Obama Invokes Executive Privilege on Fast and Furious Documents

Page 10 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.

spidey07

No Lifer
Aug 4, 2000
65,469
5
76
How do you invoke executive privlidge when all this took place in a department separate from the White House? What did the president have to do with fast and furious?

More importanty - what did Obama know and when did he know it and when did he order the program to garner support his anti-gun agenda?
 

the DRIZZLE

Platinum Member
Sep 6, 2007
2,956
1
81
The branches were explicitly created to be adversarial with one another. It would be extraordinarily naive to think that they would not act in the manner in which they were set up to act.

The checks and balances in the system are a last resort, not a substitute for appropriate conduct. For example, surely Congress should be criticized for passing unconstitutional laws even then though the courts have become the arbiter of constitutionality.

We should demand that public officials due to the right thing, period.

If Congress thinks a special prosecutor is necessary, they should appoint one. I don't think it will give the result you want, but who knows?

I don't want a result, I want a thorough airing of the facts. If the justice department had been forthcoming in the beginning, maybe a special prosecutor wouldn't have been necessary. Using that passive tone is a cop-out. I just don't get it. We criticize conduct on this forum all the time that is technically legal, but against the public interest. Why apply a different standard here?
 

feralkid

Lifer
Jan 28, 2002
16,616
4,705
136
How do you invoke executive privlidge when all this took place in a department separate from the White House? What did the president have to do with fast and furious?


U serious?
The President is head of the Executive Branch.
The Department of Justice is part of the Executive Branch.
 

kage69

Lifer
Jul 17, 2003
28,747
40,188
136
Executive Privilege is acceptable if the topic happens to be meetings that may have influenced the invasion of Iraq, action that cost us thousands of dead and tens of thousands wounded.

Executive Privilege is not acceptable if the topic is a failed sting resulting in the death of a Fed agent.



F&F was a stupid idea, and it was carried out with naivete and incompetence. Someone needs to be held accountable for that, sure, but this is an election year production plain and simple. How many Holder critics here gave a single shit about Alberto Gonsalez lying his ass off with a smile on his face? Puh leez.

I am definitely not a fan of Executive Privilege, I just think this is another amusing reversal of concern by the hyper partisan.



Edit: I was being sarcastic Bober - the clear difference makes little difference to those desperate for a witch hunt
 
Last edited:

BoberFett

Lifer
Oct 9, 1999
37,562
9
81
Executive Privilege is acceptable if the topic happens to be meetings that may have influenced the invasion of Iraq, action that cost us thousands of dead and tens of thousands wounded.

Executive Privilege is not acceptable if the topic is a failed sting resulting in the death of a Fed agent.

Agreed.


F&F was a stupid idea, and it was carried out with naivete and incompetence. Someone needs to be held accountable for that, sure, but this is an election year production plain and simple. How many Holder critics here gave a single shit about Alberto Gonsalez lying his ass off with a smile on his face? Puh leez.

I am definitely not a fan of Executive Privilege, I just think this is another amusing reversal of concern by the hyper partisan.

Agreed, and it's a damn shame that neither side cares about justice, only about their team winning.
 

BoberFett

Lifer
Oct 9, 1999
37,562
9
81
Why apply a different standard here?

Surely that's a rhetorical question...

eskimospy tries to maintain a facade of impartiality, but it's quite clear that he'll forgive the sins of his team while calling for crucifixtion of the other team for the same behavior.
 

Hayabusa Rider

Admin Emeritus & Elite Member
Jan 26, 2000
50,879
4,266
126
This is not correct, he most certainly is empowered to refuse or negotiate and his position is very different than yours or mine. AG Holder acts as a representative of the executive branch of government, a branch that has a large number of powers reserved to it. If Congress attempts to encroach on those powers through subpoena, Holder is under no legal duty to comply.

Whether or not that's true for this case I'm not sure. The idea that he has to comply with what Congress asks of him is not true though.

Which part of the Constitution allows him to do this? AFAIK belonging to the Executive Branch in itself does not give Holder license to ignore the legislature because he feels like it. If that were the case then why have EP at all? Just say no.
 

werepossum

Elite Member
Jul 10, 2006
29,873
463
126
Executive Privilege is acceptable if the topic happens to be meetings that may have influenced the invasion of Iraq, action that cost us thousands of dead and tens of thousands wounded.

Executive Privilege is not acceptable if the topic is a failed sting resulting in the death of a Fed agent.



F&F was a stupid idea, and it was carried out with naivete and incompetence. Someone needs to be held accountable for that, sure, but this is an election year production plain and simple. How many Holder critics here gave a single shit about Alberto Gonsalez lying his ass off with a smile on his face? Puh leez.

I am definitely not a fan of Executive Privilege, I just think this is another amusing reversal of concern by the hyper partisan.



Edit: I was being sarcastic Bober - the clear difference makes little difference to those desperate for a witch hunt
The term "failed sting" implies there was some mechanism to fight crime which failed to be correctly applied. This is incorrect. Fast and Furious had no mechanism to catch any criminal, no mechanism to track weapons within Mexico, no mechanism to provide any additional information about the gun runners than is already provided as part of normal gun sales.

On the contrary, Fast and Furious did exactly what it was designed to do - help facilitate getting more guns into the hands of the drug cartels who would then commit crimes with those guns so that those crimes could be used as fodder to push for gun control.
 

Paul98

Diamond Member
Jan 31, 2010
3,732
199
106
Sounds to me like we now need 3 panels investigating things.

1. Investigate Fast and Furious and what really happened, this means talking to people who were actually involved, not just Holder.

2. Investigate Issa and how the so called fast and furious investigation was conducted and why it didn't try to find out what really happened.

3. Investigate Holder, why documents where being withheld, and how executive privilege would apply.

From what I have read and heard, it sounds like both sides are just playing politics where they don't care about what happened or who really is guilty of something.
 

fskimospy

Elite Member
Mar 10, 2006
85,644
50,879
136
Sounds to me like we now need 3 panels investigating things.

1. Investigate Fast and Furious and what really happened, this means talking to people who were actually involved, not just Holder.

2. Investigate Issa and how the so called fast and furious investigation was conducted and why it didn't try to find out what really happened.

3. Investigate Holder, why documents where being withheld, and how executive privilege would apply.

From what I have read and heard, it sounds like both sides are just playing politics where they don't care about what happened or who really is guilty of something.

The documents that are being withheld are those that cover the executive branch's deliberations about how to respond to Congress, not any documents that actually came from the program, btw.
 

fskimospy

Elite Member
Mar 10, 2006
85,644
50,879
136
Surely that's a rhetorical question...

eskimospy tries to maintain a facade of impartiality, but it's quite clear that he'll forgive the sins of his team while calling for crucifixtion of the other team for the same behavior.

I have to say I really am flattered by how clearly I enrage you. :)
 

werepossum

Elite Member
Jul 10, 2006
29,873
463
126
The documents that are being withheld are those that cover the executive branch's deliberations about how to respond to Congress, not any documents that actually came from the program, btw.
Um, bullshit. Unless of course you define everything the President nominally controls as Executive Branch, all its documents privileged, and thus a huge part of our government above the law.
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052702303379204577476960936306278.html
At issue are Justice Department documents that Mr. Issa and Sen. Charles Grassley (R., Iowa) have sought and that the department resisted turning over in the congressional investigation into Fast and Furious. The department had said the documents reflected internal deliberation or were related to continuing criminal investigations and therefore weren't subject to congressional subpoena.

The dispute centers on a 2009-10 operation run by Arizona-based agents of the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives, aimed at building a case against suspected smugglers of firearms to Mexico. The agents allowed suspected smugglers to buy about 2,000 firearms, without intercepting the weapons. Some have since turned up at crime scenes on both sides of the border, including at a December 2010 shootout that killed a U.S. border agent.

The Justice Department's internal watchdog is almost done with its investigation of Fast and Furious and could release a report as soon as next month, according to people familiar with the matter. Inspector General Michael Horowitz, who won Senate confirmation in March, is aiming to provide the first definitive account of what went wrong. Already, the inspector general's inquiry has spawned two separate investigations that could lead to criminal charges, people familiar with the probe say. One is examining whether supervisors leaked information about a person who told lawmakers about Fast and Furious and whether the alleged leaks were intended as retaliation.

Dennis Burke, who resigned under pressure as U.S. attorney in Arizona, has acknowledged that he leaked information to a reporter about a memo by ATF agent John Dodson. The memo detailed a previous request by Mr. Dodson to use tactics similar to those he later criticized in Fast and Furious, according to people familiar with the matter.

Mr. Burke's attorney didn't respond to a request for comment.

Another probe is focused on the unauthorized sharing of sealed wiretap documents related to the operation. A lawyer for an ATF supervisor who oversaw Fast and Furious inadvertently included court-sealed material in a batch of documents he turned over to the congressional investigators, these people said. The lawyer, Joshua Levy, was advised of his error by congressional staffers who declined to return the documents, they said. Mr. Levy didn't respond to a request for comment.

The main issue in Fast and Furious remains the contention by Messrs. Issa and Grassley that the Justice Department is improperly withholding documents. [/B]The department has turned over thousands of documents—around 7,000 or 8,000, depending on which side is counting—and says it is being forthcoming. By comparison, the inspector general has had access to about 80,000 documents, including those the department has declined to share with lawmakers.

Mr. Issa's staff last month produced a report that includes language holding Mr. Holder in contempt of Congress. If the committee votes to adopt the report, it would be recommending the contempt charge. The report accuses the Justice Department of being slow to hold senior officials accountable for their management of Fast and Furious. It also alleges that the Justice Department has retaliated against people who testified to Congress about the operation.

Republican lawmakers say the documents sought would reveal whether high-level officials were aware of the Fast and Furious tactics, known as gun-walking. They say the documents would also show how the department came to mislead lawmakers in early 2011 when it denied the tactics were used. The Justice Department later withdrew the statement, saying it relied on incorrect information from lower-level officials at ATF.

The gun-walking tactics in Fast and Furious turned up in earlier ATF cases, during the Bush administration. When they were uncovered by Justice officials in the Obama administration, a top Justice official raised concerns with ATF officials, according to Justice documents released last year. But the officials never alerted Mr. Holder, didn't do enough to prevent similar cases and weren't aware the operation was under way until months later, according to Justice documents.

Mr. Holder, in a letter last week to Mr. Issa, said, "The record in this matter reflects that until allegations about the inappropriate tactics used in Fast and Furious were made public, department leadership was unaware of those tactics."


Mr. Holder would be the third attorney general since the start of the Clinton administration to face the threat of contempt by the House oversight committee. The committee voted to hold Clinton-era Attorney General Janet Reno in contempt, but the House never took up the matter and the dispute was resolved when documents were produced. Democrats drafted a report recommending contempt against Michael Mukasey, attorney general under President George W. Bush, but documents sought were produced and the committee didn't take up the matter.

A modicum of common sense would tell you that you don't have 8,000 documents about a program and 80,000 documents discussing what to do about the program if everything is above board.

I've bolded some interesting section, such as that these are Justice Department documents, NOT White House documents. I'll also point out that Justice's "investigation" has spawned two ongoing investigations and BOTH are investigating not who intentionally armed drug cartels in Mexico, but who leaked it so that it had to stop and who gave documents to Congress that Justice did not wish them to see. I'll also point out that when the same BATFE behavior was noted under Bush, ALL the subpoenaed documents were produced. Obama by contrast is hiding the paper trail, protecting the culprits, and investigating those who turned over the rock and exposed the roaches.

Holder said gun walking never happened - then had to admit it did. Holder denied he knew anything about gun walking until he read it in the paper - then had to admit he had known for at least several months. Holder claimed that Mukasey had known about gun walking - then had to claim he "inadvertently" made that untrue accusation. Pretty clear why Obama chose to deny access - it has nothing to do with maintaining Executive Privilege and everything to do with each batch of documents produced catching his administration lying.
 

fskimospy

Elite Member
Mar 10, 2006
85,644
50,879
136
Um, bullshit. Unless of course you define everything the President nominally controls as Executive Branch, all its documents privileged, and thus a huge part of our government above the law.
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052702303379204577476960936306278.html

A modicum of common sense would tell you that you don't have 8,000 documents about a program and 80,000 documents discussing what to do about the program if everything is above board.

I've bolded some interesting section, such as that these are Justice Department documents, NOT White House documents. I'll also point out that Justice's "investigation" has spawned two ongoing investigations and BOTH are investigating not who intentionally armed drug cartels in Mexico, but who leaked it so that it had to stop and who gave documents to Congress that Justice did not wish them to see. I'll also point out that when the same BATFE behavior was noted under Bush, ALL the subpoenaed documents were produced. Obama by contrast is hiding the paper trail, protecting the culprits, and investigating those who turned over the rock and exposed the roaches.

Holder said gun walking never happened - then had to admit it did. Holder denied he knew anything about gun walking until he read it in the paper - then had to admit he had known for at least several months. Holder claimed that Mukasey had known about gun walking - then had to claim he "inadvertently" made that untrue accusation. Pretty clear why Obama chose to deny access - it has nothing to do with maintaining Executive Privilege and everything to do with each batch of documents produced catching his administration lying.

No one said that, I was talking about the documents at issue with the contempt charge. Nothing in your article disputes that in any way.
 

Jhhnn

IN MEMORIAM
Nov 11, 1999
62,365
14,681
136
On the contrary, Fast and Furious did exactly what it was designed to do - help facilitate getting more guns into the hands of the drug cartels who would then commit crimes with those guns so that those crimes could be used as fodder to push for gun control.

Seamless circle of Faith-based conspiracy theory assuming facts not in evidence.

You assume that the whole thing was initiated at the highest level while having no proof of that at all.

Yeh, I know, they're always out to grab yer guns, so any conclusion based on that premise is automagically justified, any imaginary scenario that reinforces it instantly accepted.

It's a disease. They should name it the Wayne LaPierre syndrome.
 

Matt1970

Lifer
Mar 19, 2007
12,320
3
0
Seamless circle of Faith-based conspiracy theory assuming facts not in evidence.

You assume that the whole thing was initiated at the highest level while having no proof of that at all.

Yeh, I know, they're always out to grab yer guns, so any conclusion based on that premise is automagically justified, any imaginary scenario that reinforces it instantly accepted.

It's a disease. They should name it the Wayne LaPierre syndrome.

If there was no wrong doing at the highest levels then why use Executive Privilege?
 

fskimospy

Elite Member
Mar 10, 2006
85,644
50,879
136
If there was no wrong doing at the highest levels then why use Executive Privilege?

Because as the president you don't allow Congress to subpoena your internal deliberations. And before anyone says 'but this wasn't inside the white house', previous presidents have exerted privilege over external departments as well.

This is really getting blown out of proportion. Do not be surprised when nothing much comes of all this. There could of course always be some other shoe to drop and then all bets are off, but I haven't seen anything indicating that.
 

TerryMathews

Lifer
Oct 9, 1999
11,464
2
0
Because as the president you don't allow Congress to subpoena your internal deliberations. And before anyone says 'but this wasn't inside the white house', previous presidents have exerted privilege over external departments as well.

This is really getting blown out of proportion. Do not be surprised when nothing much comes of all this. There could of course always be some other shoe to drop and then all bets are off, but I haven't seen anything indicating that.

You're kidding, right? This is a big deal. We illegally armed insurgents, contrary to both the laws of their country and ours.
 

Paul98

Diamond Member
Jan 31, 2010
3,732
199
106
You're kidding, right? This is a big deal. We illegally armed insurgents, contrary to both the laws of their country and ours.

You totally missed the point, this isn't about that. This investigation has nothing to do with what happened, who allowed and who was involved in this operation. It is purely political.

You should be angry and the people who are doing the investigation for making this all about politics instead of about justice, and getting to the bottom of what happened.

There were plenty of documents given that show much of what was done and the people who were directly involved, this is who the investigation should have been talking to. Even if the documents are still wanted, the investigation could have gone forward and would have been far more effective instead of getting stuck on these documents due to politics. Then after you run out of things to investigate if you still want those documents then by all means go after them. Don't derail the investigation just to play politics. If there may be a coverup that is a total other investigation.
 

SNC

Platinum Member
Jan 14, 2001
2,166
202
106
The documents that are being withheld are those that cover the executive branch's deliberations about how to respond to Congress, not any documents that actually came from the program, btw.

Now I would be really interested in finding out how you know this. Do you have a higher level clearance that the staff of the committee, are are you just making shit up on the fly?
 

Jhhnn

IN MEMORIAM
Nov 11, 1999
62,365
14,681
136
If there was no wrong doing at the highest levels then why use Executive Privilege?

Because separation of powers exists & because there is no evidence of such wrong doing, other than in the fervent imaginations of the usual Obama haters.
 

SNC

Platinum Member
Jan 14, 2001
2,166
202
106
Because separation of powers exists & because there is no evidence of such wrong doing, other than in the fervent imaginations of the usual Obama haters.

You and esk are really connected to some higher ups to have all this inside knowledge.
Do you even care if there was wrong doing done or is that not the important thing here?
Can you bring yourself to say that if there was neglect someone should go to jail? Or because you voted for the prez its all good?
 

davmat787

Diamond Member
Nov 30, 2010
5,512
24
76
Seamless circle of Faith-based conspiracy theory assuming facts not in evidence.

You assume that the whole thing was initiated at the highest level while having no proof of that at all.

Yeh, I know, they're always out to grab yer guns, so any conclusion based on that premise is automagically justified, any imaginary scenario that reinforces it instantly accepted.

It's a disease. They should name it the Wayne LaPierre syndrome.

You don't think F&F had anything to do with creating an atmosphere more conducive to gun control? There is no proof of that of course, but why else would they walk thousands of guns into the arms of the cartels while not doing anything to track the guns? All the while knowing that the cartel violence that these guns will be used in is right on the border, sometime spilling over? What other purpose could there be, knowing that the guns are not being tracked AND that the Mexican authorities were not notified?

Couple all of that with Obamas and Holders wish for stricter gun control, and I don't think that this is a reach by any means.

I have read that one or two ATF agents admitted as much, looking for proof of that now. Also, I just found this, will look for a better source than a blog but this blog does point to CBS and more.

CBS online news made a similar claim, “Documents obtained by CBS News show that the Bureau of Alcohol Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (ATF) discussed using their covert operation "Fast and Furious" to argue for controversial new rules about gun sales.”

http://www.livinglakecountry.com/blogs/communityblogs/160064335.html
 
Last edited: