PDA

View Full Version : Holder in contemp of congress,Obama issues executive Privilege



INTIMADATOR2007
06-21-2012, 07:33 PM
http://www.theblaze.com/stories/president-obama-grants-executive-privilege-to-eric-holder-over-fast-and-furious-documents/

I have a huge problem with what is going on . Why is the president/attorney general covering up 300 mexican death's and 2 american death's 1 being a Border Agent Brian Terry .

habsheaven
06-21-2012, 09:02 PM
And how is it that you KNOW they are covering something up?

INTIMADATOR2007
06-21-2012, 11:03 PM
And how is it that you KNOW they are covering something up?

If they are not covering something up why wont they hand over the documents and why have they been caught telling lie after lie about who knew what and when they knew it .Congress has asked for ALL the documents relating to Fast and Furious to only be given less than 5% of what they have asked for and almost half of the documents they have recieved have been redacted so you can only see the letter head .


“If the President was not personally involved, executive privilege does not apply. If the President was personally involved, and they want to argue that fighting drug gangs at the border is a matter of sensitive national security, then they at least have an argument for executive privilege but that would be at odds with what Attorney General Holder has already testified to under oath,” he said. “Then he’d be in a lot of hot water.”

theonedru
06-22-2012, 03:26 AM
executive privilege is a joke the government has no right to hold anything back from the people they are supposed to answer to.............

habsheaven
06-22-2012, 07:51 AM
If they are not covering something up why wont they hand over the documents and why have they been caught telling lie after lie about who knew what and when they knew it .Congress has asked for ALL the documents relating to Fast and Furious to only be given less than 5% of what they have asked for and almost half of the documents they have recieved have been redacted so you can only see the letter head .


“If the President was not personally involved, executive privilege does not apply. If the President was personally involved, and they want to argue that fighting drug gangs at the border is a matter of sensitive national security, then they at least have an argument for executive privilege but that would be at odds with what Attorney General Holder has already testified to under oath,” he said. “Then he’d be in a lot of hot water.”

That assertion is wrong. A Canadian shouldn't have to be the one pointing that out to you.

shrewsbury
06-22-2012, 09:01 AM
the best thing i heard was this was a racist issue, the republicans are after holder because he is black

pghin08
06-22-2012, 09:36 AM
The Daily Show had a pretty funny clip about all this stuff. The stupidity of this whole Fast and Furious program is absolutely mind-blowing.

INTIMADATOR2007
06-22-2012, 11:54 PM
That assertion is wrong. A Canadian shouldn't have to be the one pointing that out to you.

Lets get you up to speed ...http://www.therightscoop.com/must-watch-afterburner-with-bill-whittle-on-fast-and-furious/

habsheaven
06-23-2012, 08:37 AM
Lets get you up to speed ...http://www.therightscoop.com/must-watch-afterburner-with-bill-whittle-on-fast-and-furious/

First, I do not have to be brought up to speed on what "fast & furious" is, but thanks anyway. I have no idea who that guy is (never seen him before) and from what I can tell by watching him is that he likes to make lots of assumptions and innuendos to support his absurd theory.

Second, what does a right wing summary about the whole program have to do with the fact that YOU do not KNOW what executive privilege means?

tpeichel
06-23-2012, 09:29 AM
The Daily Show had a pretty funny clip about all this stuff. The stupidity of this whole Fast and Furious program is absolutely mind-blowing.

This is one of them that has the basics of Fast & Furious including Darrell Issa holding up some of the documents that were turned over to him that are just large black squares redacting the entire page.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MvLU7ob7mwA

And here is a link to an article that has the follow up videos embedded in it where even Jon Stewart isn't buying the executive privilege argument.

http://hotair.com/archives/2012/06/22/bad-news-jon-stewart-not-exactly-buying-the-executive-privilege-claim/

INTIMADATOR2007
06-23-2012, 09:40 AM
First, I do not have to be brought up to speed on what "fast & furious" is, but thanks anyway. I have no idea who that guy is (never seen him before) and from what I can tell by watching him is that he likes to make lots of assumptions and innuendos to support his absurd theory.

Second, what does a right wing summary about the whole program have to do with the fact that YOU do not KNOW what executive privilege means?

Why is it that liberals cant handle the truth and always assume a "right wing conspiracy" when they dont even check the facts given to them on a platter. And for your insertion that i dont know what executive privilege is rediculous .Maybe you should do more fact checking instead of making assumptions that everything is a "right wing" conspiracy. We have 2 dead americans and 300 dead mexicans on the hands of Holder/ Obama and thats a fact !

INTIMADATOR2007
06-23-2012, 09:48 AM
This is one of them that has the basics of Fast & Furious including Darrell Issa holding up some of the documents that were turned over to him that are just large black squares redacting the entire page.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MvLU7ob7mwA

And here is a link to an article that has the follow up videos embedded in it where even Jon Stewart isn't buying the executive privilege argument.

http://hotair.com/archives/2012/06/22/bad-news-jon-stewart-not-exactly-buying-the-executive-privilege-claim/

I'm not a fan of John Stewart and definitley wouldn't consider him a news source but he gets it here...

habsheaven
06-23-2012, 09:50 AM
Why is it that liberals cant handle the truth and always assume a "right wing conspiracy" when they dont even check the facts given to them on a platter. And for your insertion that i dont know what executive privilege is rediculous .Maybe you should do more fact checking instead of making assumptions that everything is a "right wing" conspiracy. We have 2 dead americans and 300 dead mexicans on the hands of Holder/ Obama and thats a fact !

The only truth is that the program was a complete disaster. The motives presented by the guy in your clip are nothing more than supposition. Much like the other idiot, Glenn Beck, he tries to spin a web out of thin air to support his theories.

Forget what I say, your comments about "executive privilege" are the only assertion needed to know that you DO NOT KNOW what it really is. There is nothing ridiculous about it. Do some "fact checking" of your own.

tpeichel
06-23-2012, 10:08 AM
The media has tried to ignore this for a year. Bill Whittle makes a great case for why they should do their job and investigate this scandal.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=UFIpoL3jrfo

AUTaxMan
06-23-2012, 10:58 AM
First, I do not have to be brought up to speed on what "fast & furious" is, but thanks anyway. I have no idea who that guy is (never seen him before) and from what I can tell by watching him is that he likes to make lots of assumptions and innuendos to support his absurd theory.

That theory is the most reasonable out there on the purpose of Fast and Furious. We wouldn't have to speculate if the Justice Department would simply hand over the documents.

INTIMADATOR2007
06-23-2012, 12:09 PM
Since the founding of our nation, the executive branch has claimed various privileges to prevent the disclosure of information that it wants to keep confidential. Courts have reviewed executive privilege claims and have concluded that some claims are valid, while other claims go too far and are not supported by the Constitution.

Here, the particular type of executive privilege that President Obama is asserting is called the deliberative process privilege. The deliberative process privilege is based on the separation of powers. It is designed to prevent disclosure of documents that would reveal advisory opinions, recommendations, and deliberations authored by, or provided to, senior executive branch officials that make up part of the process by which the executive branch formulated its decisions and policies. The catch, however, is that President Obama and Attorney General Holder have disclaimed any participation in the Fast and Furious decision-making process, which directly undermines the claim that the deliberative process privilege applies.

The fact that the Fast and Furious scandal involves allegations of misconduct, and even possible criminal conduct, by government officials significantly weakens President Obama’s claim of executive privilege. As explained by the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit in In re: Sealed Case, 121 F.3d 729, 738 (D.C. Cir. 1997), “where there is reason to believe the documents sought may shed light on government misconduct, ‘the privilege is routinely denied,’ on the grounds that shielding internal government deliberations in this context does not serve ‘the public’s interest in honest, effective government.’”

tpeichel
06-23-2012, 12:29 PM
Since the founding of our nation, the executive branch has claimed various privileges to prevent the disclosure of information that it wants to keep confidential. Courts have reviewed executive privilege claims and have concluded that some claims are valid, while other claims go too far and are not supported by the Constitution.

Here, the particular type of executive privilege that President Obama is asserting is called the deliberative process privilege. The deliberative process privilege is based on the separation of powers. It is designed to prevent disclosure of documents that would reveal advisory opinions, recommendations, and deliberations authored by, or provided to, senior executive branch officials that make up part of the process by which the executive branch formulated its decisions and policies. The catch, however, is that President Obama and Attorney General Holder have disclaimed any participation in the Fast and Furious decision-making process, which directly undermines the claim that the deliberative process privilege applies.

The fact that the Fast and Furious scandal involves allegations of misconduct, and even possible criminal conduct, by government officials significantly weakens President Obama’s claim of executive privilege. As explained by the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit in In re: Sealed Case, 121 F.3d 729, 738 (D.C. Cir. 1997), “where there is reason to believe the documents sought may shed light on government misconduct, ‘the privilege is routinely denied,’ on the grounds that shielding internal government deliberations in this context does not serve ‘the public’s interest in honest, effective government.’”

Good points and why claim executive privilege now rather than a year ago when the documents were first requested?

habsheaven
06-23-2012, 12:45 PM
Since the founding of our nation, the executive branch has claimed various privileges to prevent the disclosure of information that it wants to keep confidential. Courts have reviewed executive privilege claims and have concluded that some claims are valid, while other claims go too far and are not supported by the Constitution.

Here, the particular type of executive privilege that President Obama is asserting is called the deliberative process privilege. The deliberative process privilege is based on the separation of powers. It is designed to prevent disclosure of documents that would reveal advisory opinions, recommendations, and deliberations authored by, or provided to, senior executive branch officials that make up part of the process by which the executive branch formulated its decisions and policies. The catch, however, is that President Obama and Attorney General Holder have disclaimed any participation in the Fast and Furious decision-making process, which directly undermines the claim that the deliberative process privilege applies.

The fact that the Fast and Furious scandal involves allegations of misconduct, and even possible criminal conduct, by government officials significantly weakens President Obama’s claim of executive privilege. As explained by the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit in In re: Sealed Case, 121 F.3d 729, 738 (D.C. Cir. 1997), “where there is reason to believe the documents sought may shed light on government misconduct, ‘the privilege is routinely denied,’ on the grounds that shielding internal government deliberations in this context does not serve ‘the public’s interest in honest, effective government.’”

Yes, they are all good points. But until a court rules on the matter it isn't known whether or not "executive privilege" applies. Until such a time you can't simply claim that it doesn't apply based solely on the involvement of the President.

tpeichel
06-23-2012, 01:35 PM
You have to admit though that after Holder acknowledged the initial lie and the way these events have transpired, this looks fishy as hell and warrants intense scrutinization.

TheTGB
06-23-2012, 01:58 PM
Yes, they are all good points. But until a court rules on the matter it isn't known whether or not "executive privilege" applies. Until such a time you can't simply claim that it doesn't apply based solely on the involvement of the President.

Points that are just copied and pasted from another website.

But I digress and agree with the Canadian. Until a court rules on the matter you can't claim anything.

Kinda like the Patriot Act. You can claim it's unconstitutional but until the court says it is...it's not.

MadMan1978
06-23-2012, 06:14 PM
Since the founding of our nation, the executive branch has claimed various privileges to prevent the disclosure of information that it wants to keep confidential. Courts have reviewed executive privilege claims and have concluded that some claims are valid, while other claims go too far and are not supported by the Constitution.

Here, the particular type of executive privilege that President Obama is asserting is called the deliberative process privilege. The deliberative process privilege is based on the separation of powers. It is designed to prevent disclosure of documents that would reveal advisory opinions, recommendations, and deliberations authored by, or provided to, senior executive branch officials that make up part of the process by which the executive branch formulated its decisions and policies. The catch, however, is that President Obama and Attorney General Holder have disclaimed any participation in the Fast and Furious decision-making process, which directly undermines the claim that the deliberative process privilege applies.

The fact that the Fast and Furious scandal involves allegations of misconduct, and even possible criminal conduct, by government officials significantly weakens President Obama’s claim of executive privilege. As explained by the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit in In re: Sealed Case, 121 F.3d 729, 738 (D.C. Cir. 1997), “where there is reason to believe the documents sought may shed light on government misconduct, ‘the privilege is routinely denied,’ on the grounds that shielding internal government deliberations in this context does not serve ‘the public’s interest in honest, effective government.’”

However it was all well and good when Reagan and Bush Sr did it?
Really?
Seems like a double standard...

INTIMADATOR2007
06-23-2012, 10:26 PM
However it was all well and good when Reagan and Bush Sr did it?
Really?
Seems like a double standard...

Reagan and bush didnt use it to cover up 300+ people dying at the hands of whoever started and let this program go on .

habsheaven
06-23-2012, 11:01 PM
Reagan and bush didnt use it to cover up 300+ people dying at the hands of whoever started and let this program go on .

Maybe you can bring me up to speed on this. Every time I talk to someone about gun control I often hear "Guns don't kill people, people kill people." Are you suggesting that these 300+ people would not have died regardless of where the killers got the guns?

shrewsbury
06-24-2012, 11:09 AM
bush's wide reciever program was in conjuction with the mexican government, obama's F&F was not.

habsheaven
06-24-2012, 11:50 AM
bush's wide reciever program was in conjuction with the mexican government, obama's F&F was not.

I do not see the relevance of this difference either. Such a statement implies you have confidence in the Mexican government. I haven't seen any reason in the last 25 years or so to place any confidence in Mexico when it comes to controlling the drug trade.

INTIMADATOR2007
06-24-2012, 11:52 AM
Maybe you can bring me up to speed on this. Every time I talk to someone about gun control I often hear "Guns don't kill people, people kill people." Are you suggesting that these 300+ people would not have died regardless of where the killers got the guns?

Would those people still be here today if not for the F&F program probably , their chances would have been better without thousands of American guns given to the most dangerous people in Mexico . And the DOJ made sure these guns went to the most dangerous people in mexico without anyway of tracking the guns until they showed up at crime/murder scenes.

And I have always said It's not the guns that kill people , It's the husbands that come home early ! lol

habsheaven
06-24-2012, 11:54 AM
Would those people still be here today if not for the F&F program probably , their chances would have been better without thousands of American guns given to the most dangerous people in Mexico . And the DOJ made sure these guns went to the most dangerous people in mexico without anyway of tracking the guns until they showed up at crime/murder scenes.

And I have always said It's not the guns that kill people , It's the husbands that come home early ! lol

So these "most dangerous people" in Mexico would NOT have had guns in their possession if they were not given to them by the DOJ? You really believe that? C'mon.

MadMan1978
06-24-2012, 11:55 AM
Reagan and bush didnt use it to cover up 300+ people dying at the hands of whoever started and let this program go on .
Yeah they used it to cover CRIMINAL ACTIVITY!

Selling Weapons that killed what? Thousands?

Then gave it to IRAN??? REALLY???
YOur sense or right and wrong is so off base with this

the fact is you dont like ANYTHING this administration does...

INTIMADATOR2007
06-24-2012, 11:56 AM
I do not see the relevance of this difference either. Such a statement implies you have confidence in the Mexican government. I haven't seen any reason in the last 25 years or so to place any confidence in Mexico when it comes to controlling the drug trade.

The guns with the wide receiver program were installed with tracking devices, It was when the drug cartels found the tracking device that the program was ended . With F&F the only way to track the guns was finding dead people . I am at a loss for the excuses people try and make to stand with Obama/Holder.

INTIMADATOR2007
06-24-2012, 11:57 AM
So these "most dangerous people" in Mexico would NOT have had guns in their possession if they were not given to them by the DOJ? You really believe that? C'mon.

They would have had guns , But not AMERCIAN PROVIDED guns straight form the WHITE HOUSE !

INTIMADATOR2007
06-24-2012, 11:58 AM
Yeah they used it to cover CRIMINAL ACTIVITY!

Selling Weapons that killed what? Thousands?

Then gave it to IRAN??? REALLY???
YOur sense or right and wrong is so off base with this

the fact is you dont like ANYTHING this administration does...

Yep !

INTIMADATOR2007
06-24-2012, 12:04 PM
Yeah they used it to cover CRIMINAL ACTIVITY!

Selling Weapons that killed what? Thousands?

Then gave it to IRAN??? REALLY???
YOur sense or right and wrong is so off base with this

the fact is you dont like ANYTHING this administration does...

I cant find anything showing Bush used executive privilage trying to hide the murders of thousands of people . Would you like to share ?

AUTaxMan
06-24-2012, 12:05 PM
Yeah they used it to cover CRIMINAL ACTIVITY!

Selling Weapons that killed what? Thousands?

Then gave it to IRAN??? REALLY???
YOur sense or right and wrong is so off base with this

the fact is you dont like ANYTHING this administration does...

Whether Bush or Reagan did or did not do something similar has no bearing on the legitimacy of Fast and Furious. We have yet to be given a reasonable justification for the program by the government, and the government has resorted to the executive privilege, which likely means they are shredding all relevant documents right now.

There has to be a reason for what they were doing, and nobody is dumb enough to believe it was just to identify and track bad guys. Even if that was the purpose and if it worked, (a) we couldn't do anything about it as long as they stayed in Mexico, and (b) since the Mexican government (the only entity to my knowledge with any possible ability to use the information legitimately) end the wasn't involved, what good was the information?

It is also a fact that Eric Holder lied to Congress about his knowledge of the program.

Wickabee
06-24-2012, 03:02 PM
I cant find anything showing Bush used executive privilage trying to hide the murders of thousands of people . Would you like to share ?
Maybe, but I don't think Bush used it to cover up sneaking cookies in the middle of the night.

Face it, any time executive privilege is used, SOMEthing is being covered up. Democrat or Republican and whether you like the person or not doesn't change the fact that executive privilege's ONLY use is to cover up.
Is Obama any better than Bush? On the issue of exec. priv., no.

Although I do have a question...who was in power when Fast and Furious started?

*censored*
06-24-2012, 03:59 PM
To answer the question, the gunwalking began in 2006 under Operation Wide Receiver. According to the Department of Justice, guns from Operation Wide Receiver did find their way into the hands of Mexican gun traffickers.

Operation Fast and Furious itself started in 2009.

So it's pretty well likely that there are folks in the Bush administration breathing a huge sigh of relief that Obama is pulling Executive Privilege on this as well as Holder et al. because there's likely to be plenty in there on those involved in Operation Wide Receiver.

The blood is on both parties' hands in this.

INTIMADATOR2007
06-24-2012, 05:32 PM
Maybe, but I don't think Bush used it to cover up sneaking cookies in the middle of the night.

Face it, any time executive privilege is used, SOMEthing is being covered up. Democrat or Republican and whether you like the person or not doesn't change the fact that executive privilege's ONLY use is to cover up.
Is Obama any better than Bush? On the issue of exec. priv., no.

Although I do have a question...who was in power when Fast and Furious started?

Obama/Holder started F&F .

Wickabee
06-24-2012, 05:36 PM
Obama/Holder started F&F .
The question was already answered in a more complete manner, thanks.

INTIMADATOR2007
06-24-2012, 05:39 PM
To answer the question, the gunwalking began in 2006 under Operation Wide Receiver. According to the Department of Justice, guns from Operation Wide Receiver did find their way into the hands of Mexican gun traffickers.

Operation Fast and Furious itself started in 2009.

So it's pretty well likely that there are folks in the Bush administration breathing a huge sigh of relief that Obama is pulling Executive Privilege on this as well as Holder et al. because there's likely to be plenty in there on those involved in Operation Wide Receiver.

The blood is on both parties' hands in this.

Yes they did, However the guns in wide reciever were being tracked w/ tracking devices in the guns and their were thousands of arrest made in wide reciever and no murders happened with those guns . Wide reciever was ended when the cartels found out the guns were being tracked .

*censored*
06-24-2012, 06:10 PM
Yes they did, However the guns in wide reciever were being tracked w/ tracking devices in the guns and their were thousands of arrest made in wide reciever and no murders happened with those guns . Wide reciever was ended when the cartels found out the guns were being tracked .

No murders at all? Or none that we know of? There is a major difference between the two. Fact is, crimes were committed either way.

tpeichel
06-24-2012, 09:53 PM
Yes they did, However the guns in wide reciever were being tracked w/ tracking devices in the guns and their were thousands of arrest made in wide reciever and no murders happened with those guns . Wide reciever was ended when the cartels found out the guns were being tracked .

Another big difference was that the Mexican government worked hand in hand with the U.S. on Wide Receiver while they knew absolutely nothing about Fast & Furious.

*censored*
06-25-2012, 12:12 AM
So you trust the Mexican government to be telling the truth but not our own? Interesting.