News Obama invokes executive privilege

[ThinkToday]

http://firstread.msnbc.msn.com/_news/2012/06/20/12317893-obama-invokes-executive-privilege-over-doj-documents?lite

Executive privilege even over documents that are largely discoverable when any case goes to court. This really has a bad smell to it. I wonder if this would have worked for Bush with Valerie Plame, Reagan with Iran/Contra, or Nixon in Watergate. Funny thing to me is the position that the subpoena interferes and exposes the private deliberations of the President and his staff. I don't know how you could get more private than the Oval Offices tapes were for Nixon, yet the SCOTUS said to hand them over AND NIXON DID. In the words of George Santayana; "Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it."

Anyone still think he has nothing to hide? It's the coverup stupid.

 

[Topher925]

http://firstread.msnbc.msn.com/_news/2012/06/20/12317893-obama-invokes-executive-privilege-over-doj-documents?lite

Executive privilege even over documents that are largely discoverable when any case goes to court. This really has a bad smell to it. I wonder if this would have worked for Bush with Valerie Plame, Reagan with Iran/Contra, or Nixon in Watergate. Funny thing to me is the position that the subpoena interferes and exposes the private deliberations of the President and his staff. I don't know how you could get more private than the Oval Offices tapes were for Nixon, yet the SCOTUS said to hand them over AND NIXON DID. In the words of George Santayana; "Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it."

Anyone still think he has nothing to hide? It's the coverup stupid.

No offense, but your post makes you sound rather paranoid and/or like a right wing extremist.

From the same link you posted:

Also, the White House points out to reporters that President George W. Bush asserted executive privilege six times, while Bill Clinton did so in 14 instances, "both of whom protected the same category of documents we're protecting today (ie after-the-fact internal Executive Branch materials responding to congressional and media inquiries - in this case from the Justice Department). In fact, dating back to President Reagan, Presidents have asserted executive privileged 24 times. President Obama has gone longer without asserting the privilege in a Congressional dispute than any President in the last three decades."

 

[ThinkToday]

No offense, but your post makes you sound rather paranoid and/or like a right wing extremist.

"(ie after-the-fact internal Executive Branch materials responding to congressional and media inquiries - in this case from the Justice Department). "

From the same link you posted:

That's only partly true, but given the source, that's not a surprise. The documents demanded include those that set the stage for the F&F operation, such as wiretap requests. Specifically, Congress wants to know who authorized this operation.

Pursuant to federal law (source http://www.monnat.com/Publications/Wiretap.pdf )- "Because of the Fourth Amendment requirement that no warrant shall issue but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, the wiretap procedure is, in many respects, like any other search warrant procedure. There must be a sworn application for this type of warrant, based upon which the court issues an order for interception. However, a wiretap requires special judicial and executive authorization. An application for interception may not be filed unless it is first authorized by the attorney general or a specially designated deputy or assistant. The application must identify the officer authorizing the application. Attached to the government’s application should be the authorization, as well as copies of the attorney general’s designations of those Department of Justice officials who have been authorized to approve wiretaps. Unlike traditional search warrants, a federal magistrate judge is not authorized to issue a wiretap. Only a federal district or circuit court judge may issue a wiretap. The application must contain a full and complete statement of the facts and circumstances relied upon to support a belief that an interception order should issue. The issuing judge must determine that there exists probable cause to believe that particular communications concerning the alleged offenses will be obtained through interceptions of communications."

And the highlighted is a BIG question congress has. Who knew, who authorized, and when, among other things. My father is former FBI and my brother retired when he hit the manditory retirement age of 57. According to them, there is no way this didn't get authorized by the highest levels for several reasons. 1) Wire tap warrent requirements, 2) Cost of the operation (money for weapons, survallence equipment, manpower, etc.), 3) Almost certain cross border transport into Mexico, among other reasons. In fact, my brother stated it was unlikely this operation would have taken place without some knowledge in the State Department, since international borders and operations in Mexico would be involved.

"you sound rather paranoid". Nah, I've just seen our government at work before.

 

[aquitaine]

http://firstread.msnbc.msn.com/_news/2012/06/20/12317893-obama-invokes-executive-privilege-over-doj-documents?lite

Executive privilege even over documents that are largely discoverable when any case goes to court. This really has a bad smell to it. I wonder if this would have worked for Bush with Valerie Plame, Reagan with Iran/Contra, or Nixon in Watergate. Funny thing to me is the position that the subpoena interferes and exposes the private deliberations of the President and his staff. I don't know how you could get more private than the Oval Offices tapes were for Nixon, yet the SCOTUS said to hand them over AND NIXON DID. In the words of George Santayana; "Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it."

Anyone still think he has nothing to hide? It's the coverup stupid.

*Yawn*, sorry but this just looks like more of the same from the Bush administration.

 

[skippy1729]

This is the "pre-season game" for the upcoming WH national security leaks "bowl game".

 

[ThinkToday]

"bowl game".

I doubt the Saudi that was exposed in the new underwear bomb plot thought this was a game. He went from an imbedded covert asset to a man on the run. Probably on the run for life. So, the one man on inside of Al Qaeda was burned for what reason? And, who will be held accountable when the next successful attack occurs that could have been avoided if the asset wasn't burnt?

Here's a link for the use of executive privilege as determined by SCOTUS in US v Nixon, as explained by Judge Napolitano: http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2012...orney-general-holder-and-executive-privilege/ . It's not looking so good for Obama's use in this case. If the Judge is correct: "In US v. Nixon (1974), the Supreme Court decision that came just two weeks before, and arguably precipitated, President Nixon’s resignation from the presidency, the Court articulated the only three constitutionally permissible bases for the presidential claim of executive privilege.

The only bases for the invocation of the privilege are the need to protect secret deliberations and communications intended ultimately for the president that pertain to (a) military, or (b) diplomatic, or (c) sensitive national security matters. Just because two or more people in the White House discussed a matter or reviewed documents does not clothe their discussion or their document review with executive privilege. The conversation or document review must be integral to advising the president on his official duties, and it must fit into one or more of (a) or (b) or (c) above."

Additionally, if correct, it appears the President hasn't technically fulfilled the requirements for declaring executive privilege: "The invocation of the privilege can only be made by the president himself. Thus, President Obama will need to articulate and explain into which category--(a) or (b) or (c) above--his claim of privilege falls, and he will need to do so personally, either in person or in writing. The mere request by the attorney general for the president to invoke the privilege does not lawfully invoke it. As of this writing, the president has not yet done this."

Given Judge Napolitano's experience, I assume he knows what he is talking about when he says "It is unheard of for Department of Justice (DoJ) officials to bring documents in an on-going criminal investigation to the White House, and discuss them there. It is equally unheard of for White House advisors to go to the DoJ and discuss documents pertaining to an on-going criminal investigation there. We know that the documents in question pertain to an on-going criminal investigation because Attorney General Holder has repeatedly so stated in sworn testimony." Which begs the question, How do you claim executive privilege for something you claim you never knew about that dealt with an ongoing criminal investigation, where some of the requested documents would be produced as evidence in a criminal case away?


If the Judge is correct, the discussions outside DoJ (e.g. WH Staff) with an active case may have been a further violation of the law. "Under the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure, DoJ documents involved in an on-going criminal investigation can only lawfully be discussed or reviewed--at the White House or at the DoJ or anywhere else--with persons lawfully involved in the criminal investigation or the administration of the criminal justice system. That leaves very few human beings outside the DoJ and inside the White House with whom Attorney General Holder or his DoJ colleagues may have lawfully discussed these documents. Certainly the president himself would be in this category."

 

[russ_watters]

*Yawn*, sorry but this just looks like more of the same from the Bush administration.

Obama campaigned on and won based on "I'm better than Bush and McCain is just another Bush." If Obama uses the "I'm just like Bush" defense, he loses the thing that got him elected last time around!

 

[aquitaine]

Obama campaigned on and won based on "I'm better than Bush and McCain is just another Bush." If Obama uses the "I'm just like Bush" defense, he loses the thing that got him elected last time around!

Yes he did campaign on that. Hence why you should never take a politician's word for it, no matter the political affiliation.

 

[Bobbywhy]

In my opinion comparing Obama's use of Ex. Priv. last week to Nixon's use of it does not make sense. The cases are not similar in the slightest. Even though there are ObamaHaters out there who are quick to bring up Watergate, Nixon was a disgraceful example of unlawfulness, not just in his use of Ex. Priv. And that black chapter in our US history is hardly close to what we have here today.

 

[Bobbywhy]

Obama campaigned on and won based on "I'm better than Bush and McCain is just another Bush." If Obama uses the "I'm just like Bush" defense, he loses the thing that got him elected last time around!

One use of Ex. Privelege hardly equates to "I'm just like Bush". That seems like an oversimplification.

 

[ThinkToday]

In my opinion comparing Obama's use of Ex. Priv. last week to Nixon's use of it does not make sense. The cases are not similar in the slightest. Even though there are ObamaHaters out there who are quick to bring up Watergate, Nixon was a disgraceful example of unlawfulness, not just in his use of Ex. Priv. And that black chapter in our US history is hardly close to what we have here today.

Nor would I ever equate the two in seriousness. The Nixon usage of Executive Privilege was brought up only for the purpose of illustrating the most personal deliberations that directly involve the President in the most sacred of executive branch offices aren't automatically protected, so the protection of those under the President and didn't involve him is an even lower threshold. The point being made in my posts reflects on the gravity of situation with F&F being so significant as to warrant the use of Executive Privilege. Remember Executive Privilege dates back to G. Washington in 1796, and has generally been used sparingly. If you remember President Clinton tried to use it over the Lewinsky scandal, and the court rejected it. I think we can all agree the F&F operation is much more significant than the Lewinsky scandal (i.e. people didn't die and it's not a personal matter between consenting adults), which IMO, should never have moved forward.

Again, my point is very simple, Congress has a Constitution oversight role, and it investigates DoJ, DoE, civil rights, voting rights, Federal Reserve, and a host of other operations that fail to fulfill the will of Congress in relation to laws past or laws needed. Given the historically limited us of Executive Privilege and the seriousness of the impact on lives of Mexicans and the Terry family, what makes this case rise to the level?

BTW, good summary of EP use in history http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Executive_privilege

 

[edward]

Lets back track a bit and find out the origins of this situation. It didn't start with Obama.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mérida_Initiative

It goes deeper than just politics:

U.S. gun rights activists and other gun policy groups have called Project Gunrunner an attempt to undermine gun rights in the US and have called for a resignation of Attorney General Eric Holder.

Note that when it was still called Project Gun Runner Holder was not in office.


As for the wire taps does any logical person think that every wire tap goes all the way up to the U.S. Attorney general?

http://www.washingtontimes.com/blog...-issa-targets-july-4-deadline-contempt-decis/

So now the same people who complained about a 2,000 page health care bill demand another 80,000 pages pertaining to fast and Furious.

From my point of view this is a political witch hunt.

 

[OmCheeto]

From my point of view this is a political witch hunt.

Seems even Holder thinks so.
I don't watch TV, so the following video may be old news: http://bcove.me/ouf8i9x9

The transcript can be found in a few different places.

In response to Sen. John Cornyn of Texas, accusing him of, well, all sorts of bad stuff:

With all due respect, senator, there is so much that is factually wrong with the premises that you started your statement with, it's almost breathtaking in its inaccuracy, but, I'll simply leave it at that.
...
Which leads me to believe that the desire here is not for an accommodation but for a political point-making. And that is the kind of thing that, you know, you and and your side, I guess, have the ability to do if that's what you want to do. It is the kind of thing that I think turns people off about Washington. While we have very serious problems, we still have this political gamesmanship.

On January 30, 2012, a 95 page minority report was issued.

Testifying before the House Judiciary Committee, the Attorney General rejected the allegation that senior leaders at the Department of Justice approved of gunwalking in Operation Fast and Furious:

I mean, the notion that people in the—in Washington, the leadership of the Department approved the use of those tactics in Fast and Furious is simply incorrect. This was not a top-to-bottom operation. This was a regional operation that was controlled by ATF and by the U.S. Attorney’s Office in Phoenix.

The Committee has obtained no evidence indicating that the Attorney General authorized gunwalking or that he was aware of such allegations before they became public. None of the 22 witnesses interviewed by the Committee claims to have spoken with the Attorney General about the specific tactics employed in Operation Fast and Furious prior to the public controversy. To the contrary, the evidence received by the Committee supports the Attorney General’s assertion that the gunwalking tactics in Operation Fast and Furious were developed in the field.

I wonder if anyone from the U.S. Attorney’s Office in Phoenix has been interviewed by congress lately, or would that make too much sense. Probably make for a boring news story too. No ones interested in the burning of little witches.

 

[edward]

I wonder if anyone from the U.S. Attorney’s Office in Phoenix has been interviewed by congress lately, or would that make too much sense. Probably make for a boring news story too. No ones interested in the burning of little witches.

That pretty much sums it up. There is a lot going on here in Southern Arizona that never makes the news. Stings, swat team raids, shoot outs by illegals and drug runners, it is truly unbelievable.

Brian terry the agent that was killed was not an ordinary Border Patrol member. He was a member of a tactical team that operated under a program called Bortac.

http://bortac.com/

There are many operations all going on simultaneously. ICE, DEA, Border Patrol, Bortac, and FBI are all running operations in Southern Arizona at the same time.

Border Patrol in particular is under a lot of pressure not to use lethal force unless fired upon. The first weapons fired by Terry's team were bean bags fired from shot guns.

http://tucsoncitizen.com/view-from-baja-arizona/2011/03/03/bean-bag-rounds-were-used-by-border-patrol-before-agent-terrys-murder-feds-admit/

The various agencies involved have to figure this out and prevent it from ever happening again.

 

[OmCheeto]

That pretty much sums it up. There is a lot going on here in Southern Arizona that never makes the news. Stings, swat team raids, shoot outs by illegals and drug runners, it is truly unbelievable.

Brian terry the agent that was killed was not an ordinary Border Patrol member. He was a member of a tactical team that operated under a program called Bortac.

http://bortac.com/

There are many operations all going on simultaneously. ICE, DEA, Border Patrol, Bortac, and FBI are all running operations in Southern Arizona at the same time.

Border Patrol in particular is under a lot of pressure not to use lethal force unless fired upon. The first weapons fired by Terry's team were bean bags fired from shot guns.

http://tucsoncitizen.com/view-from-baja-arizona/2011/03/03/bean-bag-rounds-were-used-by-border-patrol-before-agent-terrys-murder-feds-admit/

The various agencies involved have to figure this out and prevent it from ever happening again.

Thank you Edward. I find it's always good to have someone on the front line, to get the pulse, of what is/has been really going on.

Since its inception in 1984, BORTAC has developed a reputation in the special operations community as one of the premier tactical units in law enforcement.

1984? That's quite some time for this to have been going on without me being made aware of it.

And what an interesting blogosphere you have:

TucsonCitizen.com
by Mark B. Evans on Sep. 19, 2011, under politics
...
Hugh Holub, the author of this blog, died this morning at St. Mary’s Hospital from complications of pneumonia.

His daughter, Beth, posted the announcement of Hugh’s death on his Facebook page this morning.

“My dad, Hugh A Holub, passed away this morning from complications of pnuemonia, which he had been fighting courageously, the cowboy way, for the past three weeks. We are in the process of making arrangements and will keep everyone posted,” she wrote.

Hugh was one of the most prolific and most read of TucsonCitizen.com bloggers.

He will be missed.

TucsonCitizen.com is a collection of local writers who blog about matters of interest to Southern Arizona. They are unpaid and do it for various reasons, but mostly because of a passion to inform their neighbors and fellow citizens about matters that might not get attention from major media, or to give a perspective about issues that might not be expressed in major media.

Hugh was nothing if not passionate.

I learned a great deal about Tucson, Southern Arizona, water wars, the border and Tubac, among other things, from Hugh.

bolding mine

Reminds me of PF, in a way.

 

[chemisttree]

I wonder if anyone from the U.S. Attorney’s Office in Phoenix has been interviewed by congress lately, or would that make too much sense. Probably make for a boring news story too. No ones interested in the burning of little witches.

Issa’s committee did try to interview the US Attorney’s Office Chief of the Criminal Division Phoenix, Patrick Cunningham. After months of stonewalling, he was subpoenaed to testifiy on Jan. 19, 2012. In response, he chose to plead the fifth and to resign a week later.

Cunningham had given false information to US Attorney Dennis Burke regarding F&F that eventually made its way into a letter submitted 4 Feb, 2011 to Issa’s oversight committee and was later retracted by the DOJ. Cunningham and Burke both denied to Issa’s oversight committee that gunrunning had even occurred! Burke was forced to resign in August of 2011.

So it’s natural, once the minor players were incriminated and resigned in disgrace, to see how far up the DOJ food chain the knowledge of this disgusting operation led.

They’re interested in witches of all sizes.

 

[edward]

So it’s natural, once the minor players were incriminated and resigned in disgrace, to see how far up the DOJ food chain the knowledge of this disgusting operation led.

.

It was disgusting because it failed, not because of the concept. There are thousands of weapons pouring into Mexico from all over the country. Going up the food chain at this point will only worsen the problem in Mexico. The Cartel leaders must be loving this,The NRA and their conspiracy theory certainly are.

2,000 weapons a day

Some of the strongest recent evidence of the cartels' expanding gun pipeline:

• Four months after the largest weapons seizure in Mexican history, U.S. investigators have traced 383 of the more than 400 weapons seized from a stash house in Reynosa, Mexico, to 11 states including Ohio, South Carolina, Virginia, Florida, Michigan and Connecticut, according to ATF records.

http://www.usatoday.com/news/nation/2009-03-18-cartelguns_N.htm


Long read, a comprehensive report on Fast and Furious: It would be too confusing or possibly misleading to take anything out of context here.

http://www.azcentral.com/arizonarep...un-probe-operation-fast-and-furious-fall.html

 

[mheslep]

President Obama has gone longer without asserting the privilege in a Congressional dispute than any President in the last three decades."

Crediting low exec priv instances to Obama is silly. The relevant issue is how many times the Congress pushes the executive branch to the point of having to claim exec priv. How many times would one expect a Pelosi/Reed Congress to demand documents hidden behind exec privilege?

 

[mheslep]

*Yawn*, sorry but this just looks like more of the same from the Bush administration.

Bush administration?

 

[mheslep]

In my opinion comparing Obama's use of Ex. Priv. last week to Nixon's use of it does not make sense. The cases are not similar in the slightest. Even though there are ObamaHaters out there who are quick to bring up Watergate, Nixon was a disgraceful example of unlawfulness, not just in his use of Ex. Priv. And that black chapter in our US history is hardly close to what we have here today.

I don't think claiming exec. privilege here is unlawful, unlike, say, the executive order on immigration, which clearly is unlawful.

 

[mheslep]

Note that when it was still called Project Gun Runner Holder was not in office.

'it' was not the same thing as Fast and Furious.

 

[OmCheeto]

.

It was disgusting because it failed, not because of the concept. There are thousands of weapons pouring into Mexico from all over the country. Going up the food chain at this point will only worsen the problem in Mexico. The Cartel leaders must be loving this,The NRA and their conspiracy theory certainly are.

http://www.usatoday.com/news/nation/2009-03-18-cartelguns_N.htm

Long read, a comprehensive report on Fast and Furious: It would be too confusing or possibly misleading to take anything out of context here.

http://www.azcentral.com/arizonarep...un-probe-operation-fast-and-furious-fall.html

I'll take a chance:

Gun sales boomed on the U.S. side of the border, especially in Arizona and Texas. Licensed firearms dealers were selling 10 or more semiautomatic rifles at once to customers visiting several times weekly. Some of the store owners reported the phenomenon to ATF agents. But most buyers were U.S. citizens with clean records, legally entitled to acquire an unlimited number of rifles.

Based on the volume and pattern of sales, agents were convinced that the customers were buying guns on behalf of drug lords in Mexico. But, without proof, what could they do?

So you're average Joe Texan can buy 30 semiautomatic weapons a week forever, and no one questions that?

Misleading my ***.

Project Gunrunner

Five years ago, the Bush administration launched Project Gunrunner, an umbrella campaign to combat firearms smuggling along the Southwestern border. ATF agents conducted surveillance to find legal grounds to arrest the straw buyers. Over time, they seized more than 10,000 weapons and indicted scores of low-level criminals.

But straw buyers were easily replaced, the gunrunning continued and Mexico's mayhem escalated. In four years, more than 35,000 people died.

So 35,000 Mexicans are murdered and no one blinks an eye, then ONE American border patrolman gets killed and everyone wants heads to roll?

This reminds me a bit of Vietnam body counts when I was a kid.

Oh wait, it's the cover up that everyone is upset about isn't it? I get confused about what's important nowadays.

Anyways, that is an excellent article. Got to love the conspiracy stuff.

Guns

:!)​

 

[russ_watters]

Om, we're Americans here, not Mexicans.

 

[russ_watters]

.

It was disgusting because it failed, not because of the concept.

I don't think the word 'disgusting' applies: the concept was STUPID. I can't fathom why the creators could have expected it to bear much fruit, much less enough to be worth all the blood on their hands, if there could ever be enough. Ok, maybe 'disgusting' does fit: we supplied weapons for the drug cartels to use and didn't care about how many people got killed until those guns killed an American.

We're lucky Mexico is too backwards to be pissed about this.

 

[edward]

'it' was not the same thing as Fast and Furious.

Operation Gun Runner is also not the same thing as Wide Reciever.

 

[OmCheeto]

Om, we're Americans here, not Mexicans.

Hi Russ,

Did you know that if you say American, in a Texan accent, it looks just like Mexican?

"Ay'm a Merican, an I luv mai country."

Merican? Mexican? Merican? Mexican?

Got me a few laughs on facebook...

Anyways, I watched numerous congressional videos of Issa vs Holder yesterday, and I can't believe Holder only smirked. I was laughing hysterically. Holder has way more control than I ever will. Issa is, IMHO, the archetypal sleazy politician wielding rhetorical nonsense for his own self interest. And Holder was probably referring to him, as well as Cornyn, when he said that Americans were turned off by the politics in Washington.

ps. My nephew is half Mexican, and works for Honda, in Ohio. I also have relatives in Germany. So we, in my sense, are not American. I'm an Earthling. Though I feel more like a Vulcan sometimes when I see the **** Earthlings do. Quite illogical.

 

[Bobbywhy]

I don't think the word 'disgusting' applies: the concept was STUPID. I can't fathom why the creators could have expected it to bear much fruit, much less enough to be worth all the blood on their hands, if there could ever be enough. Ok, maybe 'disgusting' does fit: we supplied weapons for the drug cartels to use and didn't care about how many people got killed until those guns killed an American.

We're lucky Mexico is too backwards to be pissed about this.

This last comment about Mexico reminds me of a previous thread here that was on the subject of "American Exceptionalism".

 

[russ_watters]

I don't see what that has to do with the US.

 

[ThinkToday]

So you're average Joe Texan can buy 30 semiautomatic weapons a week forever, and no one questions that?

Yes, it would be questioned (prob. not at the point of sale), but barring a prohibition for the person owning a gun, it wouldn't be stopped. I would like to see a nationwide InstaCheck system, like some states have that doesn't register and only validates the purchasers right to buy. Funny thing about rights; we have them in the Constitution and it's up to us to use them responsibly. So what anyone else thinks "we need" means nothing. Here is a Q&A for Texas gun purchases: http://www.texasgunlaws.org/ note the one that states:

Q: What is required to purchase a firearm in the state of Texas?

A: You will need a valid state-issued ID. Many FFLs will not sell to out-of-state residents. This is due to the FFL's requirement to uphold your resident state's gun laws, and the inherent complexity associated with many states.

We don't "need" alcohol; we want it, and the last time the government decided we didn't need it, it didn't work out so well. Alcohol kills directly and indirectly http://dontdiedrunk.org/drunk-driving-stats/ , but still have the right. But yes, I could go buy 30 guns, if I wanted. It would likely get reported, as paperwork is still required. I would likely be checked out by the government, and they may even stop by to have a chat with me. But, that's all fine. As a practical matter I don't know people that go by multiple guns often. Back in the 60/70s my dad bought each his sons new Belgium made Browning A5 shotguns before they switched to being "Made in Japan". I bought a couple match grade guns (use to shoot competitively) on the same day, so people do it from time to time.

So 35,000 Mexicans are murdered and no one blinks an eye, then ONE American border patrolman gets killed and everyone wants heads to roll?

This reminds me a bit of Vietnam body counts when I was a kid.

I don't think that is the case. Remember one of the big pushes for new gun control laws were guns sales in the US and deaths in Mexico from them. What wasn't known at the time was the government, under Bush and Obama had a big hand in it. Here is a reference dating to before Terry was killed. http://www.factcheck.org/2009/04/counting-mexicos-guns/

I really don't see Vietnam as any sort of valid comparison.

 

[aquitaine]

I don't think the word 'disgusting' applies: the concept was STUPID. I can't fathom why the creators could have expected it to bear much fruit, much less enough to be worth all the blood on their hands, if there could ever be enough. Ok, maybe 'disgusting' does fit: we supplied weapons for the drug cartels to use and didn't care about how many people got killed until those guns killed an American.

We're lucky Mexico is too backwards to be pissed about this.

On the other hand if Mexico weren't so backwards the whole thing probably wouldn't have happened in the first place.

Bush administration?

Yep, more specifically the W. Bush Administration.

 

[mheslep]

...
Yep, more specifically the W. Bush Administration.

My question was why are you referencing the Bush administration in regards to AG Holder and Fast and Furious. How is it that this "looks like more of the same"?

 

[chemisttree]

It was disgusting because it failed, not because of the concept. There are thousands of weapons pouring into Mexico from all over the country. Going up the food chain at this point will only worsen the problem in Mexico.

Going up the food chain is a fait accompli. Senior level DOJ personnel have already been implicated. What is at the heart of Issa's request now is to find out who knew what and when regarding the allegedly untruful testimony by Holder himself (“I’m not sure of the exact date, but I probably heard about Fast and Furious for the first time over the last few weeks”) and his deputy in that Feb. 4th, 2011 letter. The allegation is that untruthful, sworn testimony was given before a Congressional Committee, which is a felony. The request seeks to find documents to support the contention that the DOJ knowingly gave false information to the oversight committee. It's entirely appropriate and certainly not a witch hunt.

It's a felony. Remember that Scooter Libby went to prision because he testified hearing about Valerie Plame being a CIA operative from meetings with Tim Russert rather than earlier from Cheney. He was not convicted of actually disclosing Plame's CIA status.

 

[russ_watters]

My question was why are you referencing the Bush administration in regards to AG Holder and Fast and Furious. How is it that this "looks like more of the same"?

I read that as just a grammatically sloppy way of saying Obama was acting like Bush.

 

[aquitaine]

My question was why are you referencing the Bush administration in regards to AG Holder and Fast and Furious. How is it that this "looks like more of the same"?

Oh, I couldn't tell. So to answer your question, how well do you remember the Bush years? There were a number of times , such as the illegal domestic wiretapping scandal that Bush invoked executive privleges in order to flout congressional investigations. I bring it up largely because at the time the conservatives stayed silent. Now Obama is doing the same thing and those same people are screaming bloody murder. What's different? The person in office has a D next to his name instead of an R. But this isn't confined to the right, the left also has similar sentiments but in reverse. This isn't a good thing.

 

[mheslep]

What's different?

Here there have been several false statements made to Congress, including one by the AG. There is a dead CBP agent, shot with a weapon supplied to Mexico via a US agency.

BTW, challenges to the FISA wiretapping policy were dismissed by the courts.

 

[russ_watters]

The cited article wasn't about wiretapping anyway, it was about Bush declining to defend his firing of federal prosecutors, which Congress has at best weak oversight authority over, as the article says.

 

[russ_watters]

Btw, something that makes no sense to me: Holder is not President. How can he claim executive privilege or how can Obama claim executive privilege over Holder's department's communications?

 

[lisab]

Btw, something that makes no sense to me: Holder is not President. How can he claim executive privilege or how can Obama claim executive privilege over Holder's department's communications?

Holder is a member of the President's cabinet, so he's certainly in the Executive branch. And executive privilege is defined (albeit by wiki) as:

In the United States government, executive privilege is the power claimed by the President of the United States and other members of the executive branch to resist certain subpoenas and other interventions by the legislative and judicial branches of government.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Executive_privilege

 

[Vanadium 50]

Btw, something that makes no sense to me: Holder is not President. How can he claim executive privilege or how can Obama claim executive privilege over Holder's department's communications?

The AG cannot claim Executive Privilege. Executive Privilege is not Executive Branch Privilege. It exists so that underlings can give frank and candid advice to the President without worrying about being subpoenaed, and that's why the President invokes it. (In this case, AG Holder did not invoke it)

What makes it interesting in this case is that the claim is that neither the AG nor the President were aware of this operation, so there was no communication nor advice, but nevertheless, the documents about it are still privileged.

 

[edward]

Holder is a member of the President's cabinet, so he's certainly in the Executive branch. And executive privilege is defined (albeit by wiki) as:



http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Executive_privilege

In Fact Bush's council claimed executive privilege (from your link)

On July 13, less than a week after claiming executive privilege for Miers and Taylor, Counsel Fielding effectively claimed the privilege once again, this time in relation to documents related to the 2004 death of Army Ranger Pat Tillman. In a letter to the House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform, Fielding claimed certain papers relating to discussion of the friendly-fire shooting “implicate Executive Branch confidentiality interests” and would therefore not be turned over to the committee.

 

[ThinkToday]

The AG cannot claim Executive Privilege. Executive Privilege is not Executive Branch Privilege. It exists so that underlings can give frank and candid advice to the President without worrying about being subpoenaed, and that's why the President invokes it. (In this case, AG Holder did not invoke it)

What makes it interesting in this case is that the claim is that neither the AG nor the President were aware of this operation, so there was no communication nor advice, but nevertheless, the documents about it are still privileged.

There are some links already here discussing the Executive Privilege. No one but the President can claim it. In Holder's case, he did what he should have done, if his opinion is valid; he requested the President claim it for the subject material. In the link http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Executive_privilege there was a 2009 claim by the SEC Acting General Counsel of EP, after all was said and done, the President didn't exercise it, but the Counsel did without approval. Counsel was gone shortly after.

In the wire tap case for Bush, IMO, that is different. The courts have ruled "Once invoked, a presumption of privilege is established, requiring the Prosecutor to make a "sufficient showing" that the "Presidential material" is "essential to the justice of the case."(418 U.S. at 713-14). Chief Justice Burger further stated that executive privilege would most effectively apply when the oversight of the executive would impair that branch's national security concerns." Additionally, were the taps something the FISA court wouldn't have approved, were there urgent circumstances, was this more an issue with timely paperwork, etc.? IMO, following 9/11 many things changed, and I wouldn't hold some things against Bush, even some over-reactions. I don't know if we will ever know the reasons some things were done, but I suspect most of the things were done had real reasons. As noted by Justice Burger, national security is probably the most sound basis for executive privilege. We can only hope it's used wisely.

As you may know, Bush's first use of EP wasn't for himself. Until I read the link I had forgotten the following "President George W. Bush first asserted executive privilege to deny disclosure of sought details regarding former Attorney General Janet Reno,[2] the scandal involving Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) misuse of organized-crime informants James J. Bulger and Stephen Flemmi in Boston, and Justice Department deliberations about President Bill Clinton's fundraising tactics, in December 2001." Imagine people Bush would probably disagree with more..., yea, hard to think of many.

Given the AG has withdrawn one written document as false, and the AG had to withdraw a statement he made under oath to Congress, and another proposed F&F style operation (4-6 gun proposal) the whistle blower Dodson said was to set him up for a credibility challenge http://www.foxnews.com/politics/201...wer-once-proposed-gunwalking/?intcmp=trending , I'd have to say Congress has reason to wonder. It’s hard for me to imagine the written document and AG testimony wasn’t vetted.

IMO, it boils down to whether you believe the Terry family, and those Mexican nationals killed by these weapons deserve to know the full truth behind this operation. Additionally, IMO, Congress needs to enact laws that require a higher standard for operations that transfer weapons, drugs, technology, etc. in furtherance of an investigation. IMO, Congress needs to know all to do it intelligently.

 

[edward]

But it's also interesting to note that ATF agents working in Mexico had no idea what ATF in Phoenix had been up to at the time.

CONAN: So different branches of ATF weren't talking to each other.

MARIZCO: Right, I mean, and this - we kept seeing this throughout the entire case. For example in 2009, the lead Fast and Furious subject had been picked up by the ATF, give him a business card and tried to recruit him to work for them to nail two Mexican drug lords. It turned out the two drug lords that he was supposed to be working as a snitch on were informants for the FBI.

And in all this, the DEA was also involved running pole cameras, they call them, on these same two suspects. So really we had I do not know how many suspects that were working for either the ATF, the FBI, the DEA and in some cases all three being involved in this fiasco.

http://www.npr.org/2012/06/21/155513757/why-operation-fast-and-furious-failed

This is a good read to help understand a truly incredibly horrible situation.

It is, however, ludacris to think that Holder knew where what and when everything was going on when ATF in the field didn't know. Other agencies didn't even know.

 

[ThinkToday]

http://www.npr.org/2012/06/21/155513757/why-operation-fast-and-furious-failed

This is a good read to help understand a truly incredibly horrible situation.

It is, however, ludacris to think that Holder knew where what and when everything was going on when ATF in the field didn't know. Other agencies didn't even know.

As someone that's had immediate family members in the FBI for a good number of years from about 1949 until a few years ago, these folks are not stupid clueless people that don’t plan major operations to the tee. At the lower levels, agents may not know what other agents are doing, but at upper levels they know. Manpower, interagency communications, operational budgets, warrants, assistant US attorneys oversee warrants/wire taps, etc. These guys aren't allowed to operate in a vacuum. These folks, including the assistant US attorneys, account for their time, budgets, and investigations with loads of paperwork that go through the "system". Perhaps people didn't read "the memo" discussing XYZ, but they got it. IMO, this is a reason Congress needs to investigate. What and where was the breakdown? Who didn’t read “the memo” and why? Who didn’t do their job overseeing those that are under them and why? Do we need new checks and balances for operations?

Ludicrous is "It is, however, ludicrous to think that Holder knew where what and when everything was going on when ATF in the field didn't know." How could Holder NOT know about an operation that crossed US borders and potentially has international consequences? I could understand him not knowing "Joe Doe" illegally got an FFL in Ohio, but an operation involving another country not being brought to the top of DoJ? On its face, it doesn't appear creditable.

 

[edward]

And yet ATF in Mexico didn't know What ATF in Phoenix was doing. ATF in Phoenix recruited a man to help nail two drug lords that were actually FBI informants.

It would have been better if Holder had known. There is an internal investigation going on by people who are not, stupid clueless people.

Are we to believe that a congressional committee could do a better job and not reveal information that would endanger other agents?

 

[ThinkToday]

Are we to believe that a congressional committee could do a better job and not reveal information that would endanger other agents?

Are we to believe an agency can objectively investigate itself when the investigation may involve the investigator's boss? Just as important, is Congress to wave its oversight role?

But, yes, clearly people weren't talking, but at lower levels between agencies, that's not surprising. My brother had a few issues from time to time. I remember one that dealt with "incentive bonuses". An Assistant US Attorney hijacked his case by delaying warrants and passing on info to his friend in a "competing" agency, so his friend could get the bonus. Yes, this "stuff" happens. People don’t always “share”. Think about the level of interagency cooperation/international cooperation after the leaks in the news. Sometimes people don’t want to share out of choice.

 

[mheslep]

We are to use common sense and assume as most do that

i) organizations tend to protect the careers of its members, especially the senior leadership
ii) organizations resist change to ongoing practices that have caused dysfunction.
iii) *large* organizations tend towards i-ii more than smaller ones.
iv) government agencies also contain their share of stupid clueless people, along with the competent and highly motivated.

 

[russ_watters]

v) For multiple reasons, operational personnel tend to make stronger objections to bad policies than management personnel.
vi) Managers tend to retaliate against junior whistleblowers.