• We’re currently investigating an issue related to the forum theme and styling that is impacting page layout and visual formatting. The problem has been identified, and we are actively working on a resolution. There is no impact to user data or functionality, this is strictly a front-end display issue. We’ll post an update once the fix has been deployed. Thanks for your patience while we get this sorted.

Obama Invokes Executive Privilege on Fast and Furious Documents

Page 16 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.
Fern said:
Holder held in contempt by House. Looks like civil and criminal contempt.

http://firstread.msnbc.msn.com/_new...-house-votes-to-cite-holder-for-contempt?lite

Fern
Click to expand...

Of course. Gotta create some distraction from the spanking they just took over the ACA...

Charging Holder is lame, given that he's doing exactly what his boss, Obama, told him to do. He can't comply, even if he wanted to do so.

Maybe they should just go for the impeachment circus, see how well that'll sell in an election year. Or they could just de-fund the BATF, make sure that the Mexican Mafia gets their guns... probably not, because they'd have nobody to blame but themselves the next time a border patrol agent gets killed...
 
Jhhnn said:
Of course. Gotta create some distraction from the spanking they just took over the ACA...

Charging Holder is lame, given that he's doing exactly what his boss, Obama, told him to do. He can't comply, even if he wanted to do so.

Maybe they should just go for the impeachment circus, see how well that'll sell in an election year. Or they could just de-fund the BATF, make sure that the Mexican Mafia gets their guns... probably not, because they'd have nobody to blame but themselves the next time a border patrol agent gets killed...
Click to expand...

He's not in contempt for not doing what his boss wanted to do, he's in contempt for not doing what he was asked to do before his boss pulled the "don't fuck with my peeps" card. Sucks for Holder, I think he's more of a patsy here than is being led on. Hopefully the information comes to light and we can see what's really going on. Or maybe we'll just see more of the picture they want to paint for us. Either way Fast and Furious was a huge mistake.
 
It's always an interesting idea to hold the AG in contempt considering the justice department would be the one to enforce those orders normally and clearly that won't happen in this case.

Send in the House Sergeant at Arms! He has a mace:
USmace.jpg
 
bfdd said:
He's not in contempt for not doing what his boss wanted to do, he's in contempt for not doing what he was asked to do before his boss pulled the "don't fuck with my peeps" card. Sucks for Holder, I think he's more of a patsy here than is being led on. Hopefully the information comes to light and we can see what's really going on. Or maybe we'll just see more of the picture they want to paint for us. Either way Fast and Furious was a huge mistake.
Click to expand...

No, he's being held in contempt over the executive privilege claim.
 
monovillage said:
Wrong in so many facts on different subjects that it's got to be deliberate. The Kennedy's getting killed was a huge driver of gun control efforts and it happened in the 60's. John in '63 and Bobby in '68, for fucks sake learn something before you make an even bigger liar out of yourself.
Never mind, being a liar is what you and the rest of the Democrats do best.
Click to expand...

http://www.newyorker.com/online/blogs/backissues/2012/04/the-birth-of-the-modern-gun-debate.html

err, no.

Guns were rather heavily regulated before the era oaf assassinations. It was only then, sure that the idea of mailing guns to strangers was realized to "probably be a bad idea."

You NRA was created to be a gun control institution, by a veteran.

Are you saying this is incorrect? Are you saying that national polling in the seventies, which showed slightly more favor in the Democrats, above the Republicans, for less gun control? Are you saying that at the time, the average citizen couldn't really identify the 2nd amendment?

Are you saying that we know live under the most-heavily regulated era of gun ownership?

rofl
 
eskimospy said:
No, he's being held in contempt over the executive privilege claim.
Click to expand...

Pretty sure that's rather new because they told him they were going to hold him in contempt before the EO was issued. Meaning he had fully warning before hand and at that point he had even told them he had no intentions of handing over the documentation/information they were asking for. Then the EO came out and as he had no intentions to comply he now had backing from his boss not to comply. That doesn't mean this was done because of the EO, that's just political non-sense to rally the party/gang. Fact is Holder should have coughed up the info, we need to know what the fuck went wrong and who is responsible so we can make sure those people aren't still in positions of power to make these kinds of mistakes and that we can learn from these mistakes so we don't have them in the future. Seems pretty simple to me.

Like I said I don't think Holder was doing some crazy shit trying to concoct some conspiracy, but I believe he knows more than he's letting on and I believe this information needs to be shared with our legislature.

PS Zane, I think the NRA was wrong in their position then and I think the banning of mail order guns is lulzy.
 
Fern said:
What?

Fern
Click to expand...

He was resisting the document release, but they didn't move towards contempt proceedings until the executive claimed privilege over them. That action is what brought this to a head IMO.

Regardless, the only real recourse for Congress in this situation is to take it to the courts... which will take a very long time. Pretty much certainly until after the election when it might not matter anyway. That's sort of why I thought this whole business was fairly toothless as a form of attack on executive privilege anyway.
 
eskimospy said:
He was resisting the document release, but they didn't move towards contempt proceedings until the executive claimed privilege over them. That action is what brought this to a head IMO.

Regardless, the only real recourse for Congress in this situation is to take it to the courts... which will take a very long time. Pretty much certainly until after the election when it might not matter anyway. That's sort of why I thought this whole business was fairly toothless as a form of attack on executive privilege anyway.
Click to expand...

They told them they would and they were contemplating it, he showed up again without documents, so they went through with it. Why he showed up without them again is irrelevant. It's only relevant if you want to piss and moan because someone you're politically aligned with got the bum end of the deal. Sucks, but it's very clear that this had nothing to do with the EO.
 
bfdd said:
They told them they would and they were contemplating it, he showed up again without documents, so they went through with it. Why he showed up without them again is irrelevant. It's only relevant if you want to piss and moan because someone you're politically aligned with got the bum end of the deal. Sucks, but it's very clear that this had nothing to do with the EO.
Click to expand...

Well it ends up being very relevant in terms of how this is actually resolved.
 
eskimospy said:
No, he's being held in contempt over the executive privilege claim.
Click to expand...


You just cant help but post the shit you hear from MSNBC can you? You really think that the charge came before the act? Is there anything you won't say as long as it helps to make your point?
 
zinfamous said:
http://www.newyorker.com/online/blogs/backissues/2012/04/the-birth-of-the-modern-gun-debate.html

err, no.

Guns were rather heavily regulated before the era oaf assassinations. It was only then, sure that the idea of mailing guns to strangers was realized to "probably be a bad idea."

You NRA was created to be a gun control institution, by a veteran.

Are you saying this is incorrect? Are you saying that national polling in the seventies, which showed slightly more favor in the Democrats, above the Republicans, for less gun control? Are you saying that at the time, the average citizen couldn't really identify the 2nd amendment?

Are you saying that we know live under the most-heavily regulated era of gun ownership?

rofl
Click to expand...

You must be laughing at your own ignorance and lies. Look it up, even sourcewatch does a better job than you do.
 
BladeVenom said:
If by gun control you mean hitting what you're aiming at. The NRA was created to improve American marksmanship. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Rifle_Association#History
Click to expand...

right at the start of your wee wiki post, and it seems the only thing that passes muster for the zealous editors:

NRA formed a legislative affairs division in response to debate concerning passage of the National Firearms Act in 1934.[10] NRA supported that act, the first major federal legislation about gun control, and also supported the Federal Firearms Act of 1938. The two acts created a system to license gun dealers and imposed very high taxes on the private ownership of automatic weapons ("machine guns").[11]
Click to expand...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Firearms_Act
but hey--at least that is there.


In all rights, and all what anyone can know if they so choose to research--the NRA was the largest gun control lobby of its day. Nothing changes history, you know.

After supporting and helping to pass no less then 3 gun control acts from the 20s-30s, and through the 40s, the NRA moved into swanky new digs in 1957, wherein the motto above their entrance read: "Firearams Safety Education, Marksmanship Training, Shooting Recreation."
It only recently was replace by the words of the second amendment, + some mumbo jumbo about freedom (which is not part of the in the 2nd amendment--so yes; it is no easier to confuse those two issues among some short-sighted individuals. Cleary, this is all a coincidence)

From 1791 to 1991, only the 3rd amendment received less attention from SCOTUS, or from the Feds, than did the 2nd amendment. That is a fact. From 1813-1859, many of the southern states passed laws banning the carry of concealed weapons.

As James Hogg, governor of Texas proclaimed in 1893: "The mission of the concealed deadly weapon is murder. To check it is the duty of every self-respecting, law-abiding man."

http://www.newyorker.com/online/blogs/backissues/2012/04/the-birth-of-the-modern-gun-debate.html

I know, I know: facts and history reject contemporary right-wing zealotry. It's a shame, really. This would be more fun, otherwise. :\
 
Last edited:
BladeVenom said:
"-- The Black Market. Mexico is a virtual arms bazaar, with fragmentation grenades from South Korea, AK-47s from China, and shoulder-fired rocket launchers from Spain, Israel and former Soviet bloc manufacturers.
-- Russian crime organizations. Interpol says Russian Mafia groups such as Poldolskaya and Moscow-based Solntsevskaya are actively trafficking drugs and arms in Mexico.
- South America. During the late 1990s, the Revolutionary Armed Forces of Colombia (FARC) established a clandestine arms smuggling and drug trafficking partnership with the Tijuana cartel, according to the Federal Research Division report from the Library of Congress.
-- Asia. According to a 2006 Amnesty International Report, China has provided arms to countries in Asia, Africa and Latin America. Chinese assault weapons and Korean explosives have been recovered in Mexico.
-- The Mexican Army. More than 150,000 soldiers deserted in the last six years, according to Mexican Congressman Robert Badillo. Many took their weapons with them, including the standard issue M-16 assault rifle made in Belgium.
-- Guatemala. U.S. intelligence agencies say traffickers move immigrants, stolen cars, guns and drugs, including most of America's cocaine, along the porous Mexican-Guatemalan border. On March 27, La Hora, a Guatemalan newspaper, reported that police seized 500 grenades and a load of AK-47s on the border. Police say the cache was transported by a Mexican drug cartel operating out of Ixcan, a border town."

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/200...mall-fraction-guns-mexico-come/#ixzz1z3upap2X

"only 17 percent of guns found at Mexican crime scenes have been traced to the U.S."
Click to expand...

Here's just one handy example of our "strict" gun control laws, taken right out of the Fortune article on Fast and Furious:

http://features.blogs.fortune.cnn.com/2012/06/27/fast-and-furious-truth/

Voth's mandate was to stop gun traffickers in Arizona, the state ranked by the gun-control advocacy group Legal Community Against Violence as having the nation's "weakest gun violence prevention laws." Just 200 miles from Mexico, which prohibits gun sales, the Phoenix area is home to 853 federally licensed firearms dealers. Billboards advertise volume discounts for multiple purchases.
Customers can legally buy as many weapons as they want in Arizona as long as they're 18 or older and pass a criminal background check. There are no waiting periods and no need for permits, and buyers are allowed to resell the guns. "In Arizona," says Voth, "someone buying three guns is like someone buying a sandwich."
By 2009 the Sinaloa drug cartel had made Phoenix its gun supermarket and recruited young Americans as its designated shoppers or straw purchasers. Voth and his agents began investigating a group of buyers, some not even old enough to buy beer, whose members were plunking down as much as $20,000 in cash to purchase up to 20 semiautomatics at a time, and then delivering the weapons to others.


Seems like Jan Brewer has a serious problem that she just refuses to address because maybe the NRA has got her on a choke chain leash or what? lol

I guess making a half-ass politically motivated "for-show" attempt going after illegal immigrants is so much better for her image than going after the gun suppliers/sellers that the NRA is so friendly with. Yeah, it's all legal, so then why is the Sinaloa Cartel making Phoenix it's chosen gun supermarket?

LOL, I nearly spit my toothpick out of my mouth finding out how lax Arizona's gun laws are.

BTW, thanks for digging up all of those articles. It's much appreciated.
 
Last edited:
bfdd said:
He's not in contempt for not doing what his boss wanted to do, he's in contempt for not doing what he was asked to do before his boss pulled the "don't fuck with my peeps" card. Sucks for Holder, I think he's more of a patsy here than is being led on. Hopefully the information comes to light and we can see what's really going on. Or maybe we'll just see more of the picture they want to paint for us. Either way Fast and Furious was a huge mistake.
Click to expand...

Holder was likely acting under directives from the White House all along, making the contempt charge just more of the same grandstanding from Issa.

More information?

http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap...hQLokA?docId=44ff0778c01e45709c1df986a2be0c4e

I won't quote it- just read the whole thing.

http://www.thedailybeast.com/articl...ttee-called-for-justice-department-scalp.html

Still, Castor’s gambit was seen by DOJ officials as evidence that Issa was more interested in drawing blood than getting to the truth.
Click to expand...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

TRENDING THREADS

Back
Top