Obama asserts executive privilege over ‘Fast and Furious’ documents

Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you:

No adverts like this in the forums anymore.
Times and dates in your local timezone.
Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance.
Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely.
Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net.

If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

**Frazzled**

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2012/jun/20/obama-asserts-executive-privilege-over-ff-docs/

Obama asserts executive privilege over ‘Fast and Furious’ documents
Comments (4)ShareTweetEmailPrintShare on google_plusoneMOREText Size: + / - By Jerry Seper
-
The Washington Times
Updated: 10:47 a.m. on Wednesday, June 20, 2012

Justice Department officials on Wednesday said President Obama has asserted executive privilege over documents sought by a House committee in an investigation of the botched “Fast and Furious” operation.

The last-minute move came just prior to the start of a scheduled hearing by the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee on a contempt on Congress citation against Attorney General Eric H. Holder Jr., who has refused since October to honor a committee subpoena seeking the documents.

In a letter to Committee Chairman Darrell E. Issa, California Republican, a Justice Department official said the privilege applies to documents that explain how the department learned there were problems with the investigation, which allowed more than 2,000 weapons to be “walked” to drug smugglers in Mexico.

A contempt vote against Mr. Holder became likely after he and Mr. Issa failed to reach an agreement over turning over the documents during a 20-minute meeting Tuesday on Capitol Hill. Mr. Holder did not turn over any records at the Tuesday meeting and later told reporters he would not turn over Fast and Furious documents unless Mr. Issa agreed to another meeting, where he said he would explain what is in the materials.

He said he wanted an assurance from Mr. Issa that the transfer of the records would satisfy the committee’s subpoena.

“I had hoped that after this evening’s meeting I would be able to tell you that the department had delivered documents that would justify the postponement of tomorrow’s vote on contempt,” Mr. Issa said. “The department told the committee on Thursday that it had documents it could produce that would answer our questions.

“The assertion of executive privilege raises monumental questions,” said Sen. Chuck Grassley of Iowa, ranking Republican on the Senate Judiciary Committee who first began the Fast and Furious investigation.

“How can the president assert executive privilege if there was no White House involvement? How can the president exert executive privilege over documents he’s supposedly never seen? Is something very big being hidden to go to this extreme? The contempt citation is an important procedural mechanism in our system of checks and balances,” he said.

“The questions from Congress go to determining what happened in a disastrous government program for accountability and so that it’s never repeated again.”

Sponsored Link: Since 1965, one little-known investment has quietly made some Americans rich...Unlike stocks and bonds, this investment has no special reporting requirements to the government. And it can easily be carried with you anywhere you go. Click here to learn more.

**Kanluwen**

“The questions from Congress go to determining what happened in a disastrous government program for accountability and so that it’s never repeated again.”

Bollocks.

It's political maneuvering, plain and simple. They want something else to hang around the neck of Obama's administration for the election season.

**LordofHats**

Kanluwen wrote:Bollocks.

It's political maneuvering, plain and simple. They want something else to hang around the neck of Obama's administration for the election season.

Well sure.

But the operation was still a giant feth up and an idea so insanely dumb that whoever actually authorized it really should be fired.

**Frazzled**

LordofHats wrote:
Kanluwen wrote:Bollocks.

It's political maneuvering, plain and simple. They want something else to hang around the neck of Obama's administration for the election season.

Well sure.

But the operation was still a giant feth up and an idea so insanely dumb that whoever actually authorized it really should be fired.

And US agents, not to mention hundreds of Mexican citizens, died. People should have been fired. Nothing has been done, no accountability.

This isn't an Obama thing, unless he makes it one, like he just did.

**Kanluwen**

LordofHats wrote:
Kanluwen wrote:Bollocks.

It's political maneuvering, plain and simple. They want something else to hang around the neck of Obama's administration for the election season.

Well sure.

But the operation was still a giant feth up and an idea so insanely dumb that whoever actually authorized it really should be fired.

By that logic, no law enforcement agency ever should ever attempt techniques like the ones utilized in FnF.

The plan was sound. The follow-up wasn't.
Using guns tagged with GPS markers isn't a bad idea at all when it comes to mapping out gun trafficking routes from the US side to the Mexican side.
What is a bad idea is not maintaining operational security by regularly keeping local law enforcement in the areas you're suspicious of for having ties to gun traffickers in the loop of what you're doing.

Automatically Appended Next Post:

Frazzled wrote:
LordofHats wrote:
Kanluwen wrote:Bollocks.

It's political maneuvering, plain and simple. They want something else to hang around the neck of Obama's administration for the election season.

Well sure.

But the operation was still a giant feth up and an idea so insanely dumb that whoever actually authorized it really should be fired.

And US agents, not to mention hundreds of Mexican citizens, died. People should have been fired. Nothing has been done, no accountability.

You mean other than the operation being stopped and an investigation within the ATF mounted.

This isn't an Obama thing, unless he makes it one, like he just did.

Or like how you titled the thread "Obama asserts executive privilege over 'Fast and Furious' documents".

**dogma**

Frazzled wrote:
This isn't an Obama thing, unless he makes it one, like he just did.

Of course it is, it happened in his Administration, in an Executive Department. To think that people wouldn't immediately tie this to Obama is naive.

Its like saying Rumsfeld wasn't a Bush thing.

**LordofHats**

What is a bad idea is not maintaining operational security by regularly keeping local law enforcement in the areas you're suspicious of for having ties to gun traffickers in the loop of what you're doing.

You realize that was part of the idea? Hence, insanely dumb?

**Frazzled**

By that logic, no law enforcement agency ever should ever attempt techniques like the ones utilized in FnF.

In light of the numbers of people who have died, and the sheer idiocy of giving guns to killer cartels, I’d proffer that’s an excellent idea.

The plan was sound. The follow-up wasn't.

No, the planner is dumber than a box of rocks, unless you’re trying to make the case we need more gun control laws because guns are leaking from the US to Mexico. . .

Using guns tagged with GPS markers isn't a bad idea at all when it comes to mapping out gun trafficking routes from the US side to the Mexican side.

Yea, it is, when they then use those guns to kill people.

You mean other than the operation being stopped and an investigation within the ATF mounted.

I missed where everyone involved was fired. Oh wait…As the immortal bard once said: who guards the guards?

Or like how you titled the thread "Obama asserts executive privilege over 'Fast and Furious' documents".

Derp derp. That was the title of the article derp.

Automatically Appended Next Post:

dogma wrote:
Frazzled wrote:
This isn't an Obama thing, unless he makes it one, like he just did.

Of course it is, it happened in his Administration, in an Executive Department. To think that people wouldn't immediately tie this to Obama is naive.

Its like saying Rumsfeld wasn't a Bush thing.

I disagree. At best this is a Holder thing, at best. The WH wouldn't be involved in such an operation unless there was an alternative purpose.

**Kanluwen**

LordofHats wrote:
What is a bad idea is not maintaining operational security by regularly keeping local law enforcement in the areas you're suspicious of for having ties to gun traffickers in the loop of what you're doing.

You realize that was part of the idea? Hence, insanely dumb?

Which is the part which I think needed to have been cut.

Keeping it at a federal level would have been far, far, far more effective.

**Frazzled**

Go on earth how? Guns still go to cartels. Caretls still shoot people. Cartels still shoot local and federal agents. How on earth could this plan have worked out?

**Relapse**

How's that transparency and change working for everyone?

**Scrabb**

The thing about fast and furious is that it really wouldn't have mapped out a good idea of existing US to Mexico gun running because the government had to lean on a number of the State side gun salesmen to get the guns sold to the cartels in the first place.

**daedalus**

Relapse wrote:How's that transparency and change working for everyone?

To be fair, it was "Change you can BELIEVE in."

**Relapse**

daedalus wrote:
Relapse wrote:How's that transparency and change working for everyone?

To be fair, it was "Change you can BELIEVE in."

Perhaps, but Obama was beating his chest talking about having a transparent administration. This whole thing reminds me of Watergate, with corpses.

**Frazzled**

Scrabb wrote:The thing about fast and furious is that it really wouldn't have mapped out a good idea of existing US to Mexico gun running because the government had to lean on a number of the State side gun salesmen to get the guns sold to the cartels in the first place.

exactly.

**daedalus**

Relapse wrote:
daedalus wrote:
Relapse wrote:How's that transparency and change working for everyone?

To be fair, it was "Change you can BELIEVE in."

Perhaps, but Obama was beating his chest talking about having a transparent administration. This whole thing reminds me of Watergate, with corpses.

And then he changed his mind. Not sure about you, but that's exactly the change I believed in out of him.

Kind of like how this thing reminds you of something that happened 40 years ago. It's the (lack of) change that I can believe in.

We gotta get rid of this two party bs. Not sure how to fix it, but seriously, people shouldn't be all red team/blue team.

**hotsauceman1**

Im confused, what is executive privilege and the "Fast and the furious" operation?

**dogma**

Frazzled wrote:
I disagree. At best this is a Holder thing, at best. The WH wouldn't be involved in such an operation unless there was an alternative purpose.

Holder is an Obama appointee. Obama was able to appoint Holder because the Justice Department is part of the Executive (the White House). Whether or not the President himself is personally involved is essentially moot. There are many, many, examples of Presidents being punished at the polls because of the actions of their appointees. This would be made all the worse by the extreme unpopularity of Obama with likely Republican voters.

Are you going to claim that Rumsfeld's actions weren't used against McCain in 2008 (they would have been used against Bush were he able to stand again), and the larger Republican Party during the 2006 midterms? Because its essentially the same thing. Bush stood by Rumsfeld much as Obama has tacitly stood by Holder.

**Jihadin**

well isn't that dandy. Obama saving Holder arse...no one gets fired within the gov't...you get promoted out of the position

**Frazzled**

dogma wrote:
Frazzled wrote:
I disagree. At best this is a Holder thing, at best. The WH wouldn't be involved in such an operation unless there was an alternative purpose.

Holder is an Obama appointee. Obama was able to appoint Holder because the Justice Department is part of the Executive (the White House). Whether or not the President himself is personally involved is essentially moot. There are many, many, examples of Presidents being punished at the polls because of the actions of their appointees. This would be made all the worse by the extreme unpopularity of Obama with likely Republican voters.

Are you going to claim that Rumsfeld's actions weren't used against McCain in 2008 (they would have been used against Bush were he able to stand again), and the larger Republican Party during the 2006 midterms? Because its essentially the same thing. Bush stood by Rumsfeld much as Obama has tacitly stood by Holder.

It was stupid then too.

**dogma**

Frazzled wrote:
It was stupid then too.

Yeah, but what I'm saying is that Obama stood by Holder well before there was a controversy, much as Bush stood by Rumsfeld well before there was any controversy, by simply appointing the man.

Basically its in for a penny in for a pound. If you're already going to get blamed you may as well try and give yourself something else to point at (In this case "Republicans trying to violate Executive Privilege".), or deny ammunition to your opposition.

Edit: for stupid errors.

**Jihadin**

Well you really can't keep hiring and firing everyone so you have to make a stand somewhere. Like Obama going through Generals for Afghanistan and settle for Patreus. No way he couldn't fired Patreus. To me...IMO...bad call on Obama for Holder

**Frazzled**

dogma wrote:
Frazzled wrote:
It was stupid then too.

Yeah, but what I'm saying is that Obama stood by Holder well before there was a controversy, much as Bush stood by Rumsfeld well before there was any controversy, by simply appointing the man.

Basically its in for a penny in for a pound. If you're already going to get blamed you may as well try and give yourself something else to point at (In this case "Republicans trying to violate Executive Privilege".), or deny ammunition to your opposition.

Edit: for stupid errors.

Wait under that concept:
1. Presidents would be responsible for every event in the Federal government. Even I'm not going that far.
2. Incompetents would never be remonstrated for their acts.

Automatically Appended Next Post:

hotsauceman1 wrote:Im confused, what is executive privilege and the "Fast and the furious" operation?

Thats the question. Essentially internal communications of the WH are protected (with limitations there too, its really weird). The problem of course, is the WH shouldn't have been involved and Holder testified it wasn't. Asserting privelege essentially means he lied to Congress.

More better goodness on executive privilege. I'll admit I hadn't thought of it since law school and its a head scratcher then too.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Executive_privilege
The Supreme Court addressed 'executive privilege' in United States v. Nixon, the 1974 case involving the demand by Watergate special prosecutor Archibald Cox that President Richard Nixon produce the audiotapes of conversations he and his colleagues had in the Oval Office of the White House in connection with criminal charges being brought against members of the Nixon Administration. Nixon invoked the privilege and refused to produce any records.

The Supreme Court did not reject the claim of privilege out of hand; it noted, in fact, "the valid need for protection of communications between high Government officials and those who advise and assist them in the performance of their manifold duties" and that "[h]uman experience teaches that those who expect public dissemination of their remarks may well temper candor with a concern for appearances and for their own interests to the detriment of the decisionmaking process." This is very similar to the logic that the Court had used in establishing an "executive immunity" defense for high office-holders charged with violating citizens' constitutional rights in the course of performing their duties. The Supreme Court stated: "To read the Article II powers of the President as providing an absolute privilege as against a subpoena essential to enforcement of criminal statutes on no more than a generalized claim of the public interest in confidentiality of nonmilitary and nondiplomatic discussions would upset the constitutional balance of 'a workable government' and gravely impair the role of the courts under Article III." Because Nixon had asserted only a generalized need for confidentiality, the Court held that the larger public interest in obtaining the truth in the context of a criminal prosecution took precedence

**dogma**

Frazzled wrote:
1. Presidents would be responsible for every event in the Federal government. Even I'm not going that far.

Oh, I'm not claiming they're actually responsible. I'm claiming that they'll be held responsible, admittedly with varying degrees of success, by the opposition. At this point, because Holder has been in office for so long, Obama really isn't left much choice but to back him. Had he given him the boot in year 1 or year 2 it would have been different. The same was true of Bush vis. Rumsfeld, its why they had him resign instead of just booting him.

Frazzled wrote:
2. Incompetents would never be remonstrated for their acts.

Oh, they still would be, when it was politically feasible to do so. At this point in cycle it simply isn't.

**Frazzled**

To be clear I'm not referring to Holder but the actual people in charge of the operation and those that green lighted it.

**dogma**

Frazzled wrote:To be clear I'm not referring to Holder but the actual people in charge of the operation and those that green lighted it.

Ah, that's different then, but I suspect the thought process is the same either way from Obama's perspective.

**Frazzled**

House committee voted for contempt. Goes to the full House now, looks like next week.
http://thehill.com/homenews/house/233763-house-panel-votes-to-place-holder-in-contempt-of-congress

**d-usa**

1) This whole "contempt" thing is nothing but political posturing in my mind. They are not looking to fix things, they just see a hot button issue and want to turn it into politics. (Politicians wanting to turn things into politics? Shocking!)

Add the whole "Obama wants to take away all our guns!" element, even though he has done nothing of the sort for 4 years, and people start coming up with crazy ideas anyway. Apparently Obama personally authorized this operation hoping that US citizens get killed by these guns (he hates the US in case you didn't know) so that he could have a reason to send in the national guard to take away all of our guns, white-out the second, and pass all kinds of anti-gun legislation. So indirectly this plays into their crazy base.

2) FaF was a fethed up operation on almost all levels. Even if it started out well, at some point when arrests should have been made it appears that they kept on waiting for a bigger fish and eventually things got away.

I don't know that saying FaF guns killed US citizens is correct. That would make it seem like conservatives are saying that people would not have gotten murdered if they didn't have these guns. So that would make it appear that it is guns that kill people, not people killing people. So unless the conservatives want to make the point that "not giving people guns would have saved lives" then they need to scale back the rethoric a bit and let the internal investigations proceed.

There is a group of people that fethed up, and they need to be held accountable. But don't let partisan politics get in the way of a legitimate problem.

**Ouze**

I also would like to see the documents, because apparently a 6th movie got greenlighted? How does that even happen? Someone should have gone to jail for the 5th one, let alone continuing the franchise.

**Frazzled**

Ouze wrote:I also would like to see the documents, because apparently a 6th movie got greenlighted? How does that even happen? Someone should have gone to jail for the 5th one, let alone continuing the franchise.

Wrong thread? Wrong reality?