Obama Asserts Executive Privilege On Fast And Furious Documents

[kpete]

Source: Talking Points Memo

President Barack Obama asserted executive privilege on documents related to the Justice Department’s response to congressional inquires about the botched ATF operation known as Fast and Furious on Wednesday.

The move came just as the House Oversight Committee began proceedings on a vote on a resolution finding Attorney General Eric Holder in contempt of Congress.

“In view of the significant confidentiality and separation of powers concerns raised by the Committee’s demand for internal documents generating in response to the Committee’s investigation, we consider the Department’s accomodations regarding the prepartion of the February 4 letter to have been extraordinary,” Holder wrote in a letter to the White House. “Despite these accommodations, however, the Committee scheduled a vote on its contempt resolution.”

Deputy Attorney General James Cole wrote in a letter to Issa on Wednesday that said DOJ had “substantially complied with the outstanding subpoena.”

Read more: http://tpmmuckraker.talkingpointsmemo.com/2012/06/obama_asserts_executive_privilege_on_fast_and_furious_documents.php?ref=fpnewsfeed

---

Holder Asks White House To Exert Executive Privilege Over Fast And Furious Docs


The AP reports:

BREAKING: Attorney general asks White House to exert executive privilege over Fast and Furious documents.

— The Associated Press (@AP) June 20, 2012
http://livewire.talkingpointsmemo.com/entries/holder-asks-white-house-to-exert-executive-privilege

[AngryAmish]

1. Piss on 'em, Mr. President

[11 Bravo]

2. White House to Issa: FUCK OFF! Now, go steal another car or something, asshole.

[savalez]

19. Yep, the car thief's witch hunt hit a brick wall.

This will only mean something to those who want it to. Same old shit. No biggie.

(now where's that FU emoticon?)

[hrmjustin]

31. Well said my friend!!! n/t

[MADem]

56. You win the thread!!!! I hope MIRT runs through here and does some light housekeeping, though!! nt

[wordpix]

94. Yeah, Issa, and burn down a building or two, why dontcha?

These SS trooper-types never get theirs.

[freshwest]

95. You beat me to it. I second that.

[wordpix]

118. trying to get through to the crowd in this thread: this is a RWnut/Faux News conspiracy

http://www.democraticunderground.com/1002837423

VIDEO: http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/26315908/


MORE:
http://www.dailykos.com/story/2012/06/21/1101813/-NRA-blackmailed-Republican-lawmakers-to-vote-to-hold-Eric-Holder-in-contempt-of-Congress

[wordpix]

120. also, this wacky conspiracy involves the NRA and "taking our guns away" hysteria crowd

[clang1]

3. re: Holder Asks White House To Exert Executive Privilege Over Fast And Furious Docs

Thanks for the TPM link with docs.

Good God, this was a Bush program to begin with.

[Loudly]

4. Dreadful mistake on the face of it.

What could be so sensitive and harmful which responsible redacting couldn't protect?

If there is an anti-gun sentiment showing up in the documents, own up to it! Embrace it! State unequivocally the viewpoint that guns and ammo in the hands of the public is bad for the country!

[jeff47]

5. Redacting isn't allowed

Because redacting would not be complying with the subpoena. You'd still be withholding parts of the document.

There's no evidence of any sort of anti-gun sentiment or conspiracy. There is, however, details about under cover agents and tactics that when leaked by Issa would get agents killed.

Issa has no evidence of any wrongdoing, he's just harassing the White House in the hope that he'll stumble across something embarrassing.

[go west young man]

7. On the money.

[Loudly]

8. You can show unredacted versions in closed session.

I'm no fan of Issa. Or his haircut. But this just looks bad. The worst of the embarrassment has already been suffered. I favor light as the best disenfectant in this matter.

[jeff47]

25. Because Congressmen have never leaked sensitive information, right?

And Issa will surely stop after this batch of documents! He'd never just keep asking for more and more documents.

[happyslug]

68. I think the answer is yes, Congress has never leaked sensitive information

The vast majority of leaks has NOT been via Congress but the executive branch itself. I can NOT think of ANY classified information or other confidential data that Congress has leaked. Congress has published "sensitive" data that was neither classified or confidential but that is NOT illegal (in fact you can point out that is the job of any opposition party in Congress).

Lets be honest, Congress consists of 535 prima-donnas each supported by a staff to make sure the Congress critter gets re-elected. On the other hand, when given Classified information, it is easy to trace to the Congress critter that released it, and that fact can be used to defeat that member of Congress at the next election. Thus the cost to a member of Congress to leak classified information or other confidential data is extremely high, unlike the relative low costs of someone operating for the White House. The President can denounce the release and even remove the releaser, but more often then not the President wanted the data released, but also wants to say he did NOT want it released. Given that bureaucrats are Civil Service employees, and as such if they release such data that is grounds to be fired, it rare for bureaucrats to release such data. No release of data is worth the loss of their job. Thus it is almost always a political appointee who does the release, more often then not for the benefit of the White House, but occasionally for some other political reason.

My point is simple, it is the PRESIDENT'S political appointees that release the data NOT the bureaucrats with the Executive branch or Congress.

My favorite story of the President complaining about the release of classified data is Iran-Contra. The people around Reagan all denounced the release of the Classified data as a violation of the duty of Congress and the Press to NOT print data that is classified information or other confidential data. The press ran with that story, various commentators denouncing the release of the data. Then it all quieted down, when it was pointed out the data was released BY IRAN in a Lebanese Paper. i.e. NOT released by anyone on the US, anyone in Congress, (or surprisingly) no one in the Executive branch, but that to do Iran-Contra the US had to deal with the Contras (Which the US Controlled and thus did not release the data) AND Iran. The US had no control over Iran and it was Iran that released the data.

I bring it up for it shows the tendency in the Executive branch to blame Congress and the press for any release of such classified information or other confidential data, even when it is public record (which it was when Iran released the data).

Yes, you hear over and over again how Congress and the Press release such data, but when you finally look at who did it is never Congress or a Executive bureaucrat but an political appointee of the President (When it is not released by someone else).

Yes, I know the release of Pentagon and State Department Data by Bradly Manning is a release by a non-political appointee, but it is the only one I have ever heard of AND UNLIKE OTHER LEAKERS HE IS BEING BROUGHT UP ON CHARGES. People in his position almost NEVER release information, he is notable for having done so (And why a Private in the US Army had access to such classified information NOT needed for his job is a question no one is asking or answering, for the answer is unacceptable i.e. total incompetency in the Pentagon and the State Department as to E-mails and other computer data).

[jeff47]

81. So your lack of knowledge proves Congress never leaks?

Uh-huh. Congress leaks. The Executive branch leaks. The Judicial branch leaks.

On the other hand, when given Classified information, it is easy to trace to the Congress critter that released it

Information is never released to a single Congressperson. It's released to a committee. Meaning if you tell only one committee, you've got ~15 people who could have leaked it, or their staff could have, or one of 'em told another congressperson who then leaked it to the press, and so on.

It is nowhere near easy to track down the leaker, so public scrutiny is not a deterrent.

unlike the relative low costs of someone operating for the White House

You better go find Scooter Libby and let him know that pardon was completely unnecessary.

[happyslug]

105. Do you have an example?

The reason I can NOT name an example of a member of Congress releasing classified information MAY be for the simple reason, no member of Congress has ever done so. Can you name such an incident? I can NOT, and that may be because no member of Congress has EVER leaked Classified or other Confidential information.

Then you mention Scooter Libby, whose problems with the law REFLECTS MY POSITION. Scooter Libby was a member of the EXECUTIVE BRANCH, he was a PRESIDENTIAL APPOINTEE. Such people have ALWAYS been the source of leaks. Libby did NOT work FOR CONGRESS, any CONGRESSIONAL COMMITTEE, or ANY MEMBER OF CONGRESS, but the President of the US (and at time the Vice President, who is also a member of the Executive branch). Libby's problem with the law was NOT due to any leaks FROM CONGRESS but the leaks he did as a Political Appointee of the Executive Branch (i.e. the President and the Vice President).

More on Scooter Libby:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scooter_Libby

Now Scooter Libby was convicted of a crime, but that because he released information that the bureaucrats pointed out could have cost people their lives (and may have, Valerie Plume was a "deep cover" agent, her job was NOT to gather intelligence herself, but to recruit natives to do it for her, and then pass that information back to Washington, it is these native spies that were probably executed by their country's anti-spy agency, shown to be spies do to how frequently they came into contact with Valarie Plume).

Thus for political gain, Libby may have lead to the execution of our "agents" in those countries (Not actual CIA agents, but the people recruited by the CIA). There was no way the CIA was going to tolerate such a leak, and thus Libby was indicated and convicted. He stepped over a line, how dare someone review someone is a CIA agent? That was the problem, he risked lives.

But except for that part of the data that may have lead to people's death that he released, he did what political appointees have always done, leak data. Such appointees do it all the time. Occasionally they get caught, but it is almost always a member of the Executive Branch, not a member of Congress someone working for a Congressmen, or working for Congress.

[jeff47]

111. Ken Star's report.

Published by Congress the instant they received it. Contains protected information. There's a billion other leaks during the Clinton administration.

The reason you don't know specific Congresspeople who leaked is because it's virtually impossible to find the leaker without the Executive branch stomping all over Congress to figure out which Congressperson leaked. So the leakers from Congress are not prosecuted.

As for Libby, my entire point was your claim that there is almost no penalty for the executive branch leaking is wrong. As is evidenced by Libby requiring a pardon to avoid jail time.

Also, the power to classify information was granted to the President by Congress. If the president wants something leaked, he can. Because he has the power to declassify anything he feels like.

[happyslug]

119. Ken Star was Special Proecutor

The Report was NEVER intended to be confidential, Constitutionally, Starr was a member of the Executive Branch. Furthermore in setting up the Special Prosecutor Congress's intention (and it was set up AFTER Watergate) was to provide some protection to said special prosecutor (Congress did NOT want a repeat of Nixon's firing of the Special Prosecutor when the Prosecutor came to close to indicting Nixon).

Thus, Knee Starr was another executive officer, but one with extensive protections written by a Democratic Congress after Watergate. His report was leaked by him and his staff while before Congress had a chance, but again he was NOT under the authority of Congress but the Executive Branch (Congress had made it impossible for a President to fire such a Special Prosecutor, but the Prosecutor was NEVER under the control of Congress).

As to the actual report, it was expected to be PUBLISHED, thus nothing in it was Confidential or classified. The report was going to be a Public Record. for that is how the Special Prosecutor law was written. Try again.

[jeff47]

121. You are utterly, completely, 100% wrong

Ken Star's report to Congress was confidential. He was horrified when it was published.

Thus, Knee Starr was another executive officer

Doesn't matter. HE DIDN'T LEAK IT. Congress did.

As to the actual report, it was expected to be PUBLISHED

A stripped-down version was to be published. Congress published the full report.

[happyslug]

124. But Prosecitor's report are like Grand Jury, only confidential for a time period

In Grand Jurys, what is said WHILE IT IS IN SESSION, is classifed as "Confidential" but once the jury is no longer sitting, all of its records are public. Prosecutors, when doing the job a Grand Jury would do in the Common Law come under a similar rule.

You have to understand, Prosecutors today do a dual role, one of being a substitute for a Grand Jury, which under the Common Law, was the only agency that could bring a criminal charge against anyone i.e. Police and local District Attorneys did NOT exist till the 1830s, prior to that if someone did a criminal act against you, you had to hire your own attorney or otherwise present a case to the Grand Jury, for the Grand Jury to indict or not. The Office of Attorney General Existed, but he was the King's (and after Independent the State's) attorney. Thus unless the state was somehow involved (and keeping the peace was NOT grounds for such involvement at that time), even if you were murdered, your survivors had to bring the charge, not the Attorney General (Unless you were an agent of the King OR the King saw a way he could enrich himself, remember the king received the land of anyone convicted of a Felony).

Now that rule started to change in the 1830s in the US, and then spread to Britain with the invention of what we now call District Attorneys. In the 1900s the trend was to restrict private criminal complaints to summary offenses only, so today DAs bring murder and most felony cases.

Now as part of this switch from Private Criminal to DA to bring criminal charges, came a decision to give the DAs the power of indictment that previously had been restricted to a Grand Jury. Thus the Prosecutor acts as both a Grand Jury (whose records are open to the public) and a Attorney for the victim of Criminal behavior (And Attorney-Client right to keep such information confidential). This is an inherent conflict, mostly seen at the state level, but does reach into the Federal Prosecution of cases.

Technically, the Federal Government has NEVER abolished the Grand Jury, but the Federal Prosecutor in most criminal cases, act like a local DA, makes the case solid then present it to the Grand Jury. In many ways, Congress was sitting as a Grand Jury when it came to the Special Prosecutor, it had the right to see all of the evidence AND being Congress that evidence MUST be public.

Side Note: Secret sessions of Congress have occurred, where nothing done in the session was made public. There is a set procedure for such sessions and Ken Starr did NOT avail himself of those procedures, so as far as Congress was concern, Ken Starr gave them a public record. As a member of the Executive Branch he had the right to ask that the record ONLY be heard and read under the rules for such secret sessions, he decided NOT to do so. He might CLAIM he did not want it released, but his actions speak louder then words. Ken Starr's position seems to be like the person who sent such a document to a Newspaper and then yells, he did NOT expect the Paper to print it.

Sorry, Ken Starr's actions speak louder then his words, and again you are pointing out the actions of a member of the Executive Office (Which Ken Starr technically was) not Congress.

[MADem]

58. Oh please--so some asshole staffer can leak the info to DAILY CALLER? Get real.

You don't know what's in those documents and neither do I. I wouldn't want someone killed, though, to stoke Darryl "Crybaby" Issa's ego.

[Gregorian]

41. Thank you. I'm now understanding what is going on here. Much appreciated.

[steve2470]

73. 100% correct nt

[Kolesar]

6. the viewpoint that guns and ammo in the hands of the public is bad for the country!

That was embarassing...on your part

[Loudly]

9. You think they're good for the country?

Be ashamed. Be very ashamed.

[sabrina 1]

67. No one should accomodate Daryl Issa, his main job is and always has been to

be a hit man for his Corporate Lobbyists. I never hear about this jerk unless he's abusing his power to start witch hunts like this.

Unfortunately Democrats have gone along with his thuggish tactics in the past rather than stand up to him and dismiss him as he deserves.

I have not taken the trouble yet to find out what this is all about, but with Issa's name front and center, it doesn't make me all that interested, frankly. He's still the crook he started out as. A thief, a liar, and a thug.

[wordpix]

117. the only anti-gun sentiment is in the minds of the RW SS trooper who started this wacky conspiracy +

Faux News who blew it up into a "news story."

VIDEO: http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/26315908/


MORE:
http://www.dailykos.com/story/2012/06/21/1101813/-NRA-blackmailed-Republican-lawmakers-to-vote-to-hold-Eric-Holder-in-contempt-of-Congress

get educated

[Beacool]

10. Hmmm, who does this remind me of?

Oh yeah, the Bush administration. What happened to transparency?

[SlimJimmy]

13. Bush invoked executive priviledge 6 times and Clinton 14 times. Considering that

this is the 1st time the President has used it, I'd say he's been pretty transparent so far. The only issue I have concerns the optics of it. We here at DU understand the politics at play, the general public may not and view it as the administration hiding something.

[Rosa Luxemburg]

93. Presidents CAN invoke executive priviledge

[SlimJimmy]

122. I never said he couldn't. I said the optics don't look good to the uninformed masses. You have to

remember that we at DU are much better informed than the average voter.

[JDPriestly]

43. There may be some legitimate claim of national security protection here.

The individuals and places involved in this action may still be alive and subject to retaliation. Also, the names of the specific agents who released the weapons and the places and circumstances in which the weapons were released are probably top secret. After all, there were probably what we would call double agents -- people who worked for the US but were thought of by the bad guys involved as working for them -- involved.

I am usually critical of the overuse of the Top Secret designation and would suggest that DUers watch the films about Watergate and American espionage including The Man Nobody Knew which tells the story of William Casey, an American spy in WWII, Viet Nam and the Nixon administration.

But this time, I think that claiming national security to protect the lives of agents may be appropriate and that Obama is doing the right thing.

[usaprogress]

11. Do None Of You People

realize what has just happened! Holder has just linked Obama to the Fast and Furious program! This now opens the President up to all sorts of investigations which can not be good at all in an election year! Holder is circling the drain and he is taking the President with him. Can no one here see this? There is way too much evidence, REAL evidence against Holder. Obama should have cut him loose last year. It makes no difference if this is a continuation of a Bush project or not, it should never have gone as far as it did. To say that Holder is the guy who stopped the project is just an insult to our intelligence. He stopped after he got caught! People died you guys! A Federal agent died! If this were Bush's AG you guys would be singing a different song. Some things are just unspinable. The SCOTUS has already ruled that this sort of paperwork is NOT covered under EP. It would have to contain direct communications with the AG and the President concerning this program which is something all involved (including the President) have denied the whole time! This is a Watergate moment people and it is bad news right now! Get your heads out of the sand! Ed

[clang1]

12. re: Do None Of You People

What I don't get is who injects more weapons into a conflict where everyone is already armed to the teeth?

[Bradical79]

14. I don't know about Watergate bad (politically speaking) but it's bad.

President Obama trying to protect Holder from the fast and the furious mess, especially with an election coming up in a few months, just seems stupid to me. Not to mention the ethics of it. People were killed by this incredibly stupid program. So our Democratic president loses talking points on transparency, accountability, gun control, and people died. I'm not seeing this as a "win".

[MADem]

62. And you know this...how? You've read the material? NO? You're talking RW talking points.

Why would you do that?

[Bradical79]

72. What are you talking about?

I gave my opinion on how it looks, and that it is a fact that people died. That's how this all started in the first place. I don't need to read secret documents to know that people were killed. As for GOP talking points, they're easy points to make. You've got memos showing that Holder likely lied about his knowledge of the operation, retractions on earlier statements he and his office made, and now the President claiming executive privilege over documents when he claims his administration knew nothing about it. While there could be other reasons to claim executive privilege, it certainly looks like him protecting a friend to the public rather than doing his job as executive and getting to the bottom of the matter. And it looks particularly bad after all his claims of wanting increased transparency. I'm sorry for giving a view I think is fairly realistic rather than the cheerleader view, but that's what I'm seeing.

I don't think it will cost him the election, but it could make it close enough to be in doubt (for Republicans to steal). At least we can count on Romney's ability to make out of touch statements on a regular basis and inability to state his position on any important policy matter.

[MADem]

75. You apparently didn't listen to Elijah Cummings. You should.

You also have an unclear concept of what this is all about and you are, surely unwittingly, I trust, repeating RW memes.

This is not about the whole management of F/F. This is about specific documents that addressed an INTERNAL DOJ INVESTIGATION. Issa has already been given THOUSANDS of documents on that operation.

It's not, clearly, what you think it is.

And this attempt at wet-henning and high-dudgeoning by Issa is not going to "make it close." Only the GOP are HOPING for that. They can keep dreaming.

I think RMoney's recent comments about how only private businessmen know how to send jobs overseas will resonate more with the average voter than this "Inside Congress" bullshit Issa is trying to pull right before his crew go on "recess" to expensive overseas junkets.

Anyone else besides me getting a sense of déjà vu? This is an attempt to reprise the Endless Investigations of the Clinton era--GOP Horseshit Without End, Amen.

POTUS ain't having it, and good for him.

[watrwefitinfor]

85. No. Wittingly, I think.

So, who opened the gates?

Wat

[MADem]

86. I was trying to be polite.

No idea who opened the gates, but I wish someone would close 'em!

[watrwefitinfor]

107. You're always polite. :-) n/t

[BumRushDaShow]

15. Bzzzt. Sorry wrong answer.

Issa's show-boating is the equivalent of Scooter Libby's outing of Valerie Plame.

Puppet master Rove is alive and well and moving Issa's mouth!

[usaprogress]

16. So I'm guessing

that it's ok that people died and you think this is a great move that Holder has made by implicating the President (and the President seemingly admits involvement by invoking EP) in this? Aren't you the least bit interested in how this program got so far out of control? What happened to the transparency? Why lie about it if there is nothing to hide? Ed

[leftynyc]

18. Your concern is touching

really, really touching.

[JDPriestly]

46. This is a genuine national security matter, and Holder and Obama

are doing the right thing in protecting information that could reveal the names of American agents who investigate and fight international crime.

Will Obama pay a political price for this? Yes. But he will be able to explain this to Americans in a way that does not alienate his friends. And those who won't understand won't vote for Obama anyway.

[MADem]

76. Your scent will soon fade. Goodnight "Sweet" Prince...enjoy your PPR. nt

[usaprogress]

24. We are, after all

supposed to be the party who actually CARES about people, right? Ed

[MADem]

77. "WE" are--and "we" don't repeat rightwing talking points that earn us pepperoni. nt

[PavePusher]

89. Brian Terry was a person....

not a fucking "rightwing talking point".

[MADem]

91. Yes, he was, and people who use him as a rightwing talking point should be ashamed of themselves.

This isn't about Brian Terry.

But if you keep pretending it is, you're carrying Darryl Issa's water.

[PavePusher]

98. We want a way to be answerable to the American people, and cork that fuck Issa.

I'm pretty sure this isn't it.

And if it's not about Terry, then there certainly isn't anything to hide, right?

[MADem]

100. You are being--for reasons coming clear to me--deliberately obtuse.

This is a political witch hunt.

I am tired of repeating this--you don't get it? You never will.

Have fun carrying Darryl's water, don't pull a muscle, now-- your investment in his talking points is quite dogged.

[PavePusher]

102. And I state again: If there is nothing to hide, show this, and yank the rug out from under Issa.

I don't think I'm the one being deliberately obtuse here.

I'd love for this to blow up in the Repubs faces by demonstrating that nothing wrong was done. But the longer people try to hide stuff from them, the worse it's going to get.

[MADem]

104. Holder is LEGALLY PROHIBITED from releasing documents related to an ongoing investigation.

You ARE being deliberately obtuse, or you just don't have that Big Picture.

There is no "four paragraph minimum" on dot gov documents. They have no copyright, and they belong to you, me, and all of "We, The People."

I'm reproducing this in its entirety, because it lays out all the issues minus the GOP spin:

http://www.justice.gov/opa/pr/2012/June/12-ag-776.html

Department of Justice
Office of Public Affairs
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE Wednesday, June 20, 2012
Statement of Attorney General Eric Holder on the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee Vote
Attorney General Eric Holder issued the following statement today:

“In recent months, the Justice Department has made unprecedented accommodations to respond to information requests by Chairman Issa about misguided law enforcement tactics that began in the previous administration and allowed illegal guns to be taken into Mexico. Department professionals have spent countless hours compiling and providing thousands of documents -- nearly 8,000 -- to Chairman Issa and his committee. My staff has had numerous meetings with congressional staff to try and accommodate these requests and yesterday, I met with Chairman Issa to offer additional internal Department documents and information that would satisfy what he identified as the Committee’s single outstanding question.

“Unfortunately, Chairman Issa has rejected all of these efforts to reach a reasonable accommodation. Instead, he has chosen to use his authority to take an extraordinary, unprecedented and entirely unnecessary action, intended to provoke an avoidable conflict between Congress and the Executive Branch. This divisive action does not help us fix the problems that led to this operation or previous ones and it does nothing to make any of our law enforcement agents safer. It's an election-year tactic intended to distract attention -- and, as a result -- has deflected critical resources from fulfilling what remains my top priority at the Department of Justice: Protecting the American people.

“Simply put, any claims that the Justice Department has been unresponsive to requests for information are untrue. From the beginning, Chairman Issa and certain members of the Committee have made unsubstantiated allegations first, then scrambled for facts to try to justify them later. That might make for good political theater, but it does little to uncover the truth or address the problems associated with this operation and prior ones dating back to the previous Administration.

“I have spent most of my career in law enforcement and worked closely with brave agents who put their lives on the line every day. I know the sacrifices they make, so as soon as allegations of gunwalking came to my attention – and well before Chairman Issa expressed any interest in this issue -- I ordered the practice stopped. I made necessary personnel changes in the Department's leadership and instituted policy changes to ensure better oversight of significant investigations. And, I directed the Department's Inspector General to open a comprehensive investigation. That investigation is ongoing, and the American people and Congress can count on it to produce a tough, independent review of the facts.

“When Chairman Issa later began his own investigation, I made it clear that the Department would cooperate with all appropriate oversight requests, while still adhering to our legal obligations to protect information involving ongoing law enforcement investigations, legally-protected grand jury material and other sensitive information whose disclosure would endanger the American people or our agents investigating open cases.

“The American people deserve better. That is why, I will remain focused on, and committed to, the Justice Department’s mission to protect the rights, safety, and best interests of my fellow citizens and to stand by my brave colleagues in law enforcement.”

This is a politically motivated witch hunt.

Why doesn't Issa ask some of the Bush era bozos to come on in and testify while he's waiting for Holder to complete that investigation? Hmmmm?

[justiceischeap]

127. Show some proof and suddenly you don't have a dog in this fight any more

wonder what happened...

[MADem]

132. Like schoolchildren running away to recess! Like sands through the hourglass!!!

All they had to do is turn on the news! The proof was on every doggone channel.

[MADem]

130. Bless the MIRT!

They know "inappropriate touching" when they see it!

[panzerfaust]

140. Why was "Remerberance's" post hidden?

The point being made - that if the president was not involved, then there is no executive privilege to assert, whilst if the president was involved and can then therefore validly assert executive privilege then Holder (? and the president) have been lying - seems a quite valid point for discussion to me.

The reason given for hiding the post is "This post is disruptive, hurtful, rude, insensitive ..." to which I would add that as it seems to be valid point of discussion, that it was suppressed because it was critical of the administration.

To me it seems that many on DU (5/6 this time) seem to think that it is best to suppress thoughts which do not agree with theirs.

One might want to keep in mind Thomas Paine's observation that "It is error only, and not truth, that shrinks from inquiry."



I think suppression of discussion is a poor way to deal with thoughts or opinions which one does not share ... but then, I am a liberal.

[may3rd]

150. It was "This post is disruptive, hurtful, rude, insensitive "

...to somebody with an agenda in defining strength in unity

[BumRushDaShow]

30. Do you work for DOJ?

Or even the federal government at all? If not, why do presume to understand the functioning of the government outside of the political grand-standing that has littered Congress since 2010?

One should presume that anything that has gone "out of control" when it comes to undercover operations and operatives requires careful and credible extrication out of the mess so that these government employees can function elsewhere as needed.

But I know the latest right-wing meme is to demonize public sector employees and there seems to be alot of that going on in this thread.

[MADem]

78. I doubt that loser works at all, unless you count taking out the trash and mowing mom's lawn on his

sojourns out of mom's basement as "work." Maybe his Work-From-Home job involves posting rightwing shit on Democratic blogs, websites and discussion boards. If he gets paid by the post, he may have a quarter in his piggy bank.

In any event, we'll never know, nor will we know if the door hit his ass on his way out of it--he's been tossed over the side. Hurrah for MIRT!

[SlimJimmy]

123. Actually, it was Armitage that outed Plame. Rove and his minions (Libby) took advantage of the

information as a means to politically damage the Democrats.

[jeff47]

27. There is no evidence against Holder.

There's mountains of innuendo against Holder, but no actual evidence of wrongdoing.

Holder has just linked Obama to the Fast and Furious program

It's Obama's DOJ. Everything that happens in the executive branch is Obama's responsibility. There was a reason Truman had that "The buck stops here" sign.

That's also why Issa is going after Holder. To hurt Obama.

[Guerrilla Machinist]

34. Funny.......

........ the press is blatantly ignoring a story that is bigger than the Watergate scandal.
But no one got killed because of Watergate

[jeff47]

36. You have a terrible definition of "bigger" (nt)

[leftynyc]

38. So much concern

Where were you when we were lied into a war that has killed thousands of Americans and many more innocent Iraqis? You sure weren't here, newbie. Bigger than Watergate? Don't make me laugh.

[JDPriestly]

51. This is not Watergate.

In Watergate, Nixon was accused of using our intelligence agencies for personal vendettas and political purposes. There was even some discussion associated with the scandal about assassinations. See the film, The Man Nobody Knew about William Casey.

This is not a matter in which secrets about political or personal vendettas are being protected. The secrets being protected here are about American heroes who work to investigate and eradicate criminal operations around the world. The guns were released in order to trace their path through Mexico.

I personally have a theory (which is just my own and not based on evidence) that the reason that this plan did not work was that crime and the criminal element are so widespread, so present at even high levels of society in parts of Mexico, and the criminal class so interconnected with legitimate businesses and so well protected that even this effort could not detect discernible patterns of arms distribution. That is just my guess.

In other words, I think that the attempt to identify the gangs in Mexico is ongoing because it really is a threat to us.

Obama will pay a political price for this because people will not understand why he is keeping this secret. But I think he is doing the right thing.

[JDPriestly]

83. Randi Rhodes has the facts and broadcast them in Hour 1 of her show

today, June 20, 2012. Available on her podcast according to her website.

http://www.randirhodes.com/main.html

[MADem]

60. The disruptor has left the building. nt

[wordpix]

96. oooh, bigger than Wgate! I call BS

This is in no way bigger. There has been no investigation leading to the Oval Office, just a bunch of smoke about some docs.

[wordpix]

116. +1000, this is a Faux News story based on a RWnut's conspiracy theory

see

VIDEO: http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/26315908/


MORE:
http://www.dailykos.com/story/2012/06/21/1101813/-NRA-blackmailed-Republican-lawmakers-to-vote-to-hold-Eric-Holder-in-contempt-of-Congress

[JDPriestly]

45. I disagree with you, usaprogress.

I think that providing those documents to Issa would give away the names of American agents who fight international crime. I think this is a genuine national security matter.

[JDPriestly]

82. I want to correct my post to show that I listened to Randi Rhodes

show today. She explains what really happened.

http://www.randirhodes.com/main.html

I think it was in Hour 1, so you can listen on her podcast.

[IndyJones]

49. I totally agree with you on this. People think this a huge cover up - because it is.

[MADem]

61. Well, you and "YOU people" need to step quickly so the door doesn't hit you. Enjoy that PPR. nt

[yellowcanine]

139. "We people" note your concern.

[onehandle]

17. Good. Fuck the extreme Right-Wing.

Calling the gungeon. Come kiss Issa's ass.

[Smilo]

20. Yes F&F was a stupid and moronic idea and sadly a border agent was killed,

but what is Issa doing about all those gun shops and independent people along the (esp. TX) border selling as many as they can to the Mexican cartels?

Has Issa any intention of investigating "Project Gunrunner"? started under GWB?

The redneck GOPT are shouting about this being a Bill of Rights issue and an attack on gun ownership here in the US - the NRA is a powerful lobbying group - and would love to see a new administration in power in Nov.

From Wikipedia....

On February 2008, William Hoover, Assistant Director for Field Operations of ATF, testified before the U.S. Congress that over 90% of the firearms that have either been recovered in, or interdicted in transport to Mexico originated from various sources within the United States.[135] The U.S. Department of Homeland Security and others have disagreed with these figures, pointing that the Mexican sample submitted for ATF tracing is the fraction of weapons seized that appear to have been made in the U.S. or imported into the U.S....................
Gun-rights groups in the U.S. use lower firearm tracing figures that advance their goals [138] while U.S. gun control advocates use higher figures to call for re-enactment of the expired Federal Assault Weapons Ban of 1994-2004.
Project Gunrunner
ATF Project Gunrunner has a stated official objective to stop the sale and export of guns from the United States into Mexico in order to deny Mexican drug cartels the firearms considered "tools of the trade".[140] However, in February 2008 it brought about a scandal when the project was accused of accomplishing the opposite by ATF permitting and facilitating 'straw purchase' firearm sales to traffickers, and allowing the guns to 'walk' and be transported to Mexico. Several of the guns sold under the Project Gunrunner were recovered from crime scenes in Arizona, and at crime scenes throughout Mexico, resulting in considerable controversy.

Having said all that I think Holder is a moron - he has implicated and made vulnerable the POTUS - who we all know the GOPT are just looking for any little excuse to take down especially in an election year. Holder was the wrong man for the job and he has screwed up several times. He needs to go away.

[joycejnr]

21. Watch...

...the Repugs go ape over an "unprecedented grab for power."

[Iliyah]

22. All this shit is going to backfire on the GOP

Now they have their media buddies focus on F&F. Bring it on, let all the documents especially from the Bush Admin. come out and also call them to testify. This attempt is nothing but a WITCH HUNT!

For the actual truth to come out its up to the social media, not the corporate media because the facts will not come out.

Holder tried to work with Issa, but the GOP want to destroy all that do not line in a prefect line with them.

[usaprogress]

26. No, actually

Holder has been doing all he could to protect the administration from the public finding out about a really BAD program that spiraled out of control. In doing so he LIED and recanted and admitted so three times so far. Do your homework on this! He has dragged this out for 18 months by NOT cooperating with the investigation and infuriating the Repubs and several Dems and causing this to escalate into involving the POTUS! Holder is an ass! He has now almost single-handedly handed the election to the Repubs! He should have taken the bullet and this all would have been a distant memory by now. Ed

[clang1]

29. re: No, actually

Heh would have gone away like all the other filth inherited from the Bush regime, eh.

[jeff47]

40. Infuriating Republicans so much the leadership has reigned in Issa multiple times?

Uh.....no.

This is a witch hunt. Issa knows the law protects the documents he subpoenaed from disclosure. He sent the subpoena anyway.

[jeff47]

54. Your theory doesn't make sense because the Republicans reigned Issa in.

If Issa had such information, Captain Orange would have charged full-steam ahead.

the fact that they didn't take that route should tell you all you need to know about who they know will take the fall

Or they're not wanting to reveal the identities of agents, the details of ongoing investigations and tactics the DoJ is using to find and prosecute criminals.

Considering both the Republicans and Democrats acknowledge that's the kind of content in the documents Issa wants, then just maybe that's the content in the documents, no?

[MADem]

143. Captain Orange!!!!

I like it.

Someone showed your...errr...sparring partner the door. Gee, who woulda thunkit?

[Roland99]

28. So much for an open, transparent government.

Thanks, Obama.


*sigh*

[Guerrilla Machinist]

32. Remember this ?

Barack Obama, January 21, 2009:

"The way to make government responsible is to hold it accountable. The way to make government accountable is to make it transparent, so the American people can know exactly what decisions are being made, how they're being well made, and whether their interests are being well served...For a long time now, there's been too much secrecy in this city. The old rules said that if there was a defensible argument for not disclosing something to the American people, then it should not be disclosed. That era is now over, starting today."

[Remembrance]

33. Some of y'all just don't get it.

Witchhunt? Whatever. IT DOESN'T MATTER NOW. You know what a subpeeny is right? You know you have to comply, right? Holder has refused to hand over the documents. This is what happens. And now that the president has foolishly jumped into it, the REAL trouble is just beginning.

Bush? Clinton? The public is going to think of one president when it comes to evoking EP and it ain't either of them.

Plus, the Republicans can now play that little loop of Obama condemning EP when it had only to do with Bush firing AGs which he was perfectly within rights to do.

It's now a whole new ball game and some of you don't see it.

Yet.

[Guerrilla Machinist]

35. It's now a whole new ball game and some of you don't see it.

Oh , some of us see it .......plain as day .

[leftynyc]

39. Thankfully you and your newbie friends

are here to warn us.

[leftynyc]

57. More bored than sarcastic

My outrage meter's still broken from the bush administration. You think this is going to bring you to the promise land and that is really very funny.

[MADem]

59. Enjoy your pizza. nt

[Le Taz Hot]

113. Nail. Head.

Stupid, stupid move on Obama's part. I didn't think he'd be in jeopardy of losing the election due to the sheer idiocy of his opponents but now I'm not so sure. He's lost SO much of his 2008 constituency already, now this? Going into an election? Not. Good.

[Iliyah]

37. Yes we know the GOP will make it the number items on their

list. Holder has release over 700 or so documents to Issa and the committee. Pres O would not had agreed to this without having some documents of his own to justify this move.

Pres O has been for transparent than majority of the presidents, especially the last one, and I'm getting pretty pissed off about some posters being constantly negative towards him but alas and I know that the goppers do pay many bloggers to come into progressive sites and sound liberal but in fact are not.

I'm all for different opinions, but as I go to different progressive sites I see a pattern from the RW bloggers that I see here.

AND YES IT IS A WITCH HUNT! Issa is only focused on DEMS. I know that Holder and Obama are not P R E F E C T like the religious right, but hey who is.

[MADem]

44. Where do you make that leap of logic?

Just because someone wasn't briefed THEN, doesn't mean that they haven't been briefed EVER.

You don't know what is in that material, and neither do I.

[jeff47]

50. I'm sure the brand-new poster in a thread spouting anti-administration BS

in a thread with a lot of other brand-new trolls can be trusted to have done a complete and thorough analysis of the situation, including the relevant Supreme Court decisions.

[gorgozola]

55. You forget something...

If it all truly points back to Bush, which is how this has been played in order to make Obama appear untouched and blameless no matter what happens, then all Obama needed to do is release the requested documents. Instead he now to hide them. As someone said above, most Americans aren't going to blame Bush for this, even if they were likely to do so before. NOW they're going to think one thing: Obama = Nixon. Only this time, they'll know real deaths are involved. Romney's ads will write themselves.

[clang1]

66. re: You forget something...

What do you mean if it all truly points back to Bush? They were his programs. The decisions were made then to do what they have done.

[MADem]

69. You're gone, and soon to be forgotten. But you can't release a redacted document and comply with a

subpoena.

And if you don't redact, someone could get killed. EP is appropriate and too damn bad if you don't like it.

Republicans don't care about that shit, though--ask Valerie Plame and Joe Wilson about that, why doncha?

Stay under that bridge--you're not subtle and no one buys your shitty Issa-driven talking points.

[bpj62]

64. Nice Leap of Faith

I love you guys, in one breath you tell us that Obama is the most incompetent president ever and in the next he is now involved in some sort of byzantine cover up. Make up your minds. I will tell you what it looks like and that is 1996-1998. Lets see Travelgate, Whitewater, Filegate, Vince Foster death and Firinggate, All of these investigations were done by the House oversight committe and not one of them came up with anything. Enjoy your stay here while it lasts.

[Godhumor]

52. Whew! MIRT is going to be busy on this thread. n/t

[MADem]

53. ONLY if jurors vote to hide--Skinner needs to look at any juror who doesn't get it. And he can. nt

[Hugabear]

63. I see the concern trolls are out in full force today

Oh, and fuck the GOP.

[savalez]

70. Or the same concern troll with multiple DU accounts.

[uniguard]

65. Rep. Mica's hairpiece

Rep. Mica should dump the hairpiece. It makes him look even less disingenuous than he already is.

[JoePhilly]

71. Issa has been trying to build his own Whitewater investigation out of this for over a year.

That's why he's demanding more and more documents. He's simply trying to expand the scope, keep the investigation going, and maybe find something, anything, that might create a spin off investigation.

The Clinton impeachment was over a BJ, which was discovered because of an every expanding investigation to Clinton's action before he even became President.

And that's what Issa is trying to do now. Find something to investigate endlessly.

[humbled_opinion]

74. Who cares, really?

How does this witch hunt create jobs? The FF program was started by the Bush Admin, the program was screwed up and a border agent got killed, the program was ended by the Obama Admin. That's it nothing more to see. Nothing new it is exactly the reason to re-elect President Obama, GOP starts screwed up programs, wars, etc, Obama administration ends them, cleans them up etc....

Do people really want to allow the GOP back to screw it all up again?

[madrchsod]

79. this started on bush`s watch and continued

with obama. but how much obama and his crew knew about it is up for debate. this was bush`s fuck up and no one is going after his crew. it has to be one of thee worse operations by any us government. instead of getting rid of the gangs it made two huge gangs that control all of the drug trade across the border. i have no idea who was responsible for this mess and i doubt we will never know. i think there are to many lives at stake to release anymore information.

issa would relish having blood on his hands if it meant getting holder and the president.

[clang1]

106. re: this started on bush`s watch and continued

Some 60,000 weapons found in Mexico traced back to the US and F&F. The administration did have a shakeup of the ATF, but they have not shaken all the right trees in all the right places. Now it seems to come to haunt them. I really don't see how this is some sort of 'watergate' moment either so far as the administration. This is Boooschs Baby.....though I still do not think the right trees have been shaken in the attempt to clean up this insane mess.

[Lions_fan]

80. Transparency must be demanded in our government.

The only things that should be kept secret are matters that keep us safe, not matters that keep the government safe.

[Happydayz]

84. This is a witch hunt, that will fail!!

Its nice to see so many new trolls are in this thread.smh

[high density]

87. I just don't care anything about this

Nothing more than a huge circle jerk in DC for Fox News and faux outrage everywhere.

[PavePusher]

88. Is Brian Terry's familys anger "faux outrage"? n/t

[MADem]

92. You're not getting it, this isn't about Terry. It's about Issa trying to grandstand.

Turn on the news--you might learn something.

[PavePusher]

97. So provide the answers being requested and yank the rug out from under Issa.

Surely they have nothing to hide, right?

[MADem]

99. No. Let them keep browbeating the black Attorney General, after he has been to the Hill to answer

their questions time and time and time again, and given them thousands of pages of documents. Let them talk to him and about him in disrespectful fashion, the way they wouldn't DARE have spoken to an Ashcroft or a Gonzales.

Let them keep it up. We'll see where that gets them.

[PavePusher]

101. Have you seen the redaction on those "thousands of pages"?

Note also that they have repeatedly not provided documents specifically requested.

Again, if nothing improper was done, what are they trying to hide?

P.S. Appointed government officials are answerable to Congress. That's how it works, it has nothing to do with race.

[MADem]

103. Why do you keep whining that Holder won't release documents he is legally prohibited from releasing?

And I'll bet you haven't seen "those redacted documents" so just get off that dressage horse.

As Holder noted:

Simply put, any claims that the Justice Department has been unresponsive to requests for information are untrue. From the beginning, Chairman Issa and certain members of the Committee have made unsubstantiated allegations first, then scrambled for facts to try to justify them later. That might make for good political theater, but it does little to uncover the truth or address the problems associated with this operation and prior ones dating back to the previous Administration.

Read more: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/06/20/eric-holder-contempt-vote-fast-and-furious-darrel-issa_n_1612046.html?utm_hp_ref=politics


Keep digging!

[beevul]

108. If holder is legally prohibited, why is EP necessary? N/T

[MADem]

125. Doubling down? A stick in the eye? A way of inserting the WH into this business preparatory to a

concerted push-back against the lobbying excesses of the NRA? A way to direct public attention to the bullying and threatening of Issa and the GOP by the NRA, which was spelled out in their letter to him?

You'll have to ask the POTUS.

Bottom line, though--Issa's release of in-process investigation materials that includes grand jury testimony and names of informants and undercover agents is ILLEGAL.

A GOP "lawmaker" is demanding that the Attorney General of the US break the law....that's Republicans for ya!

[justiceischeap]

128. And if he had handed over the documents, they would have busted him for breaking the law

it's a win-win any way the republicans look at it.

[Littlewon]

134. Too much time on my hands ...

I've been scouring (sp?) the internet and all sources on F&F. That includes here and and FR somewhat, but primarily reliable news sources. I noticed you had a pretty long argument with a guy and both of you were hurling a few implicit and explicit insults.

Some of what you say I agree with, some I don't. Same for the guy (I assume a guy - maybe woman) ... but am happy to discuss facts with you. Some of those facts include the fact that this is obviously very serious, but also yeah - the Rs are grandstanding and looking for election meat.

That said - let's have at it (and yeah I'm new, and no, I don't have an agenda except to get at the facts, so I will not attack you nor offer opinions. I'm not a big fan of either party but nor do I hate either party. I believe that America is served first when truth is served, and that once truth is served - let people argue about what action should be taken. But I represent the truth as best I can, as I hold that to be a far higher master than political party)

As of now we have Republicans attacking Holder/Obama, and we have 2 dead American law enforcement and hundreds of dead Mexicans citizens. We also have an over reaching congress intent on destroying our incumbent President, divided purely along party lines 17 - 23.

This can be a forum to get at the truth (of course we are still waiting a lot of facts from both sides) ... but given what we know, we can be smart about where we hold the thing now. I'm pretty well educated on it - but by no means can I state every minute detail nor back up every phrase (I don't have time for that) with a link to a source doc. I am open to any corrections, my ego is not attached to the truth.

My only rule (and you can make your own, I defer to the fact that you have your own currency here in the form of about 80,000 posts more than I) is that the currency in which we trade is reason and logic. Insult, innuendo, unsubstantiated ad homonym attacks are not the coin of this realm.

That said - I don't mind a little fun. Both side carry their share of not only blood, but ridiculous and inept actions that warrant barbs. A favorite quote of mine is that the history of Man is an endless cycle of 'Farce followed by Farce followed by Tragedy.' This is a humorous way of looking at both mankind's great achievements as well as the misery he has left in his (OK, her too) path.

Anyway - say hello if you like, Madam MADem, or Mr. MADem.
Thanks, looking for intelligent discussion. We could pick it up wherever you like.

- newbie LW

[MADem]

136. This is not about the death of any federal agent--take that OFF the table right now.

Look at Issa's charter--he is not "investigating" any deaths. That's a canard the right wing is throwing out to pull at heartstrings.

He is going after Holder because the NRA will not give him, or any Republican, a "One Hundred Percent" rating unless they deliver a contempt citation on Holder.

The NRA put that in writing.

Game, set, match.

I invite your attention to the documents cited in this thread.

[Littlewon]

137. OK, deaths off the table.

We will say that, through of course lives matter, that is not really at issue here. Certainly the Rs have made mistakes resulting in the deaths of hundreds, thousands etc.

Which is more important though?
1. NRA 100% Rating
2. Destroying (an opposition) President

Can we agree that the 2nd is the real prize for Issa? Issa stands to gain a lot more by being the congressman who took down an opposition president than what is certainly a beneficial, though not career making, win with the NRA.

For our discussion, it has nothing to do with Issa being a good or bad man (and I'm happy to leave on the table that he's a bad man.) But If he's an R politician, then his goal is to take out Obama. NRA points are an important, though secondary political win.

Deaths are off the table, and accepted on the table is NRA motive.

Can we leave on the table, too, that Issa's goal is to take out a president at election time? Then he'd get a 500% rating w/NRA in addition to being a hero to righty ideologues.

LW

[MADem]

138. You need to direct your questions to Darrell Issa. He's the one trying to deliver a contempt cite

to his masters at the NRA.

I don't necessarily agree that number two is Issa's goal (though Issa is a Number Two of the most malodorous sort).

Issa's goal is to acquire POWER and notice. He wants to be a big player--not just a House player. That's why he sobbed so mightily when Ahhhnuld took "his" governorship--that HE bought and paid for--away. In order to be a player, he needs a windmill to tilt against. If he got rid of Obama, plenty others would take all credit, just like they took all his money in the Davis recall, and he'd be recognized as nothing more than a foot soldier.

The best way to acquire power and notice? Have an enemy. Issa, if he wants to be regarded as an anti-Obama crusader, NEEDS Obama in order to make that work.

It's all about Issa. The guy is a criminal. He has a criminal mind. If he could get ahead by screwing Boehner's wife, he'd do it. He has no loyalty to anyone save himself and even worse, he is LAZY. That's partly why his efforts have faltered--he hasn't gotten to the point where he has learned how to stop running his big fat fake teeth mouth. He promised much when he took the gavel, and so far, he's delivered nothing of any substance at all--just one purely partisan, transparently vindictive, grandstanding committee vote.

People are noticing, and that's not good for him.

[Littlewon]

141. Accepted ...

1. He is a corrupt wimp - accepted.
2. His master is the NRA - accepted.
3. Out for himself - accepted
4. Needs a windmill, climbers need enemies - yep
5. Needs Obama to make it work - accepted.
6. Criminal - open to that - would need to know the charges.
7. Would screw Boehner's wife - probably already has.
8. I'll buy that too, don't know him personally.
9. Parisian - yes, but that goes to the entire party. It was a 23 - 17 vote. Yeah, he's partisan. As are the other 22.
10. People are noticing - They are.

Let's go back to the windmill.

A man who must find at windmill at which to tilt, is going to find SOMETHING. He may find a windmill - OR, as the saying goes "Even a blind squirrel can find an acorn." Meaning, even a lazy corrupt narcissistic partisan Boehner-wife-lusting slave can stumble upon, purely by luck, a windmill which is actually not a windmill, but the real thing.

In the realm of what we know, it's possible that a bad legislator has stumbled upon something real.

Nothing proves nor disproves that (we can say that Holder's already turned over a billion documents - but I could be a college professor, send you 99% of the video of the past year of my life, and still not send you the 1% where I standing in front of my class teaching.) In other words - it's a red herring to say 'dang it he's already provided them x Billion documents.'

So.
1. It's POSSIBLE it's a cover up.
2. It's POSSIBLE there is a reason behind holding back the remaining documents.

... of course it's also possible Obama and Holder are saying 'look, Isa-hole, we're drawing the line.' ... that we admitted it was a botched investigation, and you don't get to see emails and documents about DOJ debating how to handle the PR about a botched investigation. In other words, they could simply be saying 'There are boundaries, and your crossing it, and we're stopping you.'

I know where you stand, and I know where the far right stands. As for me - if I am to make the truth my master, I have to say "I ... don't ... know."

What's odd is that
1. DOJ did not put any tracking devices on the guns
2. DOJ did not alert the Mexican government they were letting the guns 'walk.'
3. US Agents were told to 'stand down' as the guns made their way from US to other destinations, Mexico being primary.
4. My understanding, although I'm willing to accept I'm wrong on this one, is that even ATF agents in Mexico weren't alerted to the 2000+ guns being released.

Given those things: Are we saying that THAT IS THE BOTCHED PART? Who knows - maybe they started the operation and then it just slipped through the cracks - at some point oversight/leadership of the operation slipped away - and after the guns were bought, there was no one to follow up with tracking them.

Don't you at least wonder WHY, not only was the tracking 'botched' ... but that tracking not only didn't exist ... that attempts to track were actively stopped.

There are claims that this was an inadvertently continued operation from the previous administration, however Wide Receiver and the dangerous practice of gun walking was shut down in 2007 (CNN), after:

1. 300 - 600 guns were involved.
2. They were all fixed with radio devices for tracking (essentially GPS but RFID)
3. The were actively tracked by humans but ...
4. Cartel found some RFID tags, ripped them out of the guns, and the signal was lost on some number of guns (30 - 50 I've read.)
5. The operation was called off in 2007.

And Twice the DJ has had to retract what they call 'inadvertent mistakes' made under oath that are hard to characterize as mistakes.

1. Why retracting statements?
2. Why is DJ claiming continuation of previous policy, when the practice was ceased.
3. Why not track the guns?
4. Why did holder say in 2011 'I've only known about this for a couple weeks' ... then later 'well maybe it would have been better to say 'a couple months'.

Whatever the party - isn't it reasonable, even if the head of the team looking into is a complete AHole, that they at least say 'hey, there have been what may be lies, something smells fishy.' In other words - yeah - Issa is taking advantage of a certain situation, but doesn't this windmill at least make you think 'well maybe there's more to this.'

The Washington Post takes primarily the viewpoint that this smells like a fishing expedition, but even they have said 'it's under congress' purview.'

Again - I DON'T KNOW. But I do think there is more to this - innocent or not. Otherwise, why protect documents about DOJ's 2 day internal debate about how to present the PR to the public and Congress? Why not just say 'Hey - we screwed this up, here's how.'

I STILL think that, granting every single negative thing about Issa.

At the least, it seems a political error by Obama/DNC to use EP - because it's making them look guilty, and in the past 2 days I've starting seeing legitimate news organizations (CNN, CBS, others hinting at this) ... starting to pick up on it.

So - OK - Issa is bad and wrong. But did ANYTHING worth investigating happen? Is there at least reason for a disinterested party (granting that Issa IS an interested party) ... is there at least reason for a disinterested party to say 'Hey - something's not quite right - maybe?''

I accept everything you say about the Rs and Issa - but the FACTS, the truth about what we do at least know, to me raise suspicion. Personally - I'm suspicious of all government, as I think we all should be. Dems, Rs, even Libertarians. Mankind has a history of bad habits when in power, so it is the responsibility of those who grant them that power to err on the side of investigating. Were it not for that spirit, Dems and Rs alike would run rampant over this country.

Thanks for listening ... apologies for any typos ... my editor is busy cleaning her fur
LW

[MADem]

142. I invite your attention to Elijah Cummings' lenthy statement on this matter,

as well as the DOJ press release.

You're repeating RW themes.

What you aren't grasping is that an investigation into this is ONGOING at DOJ. Their IG is grinding away at this even as I type. We're talking an internal DOJ investigation, grand juries, and associated work product.

Congress can do their own investigation, using their own staffers, their own resources, their own interviews, their own bloody effort, if they'd like. No one is stopping them.

They do not, though--and they violate federal law if they try--have the right to go into DOJ and steal their incomplete work product and wave it about like a bloody shirt for political grandstanding purposes. They do not have the right to Grand Jury testimony while a Grand Jury is still underway. They do not have the "right" to confidential work-product discussions which do not represent official departmental stances. They simply do not--and they never have.

And Issa--he is NOT investigating Terry's death, or anyone else's. He's not investigating gun walking, either. His focus is on DOJ--who did what to whom, and when. He wants to hang someone--preferably Holder, but he's desperate enough now to take a proxy and call it a win--so he can slink back to the NRA and say "See? See? I got one for ya, boss!"

You just aren't getting that Congress is NOT investigating F and F. They never have been. They are not trying to investigate what happened--otherwise they'd pull the string and go back to the Origins of the Species -- the Bush administration predecessor to this botched business. They simply want a head on a pike from DOJ without involving Dubya's people, even though Holder has already said publicly that the entire operation was a dreadful mistake, a mess, and ill-advised, which is why he shut it down.

[Littlewon]

145. More in a bit - but an interim question ...

[Congress can do their own investigation, using their own staffers, their own resources, their own interviews, their own bloody effort, if they'd like. No one is stopping them. ]

No one is stopping them

I may be taking this out of context, but MADem - No one is stopping them ???

[using ... there own resources]

? The argument from the right, is going to be 'The oversights resources consist of 'anything they can legally get their hands on.' (Dangling participle)

intelligent people on all sides of this disagree whether
1. Congress has a Constitutional argument for demanding the the docs.
2. Obama has a Constitutional argument for covering the docs under EP.

[You're repeating RW themes. ]

You may claim that I'm repeating 'certain facts' ... but we agreed that reason and logic is the coin of the realm. You can call those facts 'selective' - which is why I will review the EC's statements and the press release.

But what I repeated were
Facts + Questions. I made no accusations.

To call that an 'RW theme' is to engage in name-calling. Again - are the facts I presented selective? Perhaps. So I will review. But that doesn't change that they are 'facts.'

For the moment, am I correct to paraphrase that you are responding with the idea that what Holder/administration is communicating is 'Enough is Enough - we're drawing a line, not covering anything up?'

Meanwhile - I will review a few things. And in the meantime - if you want to challenge any of the facts either in my last note or the whole thing in general, or add more - please do. And remember - I'm not concerned with Issa's motives.

I've tried to establish that the motives of the investigation - I'm granting you everything you want there. But it's also true that if I get a warrant to search your home for drugs, and I happen to be a cop who hates you for breaking up with me two years ago in a bitter divorce, and I go in and find stolen property:
1. My motives are irrelevant as long as I obtained the warrant legally. If I find drugs - you're still guilty of possessing drugs.
2. That I found stolen property, and no drugs, does not make the stolen property inadmissible evidence in a theft prosecution.

I'm trying to remove the emotional element here. I don't care how much of an ahole Issa is, or how kooky the RW is. My only question is "Given the facts at hand - what is likely to happen, will it happen legally, and will whatever happens legally be based on facts in evidence'.

This whole discussion - right here - and in the US - is only properly had around facts in evidence. The only value of looking at people's motives is to help guide where we look for facts. If Issa is on a witch hunt, then we must hold a closer magnifying glass to the evidence he presents. But even if we PROVE it's a witch hunt - still any evidence, facts, irrefutable facts, such as I presented, remain facts. And facts are what will ultimately take Holder/President down, or leave them standing. Our emotions will not take them down or leave them standing. Nor will our accusations.

So I will go try to answer your question about DOJ press release and EC. I'm asking (actually I asked in the prior post) you to answer a few of mine.

In short: how can you explain/reconcile some of the facts about the case? Forget Holder, forget Issa. Address the facts. A gun tracking operation with no gun tracking. is that ODD? [ ]YES [ ]NO

I'm anticipating you are going to take issue with something other than that. I am asking you to address the facts I presented. Facts are neither partisan nor good are bad. They are cold hard things that exist in the physical universe. If that is not grounds for the discussion, then there exist nowhere in the universe any standard upon which to discuss anything requiring through and examination. I promise to address any fact you present/ask me about. (A presser or a statement is not really a fact - but I will review/take what facts are contained there-in)

Thanks - LW

[MADem]

147. Intelligent people are not disagreeing, though.

It is a violation of federal law for Holder to provide the materials Issa wants. No one with fifth grade reading talent can dispute that.

Issa deliberately maneuvered Holder into a Catch 22 in order to push for contempt to please the NRA.

It's Tinker to Evers to Chance as far as Issa sees it. He doesn't want information. He doesn't want an investigation.

He wants a contempt vote.

[Littlewon]

149. Still reading ...

It is a violation of federal law for Holder to provide the materials Issa wants.

Do you mean PRE-EP, or POST-EP?

If you mean PRE-the exec priv - then please support the claim. If you mean 'post' - then yeah, at this point, of course.

He wants a contempt vote.

Can we please move the talk away from 'what Issa wants' to 'what are the facts of the case?'

What Issa wants is entirely irrelevant to the context of this discussion. Which is - "what are the fact" ... and an attempt to reconcile them against each other.

Can you kindly address a fact? I've already GRANTED YOU anything you want to say about Issa's motives and character.

Thanks -
LW

[Littlewon]

146. PS FYI - Democrat Oversight's Minority Statement to Majority

If you haven't read this, worth the read ... Democrat position on contempt recommendation / EP.

[link:http://democrats.oversight.house.gov/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=5458:fast-and-furious-clearinghouse&catid=146:democratic-agenda|

[MADem]

148. That is Elijah Cummings' lengthy statement that I referenced. He is Ranking on that committee. nt

[Littlewon]

151. This is a minority statement, not his personally - but that's the one you wanted? n/t

[MADem]

152. Elijah Cummings is RANKING on that Committee--i.e., when the Democrats take back the House,

he will become the CHAIR of that committee. Elijah Cummings is the Minority Boss on that Committee. Anything coming out of it from the Dem side goes through him and receives his imprimatur prior to release. So it IS his statement. He speaks for the D team.

I'm pretty much done here. That was a basic element.

[Littlewon]

155. Yes thanks M - I understand these concepts. It is more accurately a 'Minority statement' ...

EC himself makes many statements, as ranking member, that are not official output of the minority body. Thanks but not seeking a lesson on how the gov carries on it's business. That said, Intrade has the odds of Democrats retaking the House at about 17%. I would suggest it's unlikely EC is to become ranking majority leader, nor do I believe that's a good thing.

So which of the points, including from the entire Minority document, would you like to discuss?

Citing 'numerous commentator's call it partisan' is not an argument along the lines of reason and logic, otherwise I would write a statement that 'many of my friends believe M owes me money' ... and expect support in a court or in in the public.

I see some things that may be true, but not that really bare on the facts.

I am not a lawyer and can not comment on approved wire taps and whether they can be unsealed in an oversight investigation. For example, criminal records can be sealed, however they are unsealed under certain circumstances if they become relevant. But I can grant you that. And it's fine. Certainly it is not a crime to demand them in an investigation.

The Oversight committee will have a lot of mud on their faces if they are shown to have issued a contempt order for not providing documents already protected by law. Further, EP does not protect Holder from the contempt vote.

Wiretaps are a subset of what's Oversight asks for. What's in the rest of the documents?

Holder (like Zimmerman) has given people like me reason to believe his word can not be trusted. That is to say, documented lies.

Why are they holding back. Why don't things add up.

That's what I and the public is asking.

We are not asking 'Is Issa politically motivated' because we already know he is.

I am trying to sniff out facts and the truth. You seem merely to be trying to out yell the other side.

My basis for saying that is that you have not answered a single question I have asked. I think I've yet to dodge anything. I think you are dodging facts.

How about this. Let's make a 5$ bet that says: 1. It's a partisan investigation (agreed) 2. The administration is covering something up, not just 'asserting itself.' We already know it was botched. No reason then, to conceal documents anymore. Except that there are some wikid bizzah, as we say in MA, stubborn, stubborn facts. I can't reconcile them, even though Issa is a self-seeking partisan, otherwise know as a politician.

"Game, set, match."

I don't think we're a match, but I'm flattered you find me cute. Thanks for talking.

[Littlewon]

153. Has anyone seen this testimony?

[link:http://forums.canadiancontent.net/us-american-politics/106900-eric-holder-i-have-superior.html|

This is pretty amazing to me - I had heard about it, but not actually listened to it / read it verbatim.
Paraphrase:
Holder: That (note) was about Wide Reciever
Committe: I'm looking at it. It says 'Fast and Furious'. It's in black and white in front of me.
Holder: I have superior knowledge.

I don't buy it.

[Littlewon]

157. OUCH.

[link:http://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/2012/06/07/holder_emails_with_fast__furious_have_nothing_to_do_with_operation.html|

[Littlewon]

161. Wow - surprises us both - it MAY IN FACT ultimately come down to the murder. 3rd gun found.

See my later post on this.
LW

[Littlewon]

156. Reuters: Wire-tap argument a red herring

Reuters today:

M - You said wire taps would be illegal to turn over.

I said: But wire taps is just a subset.

Are you suggesting that ALL DOCUMENTS POST FEB 4 2011 - in other words, all documents in the past 15 months, are IRRELEVANT to an investigation?

Seems odd.

Here's Reuters: (Chicago Tribune)

The White House executive privilege claim has put all post-February 4, 2011 documents off limits. Republicans argue they need those emails and other correspondence to corroborate Melson's testimony and determine who at Justice saw them

And to me, the below seems reasonable, given that there have been multiple statements retracted that are hard to call 'inadvertently made statements'

Democrats complain that Issa has shifted his focus from investigating how Fast and Furious went wrong to a look into how the Justice Department has communicated with Congress.

I don't care who's Republican or Democrat or Libertarian or Socialist or Monarchist. I care about the facts. They don't add up.

[Littlewon]

158. With the options available, Why did OBAMA choose Executive Priv? asks Twitter: @McQandO

That, at least to me, is the pregnant question. He had a number of other options but 4 months from a critical election, chose the most controversial and potentially damaging one.

Why?

Let’s begin with a quote from a former White House counsel from a Powerline post:

Even with his fawning press, [President Obama] will pay a price for this one. He knows this, meaning that the documents now to be withheld must be dynamite. They have to show either that Holder knew what was going on with Fast and Furious and approved it, or that he directly committed perjury in his Congressional testimony, or both. I just can’t see any other explanation for such a risky move.
Wasn’t the Washington Post just covering big time the 40th anniversary of Watergate? I wonder how much coverage this one will get.

That’s the result of the move – speculation that the documents being withheld point to perjury by Holder or the President, or both.

So let’s break this down a bit. If it was all about Holder, why would the president risk this sort of a controversial move this close to an election. It’s not like he’s never thrown anyone under the bus. In fact James Carville is on record advising Obama to dump Holder.

Obama had the option, then, of letting Holder face contempt charges (not much happens as we’ve seen in the past, to those who are served with contempt of Congress charges) and drag out the document release until after the election.

With the election season gearing up, it is likely that while the controversy would have been an issue, it wouldn’t have been a major issue. Now it certainly is.

He could have asked Holder to resign. He could have then used the opportunity to appear as a statesman, a leader and bi-partisan all in one fell swoop. Depending on how he handled that it could actually have been a positive for him heading into an election. In the meantime, an acting AG could continue to delay on providing documents.

But he did neither of those things. For some unknown reason (at least to this point) he chose to do the least likely and most politically damaging thing – invoke executive privilege. As the lawyer quoted has said, those documents must be “dynamite” to have the president make this move.

And, unsaid by the lawyer is the speculation that the documents show the involvement of the White House to a degree that is damaging – apparently more damaging than the speculation and attention this move by the President has brought.

David Kopel at Volokh Conspiracy gives you a great history of the controversy. As for the documents Kopel notes:

According to Attorney General Holder, the DOJ has 140,000 documents related to Fast & Furious. Fewer than 8,000 have been provided to Congress pursuant to subpoenas. The contempt vote has been narrowed to 1,300 documents. In refusing to comply with the House subpoenas, the DOJ has refused to create a privilege log–which would identify withheld documents, and the legal reason for their being withheld.

Matthew Boyle at the DC caller points out that Holder has retracted two previous statements he made to Congress where he gave them inaccurate information in an attempt to blame previous AGs or administrations. It seems that’s a standard operating procedure with all parts of this administration. So Holder is left holding the bag all by himself on this one, or so it seemed, at least, to the point that executive privilege was invoked.

That brings us to these 4 point by Todd Gaziano at the Heritage Foundation about the use of executive privilege:

First, the Supreme Court in United States v. Nixon (1974) held that executive privilege cannot be invoked at all if the purpose is to shield wrongdoing. The courts held that Nixon’s purported invocation of executive privilege was illegitimate, in part, for that reason. There is reason to suspect that this might be the case in the Fast and Furious cover-up and stonewalling effort. Congress needs to get to the bottom of that question to prevent an illegal invocation of executive privilege and further abuses of power. That will require an index of the withheld documents and an explanation of why each of them is covered by executive privilege—and more.
Second, even the “deliberative process” species of executive privilege, which is reasonably broad, does not shield the ultimate decisions from congressional inquiry. Congress is entitled to at least some documents and other information that indicate who the ultimate decision maker was for this disastrous program and why these decisions were made. That information is among the most important documents that are being withheld.

Third, the Supreme Court in the Nixon case also held that even a proper invocation must yield to other branches’ need for information in some cases. So even a proper invocation of executive privilege regarding particular documents is not final.

And lastly, the President is required when invoking executive privilege to try to accommodate the other branches’ legitimate information needs in some other way. For example, it does not harm executive power for the President to selectively waive executive privilege in most instances, even if it hurts him politically by exposing a terrible policy failure or wrongdoing among his staff. The history of executive–congressional relations is filled with accommodations and waivers of privilege. In contrast to voluntary waivers of privilege, Watergate demonstrates that wrongful invocations of privilege can seriously damage the office of the presidency when Congress and the courts impose new constraints on the President’s discretion or power (some rightful and some not).

The key point, of course, is executive privilege cannot be used to “shield wrongdoing”. While it is speculative, it appears highly likely – given the other options available – that executive privilege is being used for precisely that reason in this case.

Additionally, given the choices available to the President, it is not at all out of bounds to speculate that the most transparent administration in history is trying desperately to hide something even more terrible than the political fallout from this choice.

The White House cites internal discussions and ongoing investigations are the reason for its denial and claims the investigations would be jeopardized with the release of the documents. But, as Gaziano points out, accommodations can be made in that regard. The total number of documents requested is 1,300. The White House is simply refusing to cooperate or accommodate.

Why?

We’re still left with that question.

And the answer, given the actions to date, lead to some logical speculation – what is contained in those documents is much more damaging politically than the damage done by the decision. Additionally, Obama can’t afford to let Holder go because if he does there’s the potential that Holder will then spill the beans.

Oh, and finally, this move has suddenly brought Fast and Furious to page one and the top of the newscast like nothing else could. The majority of the country, which was mostly ignorant of this scandal are now in the loop.

As the cited former White House counsel said, “the documents now to be withheld must be dynamite.” In fact, they must be so explosive that the White House is desperate enough to try to weather this self-inflicted political storm in lieu of exposing them.

That says a lot.

~McQ

Twitter: @McQandO

[Odin2005]

90. It's OK when our side does it!!!

EDIT: BTW, what's with the trolls?

[sofa king]

109. Looks like another win-win plan from the President.

The Contempt of Congress issue was batted around during the Bush years, and at one point in particular it looked to me like the rarely evoked power would be used... but it wasn't.

But that was back when Myspace was cool:

http://www.myspace.com/gonemagazine/blog/355394476

This time, the President wins either way. Either all the horrible executive privilege which the Bush gangsters encouraged gets upheld by the gangsters in the Supreme Court, in which case this President now gets to threaten to use them at every turn in his second term.

Or, the gangsters decide it is more expedient to strike them down, in which case Jeb doesn't get to use them when he steals it in '016.

Either way, the Republicans lose.

[Paladin]

110. Looks Like The Only Time Our Resident Gun Militants Get Upset......

...about the victims of gun violence is when Democrats can be trashed. Otherwise, they don't give a shit.

[SlimJimmy]

126. Pretty interesting comment coming from a poster named Paladin.

[MADem]

129. A little background music for us all!

[SlimJimmy]

131. Perfect

[Paladin]

133. What Can I Tell You? I'm A Big Richard Boone Fan.

I'm also a gun owner who favors gun control measures. Having a few firearms doesn't mean you want to blow Ted Nugent---although you'd never know that on some days, down in the DU Gungeon.......

[wordpix]

115. thread/links: NRA blackmailed Republican lawmakers into voting to hold Eric Holder in contempt

of Congress.

VIDEO: http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/26315908/


MORE:
http://www.dailykos.com/story/2012/06/21/1101813/-NRA-blackmailed-Republican-lawmakers-to-vote-to-hold-Eric-Holder-in-contempt-of-Congress

[may3rd]

135. Did they get stiffed on a gun running deal ?

[wordpix]

154. no, go to Rachel's video on this-she explains how a RWnut who styles himself after Timothy McVeigh

got this whole hysteria going, aided by Faux News and the RWnuts in Congress

[clang1]

144. The Department of Justice’s Operation Fast and Furious: Accounts of ATF Agents

As I have not seen a link to this I will post it. I guess the estimate is some 2000 weapons then.


The Department of Justice’s Operation Fast and Furious: Accounts of ATF Agents

http://www.scribd.com/doc/57888899/ATF-Report

JOINT STAFF REPORT

Prepared for Rep. Darrell E. Issa, Chairman United States House of Representatives Committee on Oversight and Government Reform & Senator Charles E. Grassley, Ranking MemberUnited States Senate Committee on the Judiciary 112th Congress June 14 2011.

[Littlewon]

159. With all the options available to OBAMA, WHY CHOOSE EXECUTIVE PRIV? @ Twitter: @McQandO

[div style="border:3px solid grey;padding:1em 2em;"]
That, at least to me, is the pregnant question. He had a number of other options but 4 months from a critical election, chose the most controversial and potentially damaging one.

Why?

[div style="color:blue;background:yellow;font-weight:bold; padding:1em 2em;border:1px solid grey;"]

Let’s begin with a quote from a former White House counsel from a PL post:

Even with his fawning press, [President Obama] will pay a price for this one. He knows this, meaning that the documents now to be withheld must be dynamite. They have to show either that Holder knew what was going on with Fast and Furious and approved it, or that he directly committed perjury in his Congressional testimony, or both. I just can’t see any other explanation for such a risky move.
Wasn’t the Washington Post just covering big time the 40th anniversary of Watergate? I wonder how much coverage this one will get.

That’s the result of the move – speculation that the documents being withheld point to perjury by Holder or the President, or both.

So let’s break this down a bit. If it was all about Holder, why would the president risk this sort of a controversial move this close to an election. It’s not like he’s never thrown anyone under the bus. In fact James Carville is on record advising Obama to dump Holder.

Obama had the option, then, of letting Holder face contempt charges (not much happens as we’ve seen in the past, to those who are served with contempt of Congress charges) and drag out the document release until after the election.

With the election season gearing up, it is likely that while the controversy would have been an issue, it wouldn’t have been a major issue. Now it certainly is.

He could have asked Holder to resign. He could have then used the opportunity to appear as a statesman, a leader and bi-partisan all in one fell swoop. Depending on how he handled that it could actually have been a positive for him heading into an election. In the meantime, an acting AG could continue to delay on providing documents.

But he did neither of those things. For some unknown reason (at least to this point) he chose to do the least likely and most politically damaging thing – invoke executive privilege. As the lawyer quoted has said, those documents must be “dynamite” to have the president make this move.

And, unsaid by the lawyer is the speculation that the documents show the involvement of the White House to a degree that is damaging – apparently more damaging than the speculation and attention this move by the President has brought.

David Kopel at Volokh Conspiracy gives you a great history of the controversy. As for the documents Kopel notes:

According to Attorney General Holder, the DOJ has 140,000 documents related to Fast & Furious. Fewer than 8,000 have been provided to Congress pursuant to subpoenas. The contempt vote has been narrowed to 1,300 documents. In refusing to comply with the House subpoenas, the DOJ has refused to create a privilege log–which would identify withheld documents, and the legal reason for their being withheld.

Matthew Boyle at the DC caller points out that Holder has retracted two previous statements he made to Congress where he gave them inaccurate information in an attempt to blame previous AGs or administrations. It seems that’s a standard operating procedure with all parts of this administration. So Holder is left holding the bag all by himself on this one, or so it seemed, at least, to the point that executive privilege was invoked.

That brings us to these 4 point by Todd Gaziano at the Heritage Foundation about the use of executive privilege:

First, the Supreme Court in United States v. Nixon (1974) held that executive privilege cannot be invoked at all if the purpose is to shield wrongdoing. The courts held that Nixon’s purported invocation of executive privilege was illegitimate, in part, for that reason. There is reason to suspect that this might be the case in the Fast and Furious cover-up and stonewalling effort. Congress needs to get to the bottom of that question to prevent an illegal invocation of executive privilege and further abuses of power. That will require an index of the withheld documents and an explanation of why each of them is covered by executive privilege—and more.
Second, even the “deliberative process” species of executive privilege, which is reasonably broad, does not shield the ultimate decisions from congressional inquiry. Congress is entitled to at least some documents and other information that indicate who the ultimate decision maker was for this disastrous program and why these decisions were made. That information is among the most important documents that are being withheld.

Third, the Supreme Court in the Nixon case also held that even a proper invocation must yield to other branches’ need for information in some cases. So even a proper invocation of executive privilege regarding particular documents is not final.

And lastly, the President is required when invoking executive privilege to try to accommodate the other branches’ legitimate information needs in some other way. For example, it does not harm executive power for the President to selectively waive executive privilege in most instances, even if it hurts him politically by exposing a terrible policy failure or wrongdoing among his staff. The history of executive–congressional relations is filled with accommodations and waivers of privilege. In contrast to voluntary waivers of privilege, Watergate demonstrates that wrongful invocations of privilege can seriously damage the office of the presidency when Congress and the courts impose new constraints on the President’s discretion or power (some rightful and some not).

The key point, of course, is executive privilege cannot be used to “shield wrongdoing”. While it is speculative, it appears highly likely – given the other options available – that executive privilege is being used for precisely that reason in this case.

Additionally, given the choices available to the President, it is not at all out of bounds to speculate that the most transparent administration in history is trying desperately to hide something even more terrible than the political fallout from this choice.

The White House cites internal discussions and ongoing investigations are the reason for its denial and claims the investigations would be jeopardized with the release of the documents. But, as Gaziano points out, accommodations can be made in that regard. The total number of documents requested is 1,300. The White House is simply refusing to cooperate or accommodate.

Why?

We’re still left with that question.

And the answer, given the actions to date, lead to some logical speculation – what is contained in those documents is much more damaging politically than the damage done by the decision. Additionally, Obama can’t afford to let Holder go because if he does there’s the potential that Holder will then spill the beans.

Oh, and finally, this move has suddenly brought Fast and Furious to page one and the top of the newscast like nothing else could. The majority of the country, which was mostly ignorant of this scandal are now in the loop.

As the cited former White House counsel said, “the documents now to be withheld must be dynamite.” In fact, they must be so explosive that the White House is desperate enough to try to weather this self-inflicted political storm in lieu of exposing them.

That says a lot.

~McQ

Twitter: @McQandO

[Littlewon]

160. THIRD GUN at Brian Terry's murder - Game, Set, Match? MADem?

For the second time today I am hearing (this time on CSPAN 2 no less) That there was a THIRD gun at Brian Terry's murder.

Suspicions are that the gunman is a paid government confidential informant

Is this the explanation for the the Executive Privilege?

It's not yet widely reported enough to be 'fact' - the concept I keep coming back to. But it's rising. Keep your eyes on this, if it's vetted and lands in the mainstream media,
1. They are going to love it because the media and American public love a murder mystery.
2. It's practically proof of cover up, and will serve to fill in the void "but ... why ... executive privilege?"
3. I'm not saying Brian was murdered as part of a plot. But a paid informant? This is getting really bad for everyone.

I'm also not saying this is definite, but it's sprouting wings if it's on CSPAN 2. And if there is a bird attached to those wings, well then, MADem, Windmills don't have wings. Issa is tilting at one damn serious windmill, and you are going to owe me 5 bucks for our match date

To be honest - I wouldn't be in an anticipatory celebrative recalcitrant pugnacious combative bellicose mood Madam had you not insulted me explaining what a 'minority "Boss" is' and refused to answer any of my questions. I guess my question tomorrow will be: Will Eric Holder be down for breakfast? Of the two parties I don't like much (Rs and Ds) ... one has a nastier history of throwing their own under the ground, rather than just under the bus.

[Littlewon]

162. EVERYONE - C-SPAN2 F&F show (3rd gun/informant) is scheduled to be repeated tomorrow 9PM EST. n/t