees or protecting the executive knowledge of clandestine operations.
Again, what makes this case unique is that this president is extending Executive Privilege beyond the executive. The power of Executive Privilege is designed to protect the Executive, not friends, girlfriends, or other entities.
The worst abuser of executive privilege was Bill Clinton, invoking it 14 times to protect himself on everything from various bimbo eruptions, fraudulent land deals, and a host of other stuff. Each time from George Washington to Nixon to Clinton, executive privilege has been used to protect the President from possible criminal prosecution.
Now we see it used for a completely new reason, or is it?
Using Executive Privilege while fighting a war necessitates keeping secrets.
Sorry....too bad. Witch hunts for political gain waste huge amounts of money and time.
Paging Ken Starr....we will find out this all started under a Bush. http://scholarship.law.duke.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1173&context=dlj&sei-redir=1&referer=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.google.com%2Furl%3Fsa%3Dt%26rct%3Dj%26q%3Dexecutive%2520privilege%2520bush%2520reno%26source%3Dweb%26cd%3D1%26ved%3D0CGAQFjAA%26url%3Dhttp%253A%252F%252Fscholarship.law.duke.edu%252Fcgi%252Fviewcontent.cgi%253Farticle%253D1173%2526context%253Ddlj%26ei%3DPurhT6i4LqmU2QXG6bHsCw%26usg%3DAFQjCNEEdQ2B1Qa3raFIprdEOieg3AdcmA#search=%22executive%20privilege%20bush%20reno%22
Clinton 14 times
Bush 6 times
Republijerks going after POTUS Obama for not having enough gun control...this whole thing is a joke.
Quote from: Hoss on June 20, 2012, 11:26:56 AM
You guys are not reading what I'm saying evidently.
Yes we are. We just don't care why Gas was not outraged 5 years ago.
Quote from: Red Arrow on June 20, 2012, 12:45:20 PM
Yes we are. We just don't care why Gas was not outraged 5 years ago.
That's what I thought. A pattern emerges.
Quote from: Hoss on June 20, 2012, 12:55:33 PM
That's what I thought. A pattern emerges.
(http://cdn.memegenerator.net/instances/400x/22300377.jpg)
Why on earth would you get the impression that a libertarian would be OK with Bush exerting Executive Privilege? The only defense I would give him is that it wasn't to hide dry cleaning bills.
Don't hate the player, hate the game.
So. . . I went back in my Google time machine to the case before it was heavily connected to the Justice Department. Last year when it was considered a major ATF screwup, and CBS uncovered ATF documents that linked it to an effort by the ATF to push stronger gun control legislation. http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-31727_162-57338546-10391695/documents-atf-used-fast-and-furious-to-make-the-case-for-gun-regulations/
Now, if the ATF was involved in an effort to take a failed secret program that caused the deaths of thousands of Mexicans and a few Americans and turn it into some kind of campaign for gun control, do you think perhaps just maybe they might tap the higher-up powers that be (who also support stricter gun laws) to help rally the cause? Why wouldn't they?
I give it about a 99% chance that their are emails that exist between the administration and ATF outlining this as a fantastic Solyndra like opportunity to push gun control legislation. If Special Agent John Dodson had not followed his conscious and confessed to the existence and failure of the program, I am 99% positive we would be receiving teleprompter speeches about how lax American Gun control laws are to blame for thousands of innocent lives, including the life of one Brian Terry, who's widow would be sitting in box seats at the State of the Union address with the lovely First Lady.
Lots of bodies here. This may be worse than Watergate.
Quote from: Gaspar on June 20, 2012, 02:10:16 PM
This may be worse than Watergate.
Bay of Pigs? Iran/Contra? Panama? Colombia? Philippines? Federal drug testing on NY subway riders? Tuskegee syphilis experiment?
How much worse?
I think I recall stories of the gun running being traced back to the Bush administration, and that this administration's justice department was the one that uncovered it. Is this accurate or am I miss-remembering?
If it is accurate, why the need to cover up documents that the JD claims implicate the Bush administration? Everybody loves bashing Bush anyways, so why not just pile on.
Quote from: Gaspar on June 20, 2012, 02:10:16 PM
Lots of bodies here. This may be worse than Watergate.
Gaspargate? Spazzgate?
Commentators from across the political spectrum expressed criticism after The Times revealed this week that a Fast and Furious-style gun program under President George W. Bush allowed guns to "walk" across the border into Mexico during 2006 and 2007. http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/world_now/2011/10/mexico-wide-receiver-reaction-guns-weapons-left-right.html
Obama still wins in 2012. Seen the Bloomberg numbers?
Will you continue the tirades for 4 more years?
Quote from: erfalf on June 20, 2012, 02:24:14 PM
I think I recall stories of the gun running being traced back to the Bush administration, and that this administration's justice department was the one that uncovered it. Is this accurate or am I miss-remembering?
If it is accurate, why the need to cover up documents that the JD claims implicate the Bush administration? Everybody loves bashing Bush anyways, so why not just pile on.
Even, Holder made that argument. Oh, but wait, he had to issue a retraction today, again.
http://washingtonexaminer.com/holder-retracts-claim-bush-team-knew-about-fast-and-furious/article/2500157
There was indeed a different STUPID program in 2006 called Wide Receiver. 450 guns were sold, and most made it into Mexico. Only 9 arrests were made. It was a failure, and who knows where those guns are now. The ATF should indeed be investigated thoroughly for all such cases. Wide Receiver was certainly not the first and there have been several smaller incidents of this scam in-between.
The difference is, these programs were carried out without the knowledge of the Justice Department, or as it now seems, the President. . .And when the programs failed there was no attempt to cover them up. There was also no attempt to cover up the death of a US border agent as being associated with guns supplied to the cartel by the US government.
Quote from: Gaspar on June 20, 2012, 02:45:33 PM
Even, Holder made that argument. Oh, but wait, he had to issue a retraction today, again.
http://washingtonexaminer.com/holder-retracts-claim-bush-team-knew-about-fast-and-furious/article/2500157
There was indeed a different STUPID program in 2006 called Wide Receiver. 450 guns were sold, and most made it into Mexico. Only 9 arrests were made. It was a failure, and who knows where those guns are now. The ATF should indeed be investigated thoroughly for all such cases. Wide Receiver was certainly not the first and there have been several smaller incidents of this scam in-between.
The difference is, these programs were carried out without the knowledge of the Justice Department, or as it now seems, the President. . .And when the programs failed there was no attempt to cover them up. There was also no attempt to cover up the death of a US border agent as being associated with guns supplied to the cartel by the US government.
When bush does it, republicans dont care...when obama does something...its the worst thing ever....typical republican dishonesty!
Quotehttp://thinkprogress.org/justice/2012/06/13/498521/five-things-to-know-about-the-house-oversight-chairs-witchhunt-against-attorney-general-holder/
1. Issa Has No Case:
2. Reagan's Justice Department Agreed With Holder:
3. Law Enforcement Rejects Issa's Witchhunt:
4. Even Top Republicans Think Issa Goes Too Far:
5. Issa Is Fixated On A Conspiracy Theory:
I think the details about Eric Holder and "fast and furious" need to come out. I am unhappy that Obama invoked Executive Privilege.
I was mad when Dick Cheney used the same method to hide meetings with energy executives.
The public has a right to know.
Erfalf is with me on this. It might be the only thing we ever agree on.
Quote from: Gaspar on June 20, 2012, 02:10:16 PM
Lots of bodies here. This may be worse than Watergate.
There weren't any bodies at Watergate - just a few skeletons in the closet.
F & F and its predecessors should all be investigated and criminal activity brought to light and prosecuted. Never happen.
But yes, Bush and Obama are both big time guilty on this thing. And ATF acting badly goes back - way back - to the the 60's at least.
Quote from: RecycleMichael on June 20, 2012, 03:17:18 PM
The public has a right to know.
Giving comfort to our enemies?
Quote from: RecycleMichael on June 20, 2012, 03:17:18 PM
I think the details about Eric Holder and "fast and furious" need to come out. I am unhappy that Obama invoked Executive Privilege.
I was mad when Dick Cheney used the same method to hide meetings with energy executives.
The public has a right to know.
Erfalf is with me on this. It might be the only thing we ever agree on.
That's three of us in agreement so far.
Quote from: Conan71 on June 20, 2012, 03:44:41 PM
That's three of us in agreement so far.
Make it four. I think EP should only apply in cases where National Security is absolutely at stake. I don't see where this is the case.
Quote from: Teatownclown on June 20, 2012, 03:40:24 PM
Giving comfort to our enemies?
There are no enemies here. At least that's the idea.
Congress agrees.
The House Government Oversight and Reform Committee has voted to hold Attorney General Eric Holder in contempt of Congress by a 23-17 vote.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/06/20/eric-holder-contempt-vote-fast-and-furious-darrel-issa_n_1612046.html
Quote from: Conan71 on June 20, 2012, 03:44:41 PM
That's three of us in agreement so far.
Coludn't agree more with this.
Quote from: Gaspar on June 20, 2012, 03:47:32 PM
There are no enemies here. At least that's the idea.
Uh, then why the War On Drugs? You conservatives don't mind pithing away money if it's your doings.
Quote from: erfalf on June 20, 2012, 02:24:14 PM
I think I recall stories of the gun running being traced back to the Bush administration, and that this administration's justice department was the one that uncovered it. Is this accurate or am I miss-remembering?
If it is accurate, why the need to cover up documents that the JD claims implicate the Bush administration? Everybody loves bashing Bush anyways, so why not just pile on.
The President has cloaked the documents with Executive privilege and a Democratic member of the committee said, during the discussion and
replayed on NPR this AM, that Holder was forbidden by law to release the documents. Since this was an undercover investigation, that may be
true. Issa may have bitten off more than he can chew.
I would encourage those interested in this question to take about fifteen minutes and read U.S. v. Nixon. There is a very educational and enlightening discussion on the import of separation of powers and the risks of intrusion, particularly in Section IV.
http://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/418/683/case.html
Quote from: Teatownclown on June 20, 2012, 04:07:59 PM
Uh, then why the War On Drugs? You conservatives don't mind pithing away money if it's your doings.
I think you're on the wrong thread.
. . .and, I don't believe it's the government's job to regulate recreational substances either. In a sense the war on drugs is what created the need for the guns supplied by the Justice Department and bought by the cartels.
Anyone here for the war on drugs? Can I see some hands? Nope? Ok, lets move on.
Quote from: Hoss on June 20, 2012, 11:26:56 AM
You guys are not reading what I'm saying evidently. I'm NOT defending anyone here. I'm simply asking why Gas has the outrage now but didn't have it back then.
It's that simple people. You're twisting my intent. But, that's not surprising.
I think you were given the rope and erfalf sort of led you to the gallows. Suggesting that it is US who were not getting your point is kinda sad.
Brian Terry's family none to pleased:
QuoteTerry family attorney Pat McGroder on Wednesday released the following statement from Terry's parents Josephine Terry and Kent Terry Sr.: "Attorney General Eric Holder's refusal to fully disclose the documents associated with Operation Fast and Furious and President Obama's assertion of executive privilege serves to compound this tragedy. It denies the Terry family and the American people the truth."
The Terrys said that their son "was killed by members of a Mexican drug cartel armed with weapons from this failed Justice Department gun trafficking investigation. For more than 18 months we have been asking our federal government for justice and accountability. The documents sought by the House Oversight Committee and associated with Operation Fast and Furious should be produced and turned over to the committee. Our son lost his life protecting this nation, and it is very disappointing that we are now faced with an administration that seems more concerned with protecting themselves rather than revealing the truth behind Operation Fast and Furious."
http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/politics/2012/06/murdered-border-agents-family-says-president-obama-compounding-this-tragedy-with-executive-privilege-assertion/
Quote from: guido911 on June 20, 2012, 04:47:56 PM
I think you were given the rope and erfalf sort of led you to the gallows. Suggesting that it is US who were not getting your point is kinda sad.
Merely pointing out I was not defending either administration; just trying to get Scott to explain the lack of 2007 outrage. But I don't expect you to pick up on that.
Quote from: Teatownclown on June 20, 2012, 04:07:59 PM
Uh, then why the War On Drugs? You conservatives don't mind pithing away money if it's your doings.
I don't think there's anyone on here who approves of the war on drugs. Try another ad hom instead.
Quote from: Conan71 on June 20, 2012, 05:48:15 PM
I don't think there's anyone on here who approves of the war on drugs. Try another ad hom instead.
I know of one, but can't remember which poster it is..wasn't it Nate? If not, sorry to Nate. I know someone on here is a huge proponent of the WOD.
No one is in favor - everyone is against (WOD). So why do we keep doing the insane?? (Full circle, again.)
Quote from: heironymouspasparagus on June 20, 2012, 05:53:22 PM
No one is in favor - everyone is against (WOD). So why do we keep doing the insane?? (Full circle, again.)
Really. You'd think our ex-stoner president would have abolished it already.
Quote from: guido911 on June 20, 2012, 04:29:30 PM
I would encourage those interested in this question to take about fifteen minutes and read U.S. v. Nixon. There is a very educational and enlightening discussion on the import of separation of powers and the risks of intrusion, particularly in Section IV.
Every president since Nixon has gone down the Executive Privilege road -- Bush W was a frequent flier -- so the point?
Quote from: Conan71 on June 20, 2012, 05:48:15 PM
Try another ad hom instead.
What? So, you don't get the link between F and F and WOD?
ALSO, Bill Clinton was an ex stoner President and last I saw his approval ratings were higher than any single Repiglicant. And the current ex stoner President? This ex stoner, who is more popular than any Teahadist/GOPeer, President would be breaking the law to turn over these Fast and Furious docs to Issass.
Such stupid game playing by the Teabagger/GOPeer's.
Quote from: Hoss on June 20, 2012, 12:55:33 PM
That's what I thought. A pattern emerges.
Yep, you making a big deal out of nothing.
Quote from: Teatownclown on June 20, 2012, 04:16:35 PM
The President has cloaked the documents with Executive privilege and a Democratic member of the committee said, during the discussion and
replayed on NPR this AM, that Holder was forbidden by law to release the documents. Since this was an undercover investigation, that may be
true. Issa may have bitten off more than he can chew.
This was on TPM back on June 6 (excerpts):
House Oversight Committee Chairman Darrell Issa seemed to take offense on Thursday to the suggestion that his committee asked the Justice Department for access to wiretap applications under court seal during his investigation into the botched ATF operation known as Fast and Furious.
...While the original subpoena did not mention them, Issa has on several occasions requested the Justice Department's assistance in obtaining wiretap applications, even though the disclosure of such document would be in violation of federal law.
...In a letter earlier this week, Issa also stated that he and Sen. Chuck Grassley wrote the Justice Department back in February "requesting the Department's assistance in obtaining the wiretap applications from Operation Fast and Furious."
...Holder noted during his testimony on Thursday that there was a criminal provision with a five-year penalty for disclosing sealed wiretap applications, but said there were very practical reasons for not disclosing the material as well.
"There are concerns that one would have about people who are involved in these matters. You might put victims' safety at risk. You might put at risk the success of a prosecution. Those are all the reasons why there are very tight restrictions on the provision of material connected to wiretaps," Holder said.http://tpmmuckraker.talkingpointsmemo.com/2012/06/fast_and_furious_issa_says_he_never_requested_sealed_wiretaps.php (http://tpmmuckraker.talkingpointsmemo.com/2012/06/fast_and_furious_issa_says_he_never_requested_sealed_wiretaps.php)
West Virginia's late Senator Robert Byrd kept a pocket sized copy of the US Constitution with him, and wasn't afraid to give the President of either party a quick civics lesson when necessary. He liked to point out that we have three separate branches of government and that none of them are subordinate to the others. Senator Byrd answered to the US Senate, not the President.
So what may appear to be a political fight has overtones with constitutional implications. If AG Holder revealed the contents of a sealed document to the senator, he'd be violating both the law and a court order. If he didn't reveal the contents, he'd be in contempt of congress. If you were the AG, which is better: pissing off a US senator or pissing off a federal judge?
One last thing, and it's a hypothetical about Fast and Furious. If one of our agents hadn't died and the operation lead to the destruction of some of the drug cartels, would conservatives vilify the ATF and the AG or would they be singing the praises of a successful enforcement action against some of the worst criminals in the western hemisphere?
Quote from: Red Arrow on June 20, 2012, 09:09:38 PM
Yep, you making a big deal out of nothing.
That's your opinion. However, it was Gas who started the post...I simply pointed out the outrage disparity.
Quote from: Teatownclown on June 20, 2012, 07:47:52 PM
What? So, you don't get the link between F and F and WOD?
ALSO, Bill Clinton was an ex stoner President and last I saw his approval ratings were higher than any single Repiglicant. And the current ex stoner President? This ex stoner, who is more popular than any Teahadist/GOPeer, President would be breaking the law to turn over these Fast and Furious docs to Issass.
Such stupid game playing by the Teabagger/GOPeer's.
Well duh, anyone with any brain cells left knows F&F is result of the WOD, who were they walking the guns to? Drug smugglers. What's the point you are trying to make as it relates to the illegal actions of the DOJ the White House is trying to cover up?
Secondly, Clinton wasn't a stoner, it's hard to get stoned when you don't inhale 8)
Quote from: Conan71 on June 20, 2012, 09:28:43 PM
Well duh, anyone with any brain cells left knows F&F is result of the WOD, who were they walking the guns to? Drug smugglers. What's the point you are trying to make as it relates to the illegal actions of the DOJ the White House is trying to cover up?
Secondly, Clinton wasn't a stoner, it's hard to get stoned when you don't inhale 8)
Conan, read Ed's post two or three back and you might understand why this DOJ "cover up" is related to National Security and it is subject to Executive Privelege to protect our wartime interests. He points out what conservatives would think had this one man not been killed. Mind you, 3 people in this country die every hour from guns. But that's really neither here nor there because it's too difficult to politicize unless your cold trigger fingers are being pried from your right to bear arms. And the real target here is not guns, or the victim or even Mr. Holder. The real target/issue is POTUS Obama.
Every
republican neo-con I talk to is a drooling moron, so it stands to follow that all
republicans neo-cons are drooling morons.
Quote from: Hoss on June 20, 2012, 09:20:24 PM
That's your opinion. However, it was Gas who started the post...I simply pointed out the outrage disparity.
Again and again and again....
Quote from: Teatownclown on June 20, 2012, 09:44:40 PM
He points out asks what conservatives would think had this one man not been killed.
Quote from: Red Arrow on June 20, 2012, 09:55:50 PM
Again and again and again....
Okay. Hoss needs some love everyone. Gassy. We demand answers! Where was your damned outrage back in the Bush years over his exercising executive privilege. I'm not talk minor outrage, but your full on, batsh!t crazy scream fest which you are apparently exhibiting in here. Something like this:
(https://encrypted-tbn1.google.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcTOXJ8gvXgnIYtj6fBgwreXdHb_7qqwTYDDNmiB_Lm42rSKXgDHyw)
If you fail to produce evidence of your outrage, then I will simply assume that whether Obama exercises the privilege or not, whether he condemned its use in 2007 or not, and label the question you raised as completely non-newsworthy and you some bad evil name.
Quote from: guido911 on June 20, 2012, 10:31:42 PM
Okay. Hoss needs some love everyone. Gassy. We demand answers! Where was your damned outrage back in the Bush years over his exercising executive privilege. I'm not talk minor outrage, but your full on, batsh!t crazy scream fest which you are apparently exhibiting in here. Something like this:
(https://encrypted-tbn1.google.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcTOXJ8gvXgnIYtj6fBgwreXdHb_7qqwTYDDNmiB_Lm42rSKXgDHyw)
If you fail to produce evidence of your outrage, then I will simply assume that whether Obama exercises the privilege or not, whether he condemned its use in 2007 or not, and label the question you raised as completely non-newsworthy and you some bad evil name.
Ah, yes, the AW is out tonight. Nice to see you're still in form.
You might need to start work, however, on your ad hominem skills, as you may have a challenger.
Quote from: Hoss on June 20, 2012, 09:20:24 PM
That's your opinion. However, it was Gas who started the post...I simply pointed out the outrage disparity.
I continue to point out that there is no disparity.
Quote from: Gaspar on June 21, 2012, 07:28:45 AM
I continue to point out that there is no disparity.
As I will continue to point out that there is.
Quote from: Hoss on June 21, 2012, 07:36:14 AM
As I will continue to point out that there is.
I hope you are stomping both of your feet up and down, waving your fists wildly, gritting your teeth, and holding your breath until you turn blue.
Quote from: Red Arrow on June 21, 2012, 07:46:51 AM
I hope you are stomping both of your feet up and down, waving your fists wildly, gritting your teeth, and holding your breath until you turn blue.
Nope, don't need to. He can continue to believe what HE wants, I will continue to believe what I want. That's the great thing about free will.
Quote from: guido911 on June 20, 2012, 10:31:42 PM
Okay. Hoss needs some love everyone. Gassy. We demand answers! Where was your damned outrage back in the Bush years over his exercising executive privilege. I'm not talk minor outrage, but your full on, batsh!t crazy scream fest which you are apparently exhibiting in here. Something like this:
(https://encrypted-tbn1.google.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcTOXJ8gvXgnIYtj6fBgwreXdHb_7qqwTYDDNmiB_Lm42rSKXgDHyw)
If you fail to produce evidence of your outrage, then I will simply assume that whether Obama exercises the privilege or not, whether he condemned its use in 2007 or not, and label the question you raised as completely non-newsworthy and you some bad evil name.
Wish I could, but I wasn't on this forum in 2007. When Clinton did it I was pissed, of course he was overturned 9 times. When bush did it I was equally pissed, especially because Cheney attempted to establish that he had the right to EP too, and that's not true! Bush was also overturned several times.
Now I am EQUALLY pissed that President Obama has done it for an office outside of the Executive branch, and for documents that he claims he is "unaware" of. But who cares what I think. This is more of an affront against those who elected President Obama than those of us who chose otherwise. For us, he continues to produce fodder that makes it very difficult not to say "I told you so." For those who support him, he continues to produce embarrassment and failure on nearly every aspect of every platform they elected him on. His only achievement is holding us in grips recession out of spite for the private sector, or "the enemy" as he calls them in his book.
My "outrage" is not directed at President Obama, because he has proven to be an inept at his job (he can't help that), my outrage is at those that continue to defend his ineptitude like dogs defending a vicious master because he feeds them, even though he beats them constantly and forces them to sleep in the cold. They defend him out of hope for that next morsel.
President Obama was the first president in a long time to enjoy 2 years of almost total power with a sympathetic congress, and in that time he produced the trashiest and most useless stimulus legislation ever passed. The sole purpose of every program was to distribute "thanks" to donors, banks, unions, and other special interests. As a result, he got a midterm congressional election that stripped him of his empirical robes. Now he is again attempting on several fronts to reign over the people at the dismay of the people. Congress be damned, he's the king!
Those that continue to defend him are either ignorant or choose to play ignorant. That's where the outrage is, and their only defense, the only thing they can say, the only way they can sell their support for President Obama is to say "Well, Bush did. . ."
That is the saddest endorsement for a man, I have ever heard.
Quote from: Gaspar on June 21, 2012, 07:55:32 AM
Wish I could, but I wasn't on this forum in 2007. When Clinton did it I was pissed, of course he was overturned 9 times. When bush did it I was equally pissed, especially because Cheney attempted to establish that he had the right to EP too, and that's not true! Bush was also overturned several times.
Now I am EQUALLY pissed that President Obama has done it for an office outside of the Executive branch, and for documents that he claims he is "unaware" of. But who cares what I think. This is more of an affront against those who elected President Obama than those of us who chose otherwise. For us, he continues to produce fodder that makes it very difficult not to say "I told you so." For those who support him, he continues to produce embarrassment and failure on nearly every aspect of every platform they elected him on. His only achievement is holding us in grips recession out of spite for the private sector, or "the enemy" as he calls them in his book.
My "outrage" is not directed at President Obama, because he has proven to be an inept at his job (he can't help that), my outrage is at those that continue to defend his ineptitude like dogs defending a vicious master because he feeds them, even though he beats them constantly and forces them to sleep in the cold. They defend him out of hope for that next morsel.
President Obama was the first president in a long time to enjoy 2 years of almost total power with a sympathetic congress, and in that time he produced the trashiest and most useless stimulus legislation ever passed. The sole purpose of every program was to distribute "thanks" to donors, banks, unions, and other special interests. As a result, he got a midterm congressional election that stripped him of his empirical robes. Now he is again attempting on several fronts to reign over the people at the dismay of the people. Congress be damned, he's the king!
Those that continue to defend him are either ignorant or choose to play ignorant. That's where the outrage is, and their only defense, the only thing they can say, the only way they can sell their support for President Obama is to say "Well, Bush did. . ."
That is the saddest endorsement for a man, I have ever heard.
I'm not selling any defense either for or against. I'm not endorsing anyone. Once again, I'm pointing out the selective outrage, and I've had people agree with me on this point. You do realize you can be against someone while not being for the other, correct?
It amuses me that the only way people on here try to quash my question is to accuse me of defending the current administration's actions or using this subject some way to bolster my support for the current President. I don't support either currently. I'm so glad many of you are able to venture into my though process to continue to deflect the question.
And I will concede that you were not on here for that part of 2007 (you did join, however in November).
But I sure didn't see any outrage from the usual suspects in that timeframe who were on here.
Myself? Nary a peep did I say about any EPs done during that period. I don't like them, but not to the point where I feel I should shout it to the public on a public forum.
The partisan divisiveness not only on this forum, but in this country is staggering. It needs to end or we go nowhere, because even if Romney is elected, there will be much of the same.
Quote from: Hoss on June 21, 2012, 08:01:37 AM
The partisan divisiveness not only on this forum, but in this country is staggering. It needs to end or we go nowhere, because even if Romney is elected, there will be much of the same.
That we can agree on. I have always been one to give the president credit for his positive achievements, though they be few. Some cannot stomach that, because they view it more as a "my team vs. your team" type of situation. One of the positive aspects of President Obama's "reign" is that he is the unwilling birth-father of a whole new generation of independent voters who may still register as one party or the other, but find a home in neither. I am hopeful that this will eventually strengthen other political parties and philosophies to build enough financial support to actually compete in future elections. Libertarians, Teaheadists, and even the Socialist Democrat Party/OWS have stronger voices now.
Quote from: Red Arrow on June 21, 2012, 07:46:51 AM
I hope you are stomping both of your feet up and down, waving your fists wildly, gritting your teeth, and holding your breath until you turn blue.
Is he getting close to this yet?
Quote from: guido911 on June 21, 2012, 09:36:14 AM
Is he getting close to this yet?
C'mon Gweed, you can do better than that!
Quote from: Hoss on June 21, 2012, 08:01:37 AM
I'm not selling any defense either for or against. I'm not endorsing anyone. Once again, I'm pointing out the selective outrage, and I've had people agree with me on this point. You do realize you can be against someone while not being for the other, correct?
It amuses me that the only way people on here try to quash my question is to accuse me of defending the current administration's actions or using this subject some way to bolster my support for the current President. I don't support either currently. I'm so glad many of you are able to venture into my though process to continue to deflect the question.
And I will concede that you were not on here for that part of 2007 (you did join, however in November).
But I sure didn't see any outrage from the usual suspects in that timeframe who were on here.
Myself? Nary a peep did I say about any EPs done during that period. I don't like them, but not to the point where I feel I should shout it to the public on a public forum.
The partisan divisiveness not only on this forum, but in this country is staggering. It needs to end or we go nowhere, because even if Romney is elected, there will be much of the same.
Just because no one expressed concern about a previous admin's use of EP doesn't mean this isn't relevant nor is it an example of selective outrage. I do seem to recall outrage at the time from all corners when EP was attempted in covering up the facts on Pat Tillman's death when his family wanted answers as to whether or not he was killed by enemy fire or friendly fire.
I can't speak for Gaspar, but I can tell you why I'm pissed about it:
The reason this stinks is the president is claiming executive privilege over documents he claims he knows nothing about and it appears he's running interference for the DOJ. Shouldn't "executive privilege" only be extended to the "executive" branch if the president claims to have no knowledge of the documents in question? It also is a clear example of his hypocrisy when he is caught on tape in 2007 criticizing President Bush's use of EP.
Secondly, this is an attempt to cover up obviously illegal activity on the part of the DOJ, ATF, and possibly the FBI and other agencies who were involved. This activity resulted not only in the death of one U.S. agent, but untold hundreds of innocent and not so innocent victims in Mexico. I would suspect there are even U.S. citizens who have been killed with these weapons in border areas on both sides of the border.
This president continues to rule by fiat. Examples are simply deciding to extend amnesty to 800,000 undocumented students Senate be damned, running around Congress and enacting new rules and regulations via a system of "czars" when he doesn't get his way, Obamacare (including the cowardly way it was passed using reconciliation).
(Personally, I'm somewhat ambiguous on the amnesty issue as these are generally children of illegals who had no choice in where their parents took them. It's the usurping of Constitutional procedure when he doesn't get his way that pisses me off on this one).
Quote from: Hoss on June 21, 2012, 09:42:20 AM
C'mon Gweed, you can do better than that!
I know I can. But just look at the material I am working with here.
6 pages about EP so far.
I wonder where we'll be with EP in a few years. Surely it'll be removed by the next president...GOP, Dem, Ind...certainly they'll know we don't want it and remove it.
Quote from: Conan71 on June 21, 2012, 09:44:36 AM
Just because no one expressed concern about a previous admin's use of EP doesn't mean this isn't relevant nor is it an example of selective outrage. I do seem to recall outrage at the time from all corners when EP was attempted in covering up the facts on Pat Tillman's death when his family wanted answers as to whether or not he was killed by enemy fire or friendly fire.
I can't speak for Gaspar, but I can tell you why I'm pissed about it:
The reason this stinks is the president is claiming executive privilege over documents he claims he knows nothing about and it appears he's running interference for the DOJ. Shouldn't "executive privilege" only be extended to the "executive" branch if the president claims to have no knowledge of the documents in question? It also is a clear example of his hypocrisy when he is caught on tape in 2007 criticizing President Bush's use of EP.
Secondly, this is an attempt to cover up obviously illegal activity on the part of the DOJ, ATF, and possibly the FBI and other agencies who were involved. This activity resulted not only in the death of one U.S. agent, but untold hundreds of innocent and not so innocent victims in Mexico. I would suspect there are even U.S. citizens who have been killed with these weapons in border areas on both sides of the border.
This president continues to rule by fiat. Examples are simply deciding to extend amnesty to 800,000 undocumented students Senate be damned, running around Congress and enacting new rules and regulations via a system of "czars" when he doesn't get his way, Obamacare (including the cowardly way it was passed using reconciliation).
(Personally, I'm somewhat ambiguous on the amnesty issue as these are generally children of illegals who had no choice in where their parents took them. It's the usurping of Constitutional procedure when he doesn't get his way that pisses me off on this one).
(http://www.philzone.org/discus/messages/439459/780409.jpg)
Quote from: Teatownclown on June 21, 2012, 03:37:05 PM
(http://www.philzone.org/discus/messages/439459/780409.jpg)
I hear Midtown Hardware has a sale on tiki torches and pitchforks. Go in see Jim Sweeney and tell him Conan sent you.
Quote from: Townsend on June 21, 2012, 01:09:59 PM
6 pages about EP so far.
I wonder where we'll be with EP in a few years. Surely it'll be removed by the next president...GOP, Dem, Ind...certainly they'll know we don't want it and remove it.
I haven't said I wanted it removed. I think it's purpose is necessary; however some of the circumstances of it's assertion is what is questionable.
Quote from: guido911 on June 21, 2012, 05:23:37 PM
I haven't said I wanted it removed. I think it's purpose is necessary; however some of the circumstances of it's assertion is what is questionable.
I was kidding. It's there. It'll always be there. There's probably a super secret exec privilege we don't know about.
Quote from: Townsend on June 21, 2012, 05:51:13 PM
I was kidding. It's there. It'll always be there. There's probably a super secret exec privilege we don't know about.
Quote from: Townsend on June 21, 2012, 05:51:13 PM
I was kidding. It's there. It'll always be there. There's probably a super secret exec privilege we don't know about.
Well, I guess I was being a dumbaox, sorry. As for the super secret, it does exist.
(http://roderickmallen.files.wordpress.com/2011/07/cone-of-silence.jpg)
Quote from: guido911 on June 21, 2012, 05:56:17 PM
Well, I guess I was being a dumbaox, sorry. As for the super secret, it does exist.
(http://roderickmallen.files.wordpress.com/2011/07/cone-of-silence.jpg)
Didn't work. I could always hear them talking even when they were in that thing.
Quote from: guido911 on June 21, 2012, 05:23:37 PM
I haven't said I wanted it removed. I think it's purpose is necessary; however some of the circumstances of it's assertion is what is questionable.
Amen to that!
""They're going after Eric Holder because he is supporting measures to overturn these voter suppression initiatives in the states," Pelosi told reporters during her press briefing today. "This is no accident, it is no coincidence. It is a plan on the part of Republicans. "
Quote
NRA: Obama's Routine Executive Privilege Claim Proves Our Crazy Fast And Furious Conspiracy Theory
http://mediamatters.org/blog/201206220007
and the beat goes on....
Quote from: Teatownclown on June 22, 2012, 04:13:22 PM
Amen to that!
""They're going after Eric Holder because he is supporting measures to overturn these voter suppression initiatives in the states," Pelosi told reporters during her press briefing today. "This is no accident, it is no coincidence. It is a plan on the part of Republicans. "
and the beat goes on....
Aunt Nancy is just as nutty as ever.
She knows full well it's all because Holder is black.
Quote from: Conan71 on June 22, 2012, 04:16:29 PM
Aunt Nancy is just as nutty as ever.
She knows full well it's all because Holder is black.
Baiter
(http://i305.photobucket.com/albums/nn212/SoonerCruiser_photos/ObamaasNixon.gif)
Quote from: Breadburner on June 24, 2012, 03:16:36 PM
(http://i305.photobucket.com/albums/nn212/SoonerCruiser_photos/ObamaasNixon.gif)
He learned that lesson well, didn't he?
Heating up.
There may indeed be a connection between the WH and F&F. Otherwise Executive Privilege will be overturned. Watergate was peas and carrots compared to this.
http://oversight.house.gov/wp-content/uploads/2012/06/oversight@mail.house_.gov_20120625_230445.pdf
Quote from: Gaspar on June 26, 2012, 08:53:02 AM
Watergate was peas and carrots compared to this.
How so?
Quote from: Townsend on June 26, 2012, 09:10:49 AM
How so?
Because he wills it so?
Sent from my MB860 using Tapatalk 2
Quote from: Townsend on June 26, 2012, 09:10:49 AM
How so?
If what is alleged in the letter from the Congressional committee is true, it's no exaggeration. AG lying to Congress, President denying any knowledge of documents then claims EP to run interference for the AG? In terms of how many people could end up in prison over this, I doubt as many as Watergate.
In terms of the seriousness of what they are attempting to cover up vs H2Ogate, people didn't die as a result of Watergate and we didn't intentionally break another country's firearms laws.
As crazy Uncle Joe would say: "This is a big bucking deal!"
It is always the little things. Nobody remembers Nixon failing to get the Strategic Arms Limitations Treaty signed. He negotiated nuclear war with Russia, then couldn't get Congress to sign off. All they remember is his denying knowledge of a petty burglary of a hotel room.
Quote from: RecycleMichael on June 26, 2012, 09:34:31 AM
It is always the little things. Nobody remembers Nixon failing to get the Strategic Arms Limitations Treaty signed. He negotiated nuclear war with Russia, then couldn't get Congress to sign off. All they remember is his denying knowledge of a petty burglary of a hotel room.
Nobody really got SALT through - it almost made it (Nixon, Ford, Carter), but when USSR invaded Afghanistan (in Carter's), that pretty well ended it. We did kind of informally run under the terms of the treaty at that time, but no real force of law involved.
Nixon was also the chief architect of opening dialogue with China. That, to me was his biggest (positive) achievement. He had a certain 'mad brilliance' about him that gave him certain insights, but led to certain psychoses.
Maybe the office of President should be a dual role - one for internal affairs, and one for international?
http://features.blogs.fortune.cnn.com/2012/06/27/fast-and-furious-truth/
There's a good piece on executive privilege in the Pittsburgh Post Gazette. And interestingly enough, that paragon of conservative values, Dick Cheney, came out in defense of the president's use of it, though the video was undated, it seemed to be recent.
http://www.post-gazette.com/stories/opinion/perspectives/a-contemptible-abuse-of-contempt-the-last-thing-the-country-needs-is-another-political-circus-in-congress-642043/ (http://www.post-gazette.com/stories/opinion/perspectives/a-contemptible-abuse-of-contempt-the-last-thing-the-country-needs-is-another-political-circus-in-congress-642043/)
The PPG piece has an interesting discussion of executive privilege, worth reading on its own. But this is down toward the end:
Article 1 of the Constitution gives Congress the power to make laws; it is neither a police force nor a jailer. Those powers, pursuant to Article 2, reside in the executive branch. Nor does the Constitution give Congress explicit contempt powers. In rare cases, Congress has issued contempt orders to punish individuals who have sought to bribe legislators or disrupt its proceedings, but this is reserved for extreme situations, not inter-branch squabbles like the one over Fast and Furious.
Congress has given itself additional power, by statute, to issue criminal contempt citations. But these must be enforced by the Justice Department, and it is inconceivable that an attorney general would pursue a contempt proceeding against himself.
Finally, there is a civil contempt process -- created in the post-Watergate era -- that allows Congress to seek enforcement through the courts. Ironically, this law creates a specific exemption for federal government employees (like Eric Holder) acting in their official capacities. The exemption, designed to safeguard the separation of powers, was championed by then-Assistant Attorney General and now-Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia, who told the Senate that trying to weigh Congress' need for information against the executive branch's need to protect the confidentiality of information "is the very type of 'political question' from which ... the courts [should] abstain."
GOP Votes for Contempt as "Fast and Furious" Blows Up in Its Face
http://www.motherjones.com/mojo/2012/06/fast-and-furious-investigation-going-sideways-gop
read up
Quote from: Teatownclown on June 28, 2012, 04:12:02 PM
GOP Votes for Contempt as "Fast and Furious" Blows Up in Its Face
http://www.motherjones.com/mojo/2012/06/fast-and-furious-investigation-going-sideways-gop
read up
Holder in contempt. Now what?
Regarding the Fortune article. If it was just some loony rouge whistle blower, why the appearance of a cover up? Why not let the cat out of the bag and let the Republicans eat crow?
It is called misdirection.
I think it is brilliant.
Interesting. As best I can tell there's no evidence that the Administration's narrative that Holder was misinformed by underlings in field offices until after his Congressional testimony, which happens to comport well with the DoJ sending the committee a letter, unprompted and unsolicited, providing the correct information some time after Holder's testimony.
Cover-up lesson one: Do not voluntarily disclose factual errors in one's testimony before Congress.
N.B., I am 100% not surprised by any of this. The GOP is simply repeating its 1994-2000 performance. The public didn't buy it then, so I'm not quite sure why Issa and others think it'll go over any better this time around.