Obama Invokes Executive Privilege on Fast and Furious Documents

Page 9 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.

Jhhnn

IN MEMORIAM
Nov 11, 1999
62,365
14,681
136
*SNIFF SNIFF SNIFF*

I remember this smell. It smells like 1973 and the Nixon cover-up.

It's so good to see partisans like Eskimo and Jhhnnn fully participate in a cover-up of epic proportions intoning the same excuses that we heard back in the early 70's.
I love you guys.

And it's not like the pandering poseur in chief, Issa, is conducting an honest investigation, either. He's sure as hell no Sam Irwin-

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.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/opini...6/20/gJQA4eULrV_story.html?wpisrc=nl_politics

Smell? Smells like the usual right wing witch hunt. Throw her in the river! If she sinks, she's innocent & headed for Heaven, and if she floats, burn her!
 

QuantumPion

Diamond Member
Jun 27, 2005
6,010
1
76
Lol.

Someone didn't read the thread and said something stupid.

Again.

I am amazed by the sheer desperation in trying to make this into a Watergate scandal though. Be sure to let me know how that turns out.

No one died in Watergate.
 

werepossum

Elite Member
Jul 10, 2006
29,873
463
126
No one died in Watergate.
Exactly. Unfortunately, the left wing has now decided that murders are acceptable as long as they advance the left wing's political agenda. Hell, these murders aren't just acceptable to the left wing, they are desirable, as Fast and Furious amply shows. And this now goes up to and including our President, as demonstrated by his own actions.

This isn't just politics as usual, not just President Obama covering his political behind. He could have easily made this apolitical by cooperating in a thorough, open and honest investigation, and prosecuting those behind it. He could have led the investigation and prosecution, gaining political benefit from exposing and shutting down a dangerously corrupt agency and thereby protecting the public (American and Mexican) from those who intentionally arm drug cartels. He hasn't; he hasn't even fired them. Instead, he chose to give them as much protection as he can provide. Logically the only possible reasons are that Obama was behind this all along, or else he finds it so desirable as to embrace it as his own once it's out in the open. Either way, this is an evil thing. This man MUST be defeated, else we're not going to have a recognizable country by 2016.

I don't know how the hell we ask Mexican police to risk their lives trying to stop drug cartels based in or moving through Mexico when our government is intentionally arming those gangs for the domestic political benefits the resultant murders would bring. Mexico should just declare free passage into America for drugs, arms, and drug cartel members since assisting these cartels is official American government policy.
 

xj0hnx

Diamond Member
Dec 18, 2007
9,262
3
76
Exactly. Unfortunately, the left wing has now decided that murders are acceptable as long as they advance the left wing's political agenda. Hell, these murders aren't just acceptable to the left wing, they are desirable, as Fast and Furious amply shows. And this now goes up to and including our President, as demonstrated by his own actions.

This isn't just politics as usual, not just President Obama covering his political behind. He could have easily made this apolitical by cooperating in a thorough, open and honest investigation, and prosecuting those behind it. He could have led the investigation and prosecution, gaining political benefit from exposing and shutting down a dangerously corrupt agency and thereby protecting the public (American and Mexican) from those who intentionally arm drug cartels. He hasn't; he hasn't even fired them. Instead, he chose to give them as much protection as he can provide. Logically the only possible reasons are that Obama was behind this all along, or else he finds it so desirable as to embrace it as his own once it's out in the open. Either way, this is an evil thing. This man MUST be defeated, else we're not going to have a recognizable country by 2016.

I don't know how the hell we ask Mexican police to risk their lives trying to stop drug cartels based in or moving through Mexico when our government is intentionally arming those gangs for the domestic political benefits the resultant murders would bring. Mexico should just declare free passage into America for drugs, arms, and drug cartel members since assisting these cartels is official American government policy.

Well, you've got to break a few eggs to make an omelet right?
 

fskimospy

Elite Member
Mar 10, 2006
85,644
50,879
136
Exactly. Unfortunately, the left wing has now decided that murders are acceptable as long as they advance the left wing's political agenda. Hell, these murders aren't just acceptable to the left wing, they are desirable, as Fast and Furious amply shows. And this now goes up to and including our President, as demonstrated by his own actions.

Utterly delusional. Do you never get tired of saying these hilariously crazy things?

I will never understand how someone who is quite reasonable in most things has such a bizarre personal tic when it comes to the left that it makes you lose all touch with reality when discussing them.
 

Jaskalas

Lifer
Jun 23, 2004
34,008
8,042
136
And it's not like the pandering poseur in chief, Issa, is conducting an honest investigation, either. He's sure as hell no Sam Irwin-

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.
Smell? Smells like the usual right wing witch hunt. Throw her in the river! If she sinks, she's innocent & headed for Heaven, and if she floats, burn her!

Holder was the highest authority blocking the release of documents, until the President stepped in. When you need to get !@#$ done you go to the top.

You want us to hang the middle man? Fine... give us the documents to do so. What Issa is doing is going after the men who are directly prohibiting an investigation, who have lied to Congress.

That was Holder, but now the President has implicated himself.
 
Last edited:

fskimospy

Elite Member
Mar 10, 2006
85,644
50,879
136
Holder was the highest authority blocking the release of documents, until the President stepped in. When you need to get !@#$ done you go to the top.

You want us to hang the middle man? Fine... give us the documents to do so.

Just so you know, the Justice Department has been urging the AG/President to deny internal deliberation document releases on executive privilege grounds for some time now.
 

FerrelGeek

Diamond Member
Jan 22, 2009
4,669
266
126
This is a good summation. I honestly don't know if Obama or Holder had anything to do with the original F&F, but there actions after it came to light are reprehensible. It's completely irrelevant how Issa behaves. He has a right to investigate this. Get over it! Obama is acting in his typical imperious fashion - behaving like an arrogant spoiled brat because someone has the gall to demand something of him.

And yes, nobody died as a result of Watergate. Unlike the program under Boooooosshhhh, F&F was done in a completely rogue fashion and as a result people are dead. So much for libs caring for the little guy.

Exactly. Unfortunately, the left wing has now decided that murders are acceptable as long as they advance the left wing's political agenda. Hell, these murders aren't just acceptable to the left wing, they are desirable, as Fast and Furious amply shows. And this now goes up to and including our President, as demonstrated by his own actions.

This isn't just politics as usual, not just President Obama covering his political behind. He could have easily made this apolitical by cooperating in a thorough, open and honest investigation, and prosecuting those behind it. He could have led the investigation and prosecution, gaining political benefit from exposing and shutting down a dangerously corrupt agency and thereby protecting the public (American and Mexican) from those who intentionally arm drug cartels. He hasn't; he hasn't even fired them. Instead, he chose to give them as much protection as he can provide. Logically the only possible reasons are that Obama was behind this all along, or else he finds it so desirable as to embrace it as his own once it's out in the open. Either way, this is an evil thing. This man MUST be defeated, else we're not going to have a recognizable country by 2016.

I don't know how the hell we ask Mexican police to risk their lives trying to stop drug cartels based in or moving through Mexico when our government is intentionally arming those gangs for the domestic political benefits the resultant murders would bring. Mexico should just declare free passage into America for drugs, arms, and drug cartel members since assisting these cartels is official American government policy.
 

FerrelGeek

Diamond Member
Jan 22, 2009
4,669
266
126
Just so you know, the Justice Department has been urging the AG/President to deny internal deliberation document releases on executive privilege grounds for some time now.

Then WHY!?!? If they have nothing to hide, what's the bloody issue?!?! It's very likely that Obama and Holder had nothing to do with F&F. But now people are dead and they don't seem to give a rat's fetid backside about finding out who did this and giving the dead the justice that they deserve. As the head of the DOJ, shouldn't that be Holder's bloody job?!
 

fskimospy

Elite Member
Mar 10, 2006
85,644
50,879
136
Then WHY!?!? If they have nothing to hide, what's the bloody issue?!?! It's very likely that Obama and Holder had nothing to do with F&F. But now people are dead and they don't seem to give a rat's fetid backside about finding out who did this and giving the dead the justice that they deserve. As the head of the DOJ, shouldn't that be Holder's bloody job?!

The why should be obvious in the case of internal deliberations, you don't want to set a precedent for allowing Congress to do that. You don't unilaterally abandon territory against a hostile party just because you don't need it this time, that's obvious.

I think that the current state of executive privilege is shameful in its wide ranging justifications. That is a matter for Congress and the courts to deal with however. Expecting the executive to just give it up for no reason is absurd.
 

monovillage

Diamond Member
Jul 3, 2008
8,444
1
0
Lol.

Someone didn't read the thread and said something stupid.

Again.

I am amazed by the sheer desperation in trying to make this into a Watergate scandal though. Be sure to let me know how that turns out.

It isn't the Watergate cover-up scandal, it's far worse with dead agents to prove it. The sheer desperation is from you Democrat partisans scrambling like monkeys trying to hide what your administration has done. Transparent administration anyone?

My Administration is committed to creating an unprecedented level of openness in Government. We will work together to ensure the public trust and establish a system of transparency, public participation, and collaboration. Openness will strengthen our democracy and promote efficiency and effectiveness in Government.
http://www.whitehouse.gov/the_press_office/TransparencyandOpenGovernment
 

fskimospy

Elite Member
Mar 10, 2006
85,644
50,879
136
It isn't the Watergate cover-up scandal, it's far worse with dead agents to prove it. The sheer desperation is from you Democrat partisans scrambling like monkeys trying to hide what your administration has done. Transparent administration anyone?

You realize that you inventing things for me to do doesn't actually mean that I've done them, right?

As for the whole 'worse than Watergate' business, I find that hilarious. It's amazing how much pent up rage is coming out of the Republicans because they've been so desperately searching for any scandal whatsoever to cling to. Good luck what that 'worse than Watergate' line by the way, please do be sure to update me on how well that works out for you guys. I will continue to point and laugh at your flailing.

You guys just don't know how to play this game, it's sort of sad. If you want to get Obama you have to come at his as if this is an investigation, not a partisan political ploy. Flying off the handle with sputtering, mouth foaming rage immediately tips your hand. Rookie mistake.
 

the DRIZZLE

Platinum Member
Sep 6, 2007
2,956
1
81
The why should be obvious in the case of internal deliberations, you don't want to set a precedent for allowing Congress to do that. You don't unilaterally abandon territory against a hostile party just because you don't need it this time, that's obvious.

I think that the current state of executive privilege is shameful in its wide ranging justifications. That is a matter for Congress and the courts to deal with however. Expecting the executive to just give it up for no reason is absurd.

It's not absurd. You can't view members of the executive branch the same way you would view a defendant in a typical criminal proceeding. Public servants should be held to a higher standard than merely complying with the letter of the law. If there is a legitimate public interest served in releasing the documents they should do so they have a moral obligation to do so as public servants. What Holder knew and when he knew it clearly falls into that category.

If there is legitimate reason not to release the documents to Congress then there should at a minimum be a special prosecutor appointed given the significant harm caused by this program and AG Holder's repeated lies to Congress and non-cooperation.
 

fskimospy

Elite Member
Mar 10, 2006
85,644
50,879
136
It's not absurd. You can't view members of the executive branch the same way you would view a defendant in a typical criminal proceeding. Public servants should be held to a higher standard than merely complying with the letter of the law. If there is a legitimate public interest served in releasing the documents they should do so they have a moral obligation to do so as public servants. What Holder knew and when he knew it clearly falls into that category.

If there is legitimate reason not to release the documents to Congress then there should at a minimum be a special prosecutor appointed given the significant harm caused by this program and AG Holder's repeated lies to Congress and non-cooperation.

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.

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?
 

werepossum

Elite Member
Jul 10, 2006
29,873
463
126
This is a good summation. I honestly don't know if Obama or Holder had anything to do with the original F&F, but there actions after it came to light are reprehensible. It's completely irrelevant how Issa behaves. He has a right to investigate this. Get over it! Obama is acting in his typical imperious fashion - behaving like an arrogant spoiled brat because someone has the gall to demand something of him.

And yes, nobody died as a result of Watergate. Unlike the program under Boooooosshhhh, F&F was done in a completely rogue fashion and as a result people are dead. So much for libs caring for the little guy.
Well said.

The why should be obvious in the case of internal deliberations, you don't want to set a precedent for allowing Congress to do that. You don't unilaterally abandon territory against a hostile party just because you don't need it this time, that's obvious.

I think that the current state of executive privilege is shameful in its wide ranging justifications. That is a matter for Congress and the courts to deal with however. Expecting the executive to just give it up for no reason is absurd.
Remember kiddies, just because a murdered ICE agent and numerous murdered Mexicans are "no reason" doesn't mean the left is okay with their murders . . . somehow . . . It's merely coincidence that President Obama chooses to do the exact opposite of what Senator Obama demanded because when President Obama chose to protect their murderers' gun runners inside the American government, it was merely to avoid setting the precedent of doing what Senator Obama demanded. The fact that Obama has been a lifelong opponent of the Second Amendment is also purely coincidental because darn it, he's making an important political point here - so important that murdered humans are unimportant. Nope, we should just be happy that President Obama is such an incredibly super-intelligent wunderkind that he understands what an idiot was Senator Obama.

Hope . . . Change . . . Brains . . .
 

fskimospy

Elite Member
Mar 10, 2006
85,644
50,879
136
Remember kiddies, just because a murdered ICE agent and numerous murdered Mexicans are "no reason" doesn't mean the left is okay with their murders . . . somehow . . . It's merely coincidence that President Obama chooses to do the exact opposite of what Senator Obama demanded because when President Obama chose to protect their murderers' gun runners inside the American government, it was merely to avoid setting the precedent of doing what Senator Obama demanded. The fact that Obama has been a lifelong opponent of the Second Amendment is also purely coincidental because darn it, he's making an important political point here - so important that murdered humans are unimportant. Nope, we should just be happy that President Obama is such an incredibly super-intelligent wunderkind that he understands what an idiot was Senator Obama.

Hope . . . Change . . . Brains . . .

Wow, this is impressively insane. Seek help man, I don't know what happened recently but whatever it was it's not healthy.
 

woolfe9999

Diamond Member
Mar 28, 2005
7,153
0
0
Well said.


Remember kiddies, just because a murdered ICE agent and numerous murdered Mexicans are "no reason" doesn't mean the left is okay with their murders . . . somehow . . . It's merely coincidence that President Obama chooses to do the exact opposite of what Senator Obama demanded because when President Obama chose to protect their murderers' gun runners inside the American government, it was merely to avoid setting the precedent of doing what Senator Obama demanded. The fact that Obama has been a lifelong opponent of the Second Amendment is also purely coincidental because darn it, he's making an important political point here - so important that murdered humans are unimportant. Nope, we should just be happy that President Obama is such an incredibly super-intelligent wunderkind that he understands what an idiot was Senator Obama.

Hope . . . Change . . . Brains . . .

LOL@ "murdered humans are unimportant." You're frothing. You're capable of better than this kind of demagoguery.

Anyway, his point was that giving up the privilege here would set a precedent to scale the privilege back, and that isn't something that a POTUS is going to do, regardless of the particulars of the matter at hand. He's also correct that the real issue here is the historically developed over-breadth of the privilege. Maybe if this case turns out to be a catalyst to narrow the scope of the privilege in the long run then something good will have come out of it.
 

Hayabusa Rider

Admin Emeritus & Elite Member
Jan 26, 2000
50,879
4,266
126
Just so you know, the Justice Department has been urging the AG/President to deny internal deliberation document releases on executive privilege grounds for some time now.

Once EP was invoked then Holder could not provide the documents, but before that he had no legal authority to deny, but a legal duty to comply regards on his take. He's not empowered to refuse or negotiate any more than you or I. Further as "top cop" his actions show that the rule of law is secondary to the rule of party. That's the issue for many. If ordinary citizens were to not comply in such a way, cries against out would be heard. Again thats an issue. I am not suggesting you've said otherwise, but there isn't any basis for his actions.
 

fskimospy

Elite Member
Mar 10, 2006
85,644
50,879
136
Once EP was invoked then Holder could not provide the documents, but before that he had no legal authority to deny, but a legal duty to comply regards on his take. He's not empowered to refuse or negotiate any more than you or I. Further as "top cop" his actions show that the rule of law is secondary to the rule of party. That's the issue for many. If ordinary citizens were to not comply in such a way, cries against out would be heard. Again thats an issue. I am not suggesting you've said otherwise, but there isn't any basis for his actions.

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.
 

BoberFett

Lifer
Oct 9, 1999
37,562
9
81
It's hilarious to see the people who screamed the loudest about Bush defend this kind of thing.
 

werepossum

Elite Member
Jul 10, 2006
29,873
463
126
Wow, this is impressively insane. Seek help man, I don't know what happened recently but whatever it was it's not healthy.
What happened was my President decided that it's a good thing to have government conspiring to arm drug cartels because the murders they commit would be politically useful. I am amazed that you have no major problem with that.

LOL@ "murdered humans are unimportant." You're frothing. You're capable of better than this kind of demagoguery.

Anyway, his point was that giving up the privilege here would set a precedent to scale the privilege back, and that isn't something that a POTUS is going to do, regardless of the particulars of the matter at hand. He's also correct that the real issue here is the historically developed over-breadth of the privilege. Maybe if this case turns out to be a catalyst to narrow the scope of the privilege in the long run then something good will have come out of it.
Again, these are not exclusively White House documents. Most of the documents he is protecting are within Justice. There are no national security concerns here, and these are not documents related to the White House seeking advice to set policy. By denying access to these documents, Obama has effectively removed Congress' ability to provide oversight at all. Effectively he's setting himself up as a dictator; only he and his political appointees can decide what is acceptable for all of government to do, even to the point of facilitating murder. And he's making sure that the guilty cannot be punished. Today it's become acceptable to arm drug cartels - the very thing the BATFE is supposedly trying to stop. Why not have the BATFE directly murder people tomorrow? It's for a good cause, right?

Obama isn't protecting against a precedent scaling back his privilege, he is expanding his privilege to include all of Justice. At this point it's hard not to agree with the Libertarians. Why the hell are we paying for this huge bloated bureaucracy that is using tax money to do the very thing we nominally fund them to prevent?
 

monovillage

Diamond Member
Jul 3, 2008
8,444
1
0
You realize that you inventing things for me to do doesn't actually mean that I've done them, right?

As for the whole 'worse than Watergate' business, I find that hilarious. It's amazing how much pent up rage is coming out of the Republicans because they've been so desperately searching for any scandal whatsoever to cling to. Good luck what that 'worse than Watergate' line by the way, please do be sure to update me on how well that works out for you guys. I will continue to point and laugh at your flailing.

You guys just don't know how to play this game, it's sort of sad. If you want to get Obama you have to come at his as if this is an investigation, not a partisan political ploy. Flying off the handle with sputtering, mouth foaming rage immediately tips your hand. Rookie mistake.

You're the one foaming at the mouth in denial. I'm just quietly laughing my ass off at your hypocrisy.
 

piasabird

Lifer
Feb 6, 2002
17,168
60
91
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?