Attorney General Holder in Contempt of Congress?

[mundame]

Obama Exerts Executive Privilege in
Showdown Over 'Fast & Furious' Docs

URGENT: President Obama has granted an eleventh-hour request by Attorney General Eric Holder to exert executive privilege over 'Fast and Furious' documents, (http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2012/06/20/house-republicans-tee-up-imminent-contempt-vote-against-holder/) a last-minute maneuver that appears unlikely to head off a contempt vote spearheaded by Rep. Darrell Issa against Holder by Republicans in the House.




Good heavens! Obama is claiming executive privilege?? He must be very committed to saving Holder as A.G., or at least in not having him removed for cause the summer before the election.

My memory is that presidents appealing to executive privilege is like taking the Fifth -- it looks bad and it never ends well. Anyone know what is going on here?

[Kathianne]

After all this time to now claim executive privilege? Now we may see a special prosecutor appointed. Unbelievable.

[revelarts]

So much for " the most transparent administration" ever ever

guess he Change-ed his mind on that one.

<object style="height: 390px; width: 640px">


<embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/OXWTdTnhebs?version=3&feature=player_detailpage" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowfullscreen="true" allowscriptaccess="always" height="360" width="640"></object>

secret talks on health care too BTW

[Thunderknuckles]

Obama has to be pissed about bailing Holder out. Obama's campaign needs this to go away but you can be sure Issa won't let it. He'll drag it on as long as he can because it does nothing but help Romney's campaign.

[jimnyc]

Memories...

<iframe width="420" height="315" src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/bpwYh9TD6Nc" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>

[Nukeman]

Obama Exerts Executive Privilege in
Showdown Over 'Fast & Furious' Docs

URGENT: President Obama has granted an eleventh-hour request by Attorney General Eric Holder to exert executive privilege over 'Fast and Furious' documents, (http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2012/06/20/house-republicans-tee-up-imminent-contempt-vote-against-holder/)a last-minute maneuver that appears unlikely to head off a contempt vote spearheaded by Rep. Darrell Issa against Holder by Republicans in the House.




Good heavens! Obama is claiming executive privilege?? He must be very committed to saving Holder as A.G., or at least in not having him removed for cause the summer before the election.

My memory is that presidents appealing to executive privilege is like taking the Fifth -- it looks bad and it never ends well. Anyone know what is going on here?Its like an addmission of guilt!!!!!!!! they are only stone walling because they do NOT want this to come to the fore front this close to election time!!! That is the only reason.

Holder should have just gave the committee everything he had and taken responsibility for the program and moved on.. No couldn't do that had to fight with congress and now Obama steps in and in a single act shows that they ahve SOMETHING to HIDE!!!

[Gaffer]

Obviously there are incriminating documents that indite the president as a participant in the fast and furious case. That needs to be stifled at all costs. Cover up, cover up, cover up.

When all is said and done this stuff is going to make Nixon look like an errant school boy.

[revelarts]

Memories...

<iframe src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/bpwYh9TD6Nc" allowfullscreen="" frameborder="0" height="315" width="420"></iframe>

!!!LOL!!!!


"...the American people deserve to know what was going on there..."

[ConHog]

!!!LOL!!!!


"...the American people deserve to know what was going on there..."

That was different....................somehow :shrug:

[Roo]

Clearly they are afraid here....I despise these people..

[ConHog]

would LOVE to see the racist Holder in this roll


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=u-9Lq72ciRY

[KitchenKitten99]

Votes passed to find Holder in contempt only about 20 minutes ago. 23-17. Now it goes to the full house vote. Boehner is now responsible for scheduling it.

Am I right in thinking that regardless of what scrambling that Obama's team does, his campaign is likely toast?

[mundame]

Votes passed to find Holder in contempt only about 20 minutes ago. 23-17. Now it goes to the full house vote. Boehner is now responsible for scheduling it.

Am I right in thinking that regardless of what scrambling that Obama's team does, his campaign is likely toast?


House panel votes to cite Holder for contempt of Congress

By Aamer Madhani and Susan Davis, USA TODAY

Updated

11m ago

WASHINGTON–A House (http://content.usatoday.com/topics/topic/A+House) oversight committee voted Wednesday to hold Attorney General Eric Holder in contempt, marking an escalation of the long-running dispute between Republicans and the Justice Department (http://content.usatoday.com/topics/topic/Organizations/Government+Bodies/United+States+Department+of+Justice) over internal administration documents related to Operation Fast and Furious.


The 23-17 vote to hold Holder in contempt of Congress came as President Obama (http://content.usatoday.com/topics/topic/People/Politicians,+Government+Officials,+Strategists/Executive/Barack+Obama) on Wednesday morning invoked executive privilege of certain documents related to the controversial botched gun-trafficking sting.

[gabosaurus]

Point A:
The use of executive privilege is nothing new. Dubya did it six times. Slick Willy did it 14 times. I don't see what the big deal is.

http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/nation/la-history-of-presidential-use-of-executive-privilege-20120620,0,1693725.story

Point B:
I think it is quite hypocritical for Obama to claim executive privilege, considering that he was a very outspoken opponent of such before he was elected.

[mundame]

23--17: So Obama's people had a vote count and they KNEW Holder would be voted in contempt, so they moved to secure the documents with Executive Privilege.

He still was voted in contempt, though: does that mean Holder is out soon?

I wasn't following this story carefully, but now I am: what in the world was IN those papers that Obama was so afraid of it getting out?

He leaks everything else going on in foreign policy, after all, why not this?

[jimnyc]

Politically speaking, of course this hurts Obama. Either they come clean with the documents, or take a beating for lying by omission, which is what a lot of people will think.

Politics aside, I would really love to get to the bottom of this. If guns were recklessly put into the wrong hands, and even found to have killed an agent, someone needs to ultimately be responsible. And just like we were told throughout the Bush years, the buck stops at the President - and of course that explains why he is pulling this executive privilege crap.

[Thunderknuckles]

Am I right in thinking that regardless of what scrambling that Obama's team does, his campaign is likely toast?
I wouldn't go that far but this is certainly not something you want hanging around your neck just a few months away from the election.

[ConHog]

I wouldn't go that far but this is certainly not something you want hanging around your neck just a few months away from the election.

I'd bet some low level shlub will get thrown under the bus , maybe even Holder himself, noway Obama takes any blame on this.

[sundaydriver]

Point A:
The use of executive privilege is nothing new. Dubya did it six times. Slick Willy did it 14 times. I don't see what the big deal is.

http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/nation/la-history-of-presidential-use-of-executive-privilege-20120620,0,1693725.story

Point B:
I think it is quite hypocritical for Obama to claim executive privilege, considering that he was a very outspoken opponent of such before he was elected.

The hypocrisy is too much for me. Split down the isle with the same members one side shown claiming blasphemy it when the other side claimed the privilege and justifying it when their side does it! To us motor heads that causes loss of traction that prevents forward motion toward the finish line.

[Kathianne]

We may be watching an administration coming undone. I knew this program might well cause a huge problem, but never expected. after all the refusal of the MSM to cover, with one exception that appeared to be silenced; that it a come so suddenly and so close to an election certainly is a surprise.

The exception in the media was Attkisson of CBS. She's been tweeting links to her previous articles, without comment. I mentioned her in the link below:

http://www.debatepolicy.com/showthread.php?31731-Melson-Testifies-To-Committee-July-4th&p=494492&highlight=attkisson#post494492

I just came across this tonight:

http://dailycaller.com/2012/06/20/another-retraction-holder-withdraws-claim-that-bushs-attorney-general-knew-about-gunwalking/

[QUOTE] Another retraction: Holder withdraws claim that Bush’s attorney general knew about gunwalking (http://dailycaller.com/2012/06/20/another-retraction-holder-withdraws-claim-that-bushs-attorney-general-knew-about-gunwalking/) Published: 12:09 PM 06/20/2012


http://cdn2.dailycaller.com/user_photos/mattboyle-1191479209-100.jpg
By Matthew Boyle (http://dailycaller.com/author/mattboyle/)




In the wake of President Barack Obama asserting (http://dailycaller.com/2012/06/20/holder-asks-obama-to-assert-executive-privilege-over-fast-and-furious-documents/) executive privilege to withhold Operation Fast and Furious documents from Congress, the Department of Justice has withdrawn a second statement made to Congress because it was inaccurate.


During last week’s Senate Judiciary Committee hearing, Holder had alleged that former Attorney General Michael Mukasey knew of gunwalking during the George W. Bush administration.


“An attorney general who I suppose you would hold in higher regard was briefed on these kinds of tactics in an operation called Wide Receiver and did nothing to stop them — nothing,” Holder told Texas Republican Sen. John Cornyn during that hearing. “Three hundred guns, at least, walked in that instance.”


After the hearing, Grassley wrote (http://dailycaller.com/2012/06/14/grassley-to-holder-prove-that-bush-attorney-general-knew-of-gunwalking/) to Holder asking him to provide evidence to back up his blaming Mukasey.
Instead of being able to facilitate evidence, though, according to Iowa Republican Sen. Chuck Grassley’s office, Holder and the DOJ have now retracted that statement.


“This is the second time in nearly seven months that the Department has gotten its facts wrong about gunwalking,” Grassley said. “Attorney General Holder accused Attorney General Mukasey, without producing any evidence, of having been briefed on gunwalking in Wide Receiver. The case Attorney General Mukasey was briefed on, Hernandez, is fundamentally different from both Wide Receiver and Fast and Furious since it involved cooperation with the Mexican government. Attorney General Holder’s retraction should have included an apology to the former Attorney General.”


In his original request for evidence that supported the statements, Grassley said if Holder could not back the claim, he owed Mukasey an apology. Holder did not include an apology in the retraction. It’s unclear if the attorney general will apologize to Mukasey for the now-retracted statement. Holder spokeswoman Tracy Schmaler wouldn’t answer when The Daily Caller asked her.


“In his eagerness to blame the previous administration, Attorney General Holder got his facts wrong,” Grassley added. “And his tactic didn’t bring us any closer to understanding how a bad policy evolved and continued. Bad policy is bad policy, regardless of how many administrations carried it out. Ironically, the only document produced yesterday by the Department appears to show that senior officials in the Attorney General’s own Department were strategizing about how to keep gunwalking in both Wide Receiver and Fast and Furious under wraps.”


The first time Holder’s DOJ withdrew a statement to congress because of its inaccuracy was when now-former Assistant Attorney General Ronald Weich wrote to Sen. Grassley on Feb. 4, 2011, telling him that the DOJ and Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives never allowed guns to walk. It wasn’t until several months later that Holder withdrew that false statement.



Read more: http://dailycaller.com/2012/06/20/another-retraction-holder-withdraws-claim-that-bushs-attorney-general-knew-about-gunwalking/#ixzz1yOsvA3Q2

[logroller]

Votes passed to find Holder in contempt only about 20 minutes ago. 23-17. Now it goes to the full house vote. Boehner is now responsible for scheduling it.

Am I right in thinking that regardless of what scrambling that Obama's team does, his campaign is likely toast?
I wouldnt pop the champagne just yet...but who already sent in the clowns? Holder's a joke. Nobody believes a thing he says at this point. If someone came up to m and told me he was Eric Holder, I'd ask to see ID...unless its to vote, of course.

[Tyr-Ziu Saxnot]

We may be watching an administration coming undone. I knew this program might well cause a huge problem, but never expected. after all the refusal of the MSM to cover, with one exception that appeared to be silenced; that it a come so suddenly and so close to an election certainly is a surprise.

The exception in the media was Attkisson of CBS. She's been tweeting links to her previous articles, without comment. I mentioned her in the link below:

http://www.debatepolicy.com/showthread.php?31731-Melson-Testifies-To-Committee-July-4th&p=494492&highlight=attkisson#post494492

I just came across this tonight:

http://dailycaller.com/2012/06/20/another-retraction-holder-withdraws-claim-that-bushs-attorney-general-knew-about-gunwalking/

[QUOTE] Another retraction: Holder withdraws claim that Bush’s attorney general knew about gunwalking (http://dailycaller.com/2012/06/20/another-retraction-holder-withdraws-claim-that-bushs-attorney-general-knew-about-gunwalking/) Published: 12:09 PM 06/20/2012


http://cdn2.dailycaller.com/user_photos/mattboyle-1191479209-100.jpg
By Matthew Boyle (http://dailycaller.com/author/mattboyle/)




In the wake of President Barack Obama asserting (http://dailycaller.com/2012/06/20/holder-asks-obama-to-assert-executive-privilege-over-fast-and-furious-documents/) executive privilege to withhold Operation Fast and Furious documents from Congress, the Department of Justice has withdrawn a second statement made to Congress because it was inaccurate.


During last week’s Senate Judiciary Committee hearing, Holder had alleged that former Attorney General Michael Mukasey knew of gunwalking during the George W. Bush administration.


“An attorney general who I suppose you would hold in higher regard was briefed on these kinds of tactics in an operation called Wide Receiver and did nothing to stop them — nothing,” Holder told Texas Republican Sen. John Cornyn during that hearing. “Three hundred guns, at least, walked in that instance.”


After the hearing, Grassley wrote (http://dailycaller.com/2012/06/14/grassley-to-holder-prove-that-bush-attorney-general-knew-of-gunwalking/) to Holder asking him to provide evidence to back up his blaming Mukasey.
Instead of being able to facilitate evidence, though, according to Iowa Republican Sen. Chuck Grassley’s office, Holder and the DOJ have now retracted that statement.


“This is the second time in nearly seven months that the Department has gotten its facts wrong about gunwalking,” Grassley said. “Attorney General Holder accused Attorney General Mukasey, without producing any evidence, of having been briefed on gunwalking in Wide Receiver. The case Attorney General Mukasey was briefed on, Hernandez, is fundamentally different from both Wide Receiver and Fast and Furious since it involved cooperation with the Mexican government. Attorney General Holder’s retraction should have included an apology to the former Attorney General.”


In his original request for evidence that supported the statements, Grassley said if Holder could not back the claim, he owed Mukasey an apology. Holder did not include an apology in the retraction. It’s unclear if the attorney general will apologize to Mukasey for the now-retracted statement. Holder spokeswoman Tracy Schmaler wouldn’t answer when The Daily Caller asked her.


“In his eagerness to blame the previous administration, Attorney General Holder got his facts wrong,” Grassley added. “And his tactic didn’t bring us any closer to understanding how a bad policy evolved and continued. Bad policy is bad policy, regardless of how many administrations carried it out. Ironically, the only document produced yesterday by the Department appears to show that senior officials in the Attorney General’s own Department were strategizing about how to keep gunwalking in both Wide Receiver and Fast and Furious under wraps.”


The first time Holder’s DOJ withdrew a statement to congress because of its inaccuracy was when now-former Assistant Attorney General Ronald Weich wrote to Sen. Grassley on Feb. 4, 2011, telling him that the DOJ and Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives never allowed guns to walk. It wasn’t until several months later that Holder withdrew that false statement.



Read more: http://dailycaller.com/2012/06/20/another-retraction-holder-withdraws-claim-that-bushs-attorney-general-knew-about-gunwalking/#ixzz1yOsvA3Q2


Obama and his corrupt crew are getting some light properly shined upon them! Obama quickly declared Executive privilege when it started getting to close to his sorry carcass. He is involved deeply or else he wouldnt have jumped so high so quickly. Lets see how the jumping frog likes a little boiling water before he tries to lie his way to another win. This has real potential to harm the scum ..I'm loving it , I truly am! -:salute:---Tyr

[logroller]

Obama and his corrupt crew are getting some light properly shined upon them! Obama quickly declared Executive privilege when it started getting to close to his sorry carcass. He is involved deeply or else he wouldnt have jumped so high so quickly. Lets see how the jumping frog likes a little boiling water before he tries to lie his way to another win. This has real potential to harm the scum ..I'm loving it , I truly am! -:salute:---Tyr
Quote mangler:poke:j/k
Its downright damning. BTW, I like your boiling water analogy, but I think its a bit like jumping out of a flaming plane. I knew this was crap as soon after they (DOJ/Holder), retracted the first time; they made a comment about not walking guns...then months later, "oh, yeah, never mind that.....we looked at these memos and they said otherwise...but we don't have those memos now...errrr, uhhhh..." :rolleyes:

I happen to appreciate a lawyer's ability to BS their way out, that's what you pay them for really; but when can't, its really bad. And WTF is executive privilege exactly, and how is it to be used on the up-and-up?

[Kathianne]

When John Yoo claims Obama is way off track, the train is about to crash. Note too the author's warning to Congressional Democrats, who've also been repeatedly ignored and pilloried by Obama:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/right-turn/post/obama-invokes-privilege-to-halt-investigation/2012/06/20/gJQA2ULhqV_blog.html


Posted at 02:29 PM ET, 06/20/2012 <!-- For AP News Registry --> TheWashingtonPost <!-- /For AP News Registry --> Obama invokes privilege to halt investigation By Jennifer Rubin (http://www.washingtonpost.com/jennifer-rubin/2011/02/24/ABbIUXN_page.html)

The Post reports (http://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/fast-and-furious-scandal-obama-exerts-executive-privilege-house-panel-moves-forward-with-contempt-vote/2012/06/20/gJQAGImIqV_story.html): ...


Let me begin by saying that if a Republican president had bypassed Congress to redraft a statute (on immigration in this administration) and cooked up fake privileges repeatedly — the Obama team did this in the Black Panther investigation (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/09/13/AR2010091306427.html) and even to halt its former social secretary (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/02/26/AR2010022603734.html) from testifying — there would be howls from the media and talk of impeachment. (No, I am not advocating that, in large part since we have an election coming right up.)


But make no mistake, this is a spurious claim. Heritage’s legal guru Todd Gaziano (http://blog.heritage.org/2012/06/20/fast-and-furious-executive-privilege-is-illegitimate-to-shield-wrongdoing/) reminds us that “there is no privilege that exists between Congress and the executive branch to withhold documents except the constitutional executive privilege, which is based on the separation of powers. For example, the attorney-client privilege does not exist between Congress and the executive branch because they have the same client — the American people.. . . Even if properly involved, the Supreme Court has made clear that executive privilege is not absolute. DOJ must provide an explanation why all those documents fit one of the recognized categories of executive privilege. It is questionable whether they all are legitimately subject to executive privilege, for several reasons.


“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.”


Moreover, the executive is required to use a document-by-document approach and to make documents available that are needed for Congress to do its job.


...


John Yoo, who is second to none when it comes to defending the executive branch, told me this afternoon: “Holder is a gift that keeps on giving — for congressional Republicans. He is bringing a unique combination of political ineptness and constitutional myopia. Politically, he is sustaining a story of law enforcement incompetence that he could bring to a quick end by providing the Hill with documents that bear no national security implications (unlike the Obama administration leaks about our counter-terrorism programs).”


On the law Yoo commented, “Legally, he has given the Obama White House bad advice on the scope of executive privilege, which the Supreme Court in Nixon made clear is centered on the president’s right to discuss the most sensitive national security, military and diplomatic matters with his aides. Either the White House is admitting that President Obama was involved in the ‘Fast and Furious’ controversy (which seems hard to believe), or they are seeking to claim executive privilege to mere discussion of low-level staff with the Attorney General, which the Constitution does not recognize.”


Principled Democrats who may soon face a Romney administration had better pipe up. Otherwise the precedent will be there for vast expansion of executive power and squashing of Congress’s proper role in our system of government.

[mundame]

From Kathianne's citation:

“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.”

So assuming for politeness that Obama's purpose in this last-minute move was not to shield wrongdoing.......

What was his purpose?

If it was to save Holder from a contempt charge, THAT sure didn't work: they double-timed the vote!

To hide the misstatements blaming Bush? Because Holder said this morning that he had misstated one such blame statement.

I really can't figure out why the administration did this crazy thing that woke up the sleepy nation that wasn't paying much attention --- there were no threads on this issue here, for instance, or at another forum I look at --- and shoved it front and center on all news sites and in discussion. I don't see how the Obama administration could not have recognized, however stupid they are, that this galvanic public attention would happen if they suddenly claimed executive privilege minutes before the contempt vote --- it's like the Saturday Night Massacre! Last minute, sudden, emergency stuff is never a good sign.....

--- Does Holder know where some bodies are buried and they had to protect him or else?

--- Do the documents clearly show that Obama was in it up to his neck even though he has constantly claimed to know nothing about the program?

--- Does the Obama campaign think protecting a (black) AG is worth the publicity because it looks so bad to have him thrown out like Gonzales right before the election?


That's all the reasons I can think of for this crazy situation. Anyone else have others?

[jimnyc]

I don't see what the big deal is.

Gun running and the death of an agent. The administration wants to cover it up. Gabby thinks it's no big deal. Shocker.

[jimnyc]

I wouldnt pop the champagne just yet...but who already sent in the clowns? Holder's a joke. Nobody believes a thing he says at this point. If someone came up to m and told me he was Eric Holder, I'd ask to see ID...unless its to vote, of course.

<iframe width="560" height="315" src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/PKAiOXlvUjQ" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>

[ConHog]

Anyone here want to guess what the results would be inf one testified before a court then months later when the court contacted you to tell you they KNOW you lied to them and you sent them a note that said "oh in that case I retract my testimony" would be?

[Kathianne]

Gun running and the death of an agent. The administration wants to cover it up. Gabby thinks it's no big deal. Shocker.

Why the 'gun running?' April 16, 2009:


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wgkh_1sgFrs



April 17, 2009:

http://www.factcheck.org/politics/counting_mexicos_guns.html


...An Elusive Number

Given the lack of hard data from Mexico, we can't calculate a precise figure for what portion of crime guns have been traced to the U.S. Based on the best evidence we can find so far, we conclude that the 90 percent claim made by the president and others in his administration lacks a basis in solid fact. But we also conclude that the number is at least double what Fox News has reported, based on its reporters' mistaken interpretation of ATF testimony.

Whether the number is 90 percent, or 36 percent, or something else, there's no dispute that thousands of guns are being illegalIy transported into Mexico by way of the United States each year.



http://thehill.com/homenews/administration/186351-fast-and-furious-probe-puts-holder-on-collision-course-with-congress


Skipping the article and going for the 'timeline' that existed over a year go:

2009 — Operation Fast and Furious is launched under the supervision of the ATF's Group VII, based out of Phoenix.


March 12, 2010 — Group VII Supervisor David Roth sends an email to the group acknowledging a “schism” in the attitudes of the agents. ATF agents in the group would later testify they were conflicted over the tactics being used. “Whether you care or not people of rank and authority at HQ are paying close attention to this case,” wrote Roth.


July 2010 — Michael Walther, the director of the National Drug Intelligence Center (NDIC), wrote three memos to Holder in which he mentions Operation Fast and Furious. In one memo, Walther advises Holder that NDIC and a Phoenix drug enforcement task force would assist the ATF with an investigation of a suspected gun trafficker, Manuel Celis-Acosta, being run under Operation Fast and Furious.


“This investigation, initiated in September 2009 in conjunction with the Drug Enforcement Administration, Immigration and Customs Enforcement, and the Phoenix police department, involves a Phoenix-based firearms trafficking ring Manuel Celis-Acosta,” the memo states. “Celis-Acosta and [redacted] straw purchasers are responsible for the purchase of 1,500 firearms that were then supplied to Mexican drug trafficking cartels.”


Nov. 2010 — Assistant Attorney General Lanny Breuer sent a weekly memo to Holder notifying him of a sealed indictment against alleged gun traffickers in Arizona by the DOJ’s organized crime and gang section. Breuer wrote that the indictment would remain sealed “until another investigation, Phoenix-based ‘Operation Fast and Furious,’ is ready for takedown.”


Nov. – Dec. 2010 — Sen. Chuck Grassley (R-Iowa) is contacted by whistleblowers within ATF about the tactics used in Operation Fast and Furious.


Dec. 15, 2010 — Border Patrol Agent Brian Terry is killed in a firefight in Arizona. Two of the guns found at the scene were sold to suspected straw buyers under the operation.


Jan. 2011 — Grassley meets with Holder and DOJ officials to discuss the whistleblower allegations.


Feb. 2011 — DOJ sends a letter to Grassley denying that the ATF would knowingly sell assault weapons to straw purchasers and that the agency makes every effort to prevent weapons from going to Mexico.

March 2011 — Holder asks the DOJ’s Inspector General to investigate Operation Fast and Furious.


March 8, 2011 — Eleven people are federally indicted for alleged weapons trafficking crimes in connection with Fast and Furious.


March 16, 2011 — Rep. Darrell Issa (R-Calif.) sends his first letter to ATF’s acting-director Kenneth Melson requesting documents pertaining to the origin of Fast and Furious and who authorized it.


March 31, 2011 — Issa issues first subpoena on Fast and Furious to DOJ for documents he requested in March.


May 3, 2011 — Holder testifies before the House Judiciary Committee saying, “I’m not sure of the exact date, but I probably heard about Fast and Furious for the first time over the last few weeks.”


June 15, 2011 — Issa holds his first hearing on Fast and Furious where former and current ATF agents testified about the controversial tactics employed under the operation and their efforts to stop them. Assistant Attorney General Ronald Weich, who operates as a legislative liaison to Congress, also testifies that the DOJ was doing everything in its power to assist Issa with his investigation. Republicans have said the DOJ is “stonewalling” their efforts to get information about the operation.


June 29, 2011 — Obama says he will not comment on Fast and Furious further until the IG investigation is complete. “My attorney general has made clear that he certainly would not have ordered gun running to be able to pass through into Mexico,” said Obama. “I'm not going to comment on a current investigation. I've made very clear my views that that would not be an appropriate step by the ATF, and we've got to find out how that happened.”


July 4, 2011 — Melson testifies in a closed setting before Issa and Grassley’s investigators. Melson acknowledges that Fast and Furious was under the jurisdiction of the Arizona U.S. Attorney’s office.


August 30, 2011 — Holder transfers Melson out of his position as acting director and Arizona U.S. Attorney Dennis Burke resigns.

[Tyr-Ziu Saxnot]

Quote mangler:poke:j/k
Its downright damning. BTW, I like your boiling water analogy, but I think its a bit like jumping out of a flaming plane. I knew this was crap as soon after they (DOJ/Holder), retracted the first time; they made a comment about not walking guns...then months later, "oh, yeah, never mind that.....we looked at these memos and they said otherwise...but we don't have those memos now...errrr, uhhhh..." :rolleyes:

I happen to appreciate a lawyer's ability to BS their way out, that's what you pay them for really; but when can't, its really bad. And WTF is executive privilege exactly, and how is it to be used on the up-and-up?

First, Executive privelege has never before been EXTENDED down to a cabinet post . Trust me on that. If obama is allowed to increase it's power in such a blatant and Unconstitutional way then it goes well past its original purpose and previous executions. For should this misuse stand Executive privilege can be used by the President regarding any part of the Federal government, which clearly has never been the case before!
It is an ARROGANT power grab and also being used to sheild obama, remeber the administration's previous stand was that the administration was not involved at all in FAST AND FURIOUS, so begs the question , what's the justification for invoking Executive privilege? The obvious answer is that there is none but obama never lets minor details like that stop him, no sir, he is the messiah, dont ya know! Now here is the kicker, obama doesnt care so long as fast and furious doesnt yield evidence of his wrong doing before the November vote! He knows should he win, no matter what harmful evidence it yields it would still take impeachment and prosecution to remove him and he'll never allow that IMHO. Therfore the evidence being hidden from Congress must be extremely damaging to OBAMA, not just Holder! Else why would he set precedent and stir a shit storm by by using EP in this unprecedented way? Answer could be that the evidence from fast and furious is just that damN bad on HIM! For he was repeatedly shown in the past that he throws people under the bus without any qualms at all (EXS. , Rev. Wright, his grandmother , certain czars) to save his hide and Holder's career means not a damn thing to him when it's his career being jeopardised! My guess is that releasing what ISSA is demanding would quite likely be a anchor around his miserable neck that he believes would seal his defeat! I believe this audacious misuse of EP may just do that trick as well but we will have to wait and see !
A side benefit from this for him, small though it maybe , is that this rising "storm" about his invoking EP to possibly conceal a crime (which Nixon- Watergate case proved was not legal) may carry on long and give him a break from having to truly explain his miserable job performance and failing economic policies!--Tyr

[ConHog]

Point A:
The use of executive privilege is nothing new. Dubya did it six times. Slick Willy did it 14 times. I don't see what the big deal is.

http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/nation/la-history-of-presidential-use-of-executive-privilege-20120620,0,1693725.story

Point B:
I think it is quite hypocritical for Obama to claim executive privilege, considering that he was a very outspoken opponent of such before he was elected.


First, Executive privelege has never before been EXTENDED down to a cabinet post . Trust me on that. If obama is allowed to increase it's power in such a blatant and Unconstitutional way then it goes well past its original purpose and previous executions. For should this misuse stand Executive privilege can be used by the President regarding any part of the Federal government, which clearly has never been the case before!
It is an ARROGANT power grab and also being used to sheild obama, remeber the administration's previous stand was that the administration was not involved at all in FAST AND FURIOUS, so begs the question , what's the justification for invoking Executive privilege? The obvious answer is that there is none but obama never lets minor details like that stop him, no sir, he is the messiah, dont ya know! Now here is the kicker, obama doesnt care so long as fast and furious doesnt yield evidence of his wrong doing before the November vote! He knows should he win, no matter what harmful evidence it yields it would still take impeachment and prosecution to remove him and he'll never allow that IMHO. Therfore the evidence being hidden from Congress must be extremely damaging to OBAMA, not just Holder! Else why would he set precedent and stir a shit storm by by using EP in this unprecedented way? Answer could be that the evidence from fast and furious is just that damN bad on HIM! For he was repeatedly shown in the past that he throws people under the bus without any qualms at all (EXS. , Rev. Wright, his grandmother , certain czars) to save his hide and Holder's career means not a damn thing to him when it's his career being jeopardised! My guess is that releasing what ISSA is demanding would quite likely be a anchor around his miserable neck that he believes would seal his defeat! I believe this audacious misuse of EP may just do that trick as well but we will have to wait and see !
A side benefit from this for him, small though it maybe , is that this rising "storm" about his invoking EP to possibly conceal a crime (which Nixon- Watergate case proved was not legal) may carry on long and give him a break from having to truly explain his miserable job performance and failing economic policies!--Tyr


oh ok

Oops, you're wrong. Again

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


Read THIS section in particular

George W. Bush administration

[logroller]

oh ok

Oops, you're wrong. Again

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


Read THIS section in particular

George W. Bush administration

I read through the examples and, with the exception of Eisenhower, none of the claims seems very legitimate. It seems, to me atleast, the standard for executive privilege is whenever the executive duties of national protection would compromised by Congressional or Judicial subpoena. Arms trafficking affects our national security, so it is certainly a qualified claim; but as the point of the investigation is to discover a possible violation of arms law, it would not be legitimate claim of executive privilege, but rather, the fifth amendment.

[ConHog]

I read through the examples and, with the exception of Eisenhower, none of the claims seems very legitimate. It seems, to me atleast, the standard for executive privilege is whenever the executive duties of national protection would compromised by Congressional or Judicial subpoena. Arms trafficking affects our national security, so it is certainly a qualified claim; but as the point of the investigation is to discover a possible violation of arms law, it would not be legitimate claim of executive privilege, but rather, the fifth amendment.

Right my only point was that executive privilege has been used for lower than cabinet level positions despite what someone said, and recently to.

[gabosaurus]

Contempt of Congress is contempt of Congress. Doesn't matter what the charges are.
Dubya is even MORE guilty because he outright LIED to Congress about the alleged presence of WMD in Iraq. Pretty much every reason he presented as basis of his invasion was a lie.

[ConHog]

Contempt of Congress is contempt of Congress. Doesn't matter what the charges are.
Dubya is even MORE guilty because he outright LIED to Congress about the alleged presence of WMD in Iraq. Pretty much every reason he presented as basis of his invasion was a lie.

Must disagree with you there

A) Repeating bad intel that you believe is good intel is not lying
B) Under the War Powers Act Bush didn't even need Congressional approval to beat the shit out of Iraq as long as he was in and out within 90 days. Of course that part didn't happen and consequently multiple Congresses voted to fund Iraq long after that initial invasion.

[Tyr-Ziu Saxnot]

First, Executive privelege has never before been EXTENDED down to a cabinet post . Trust me on that. If obama is allowed to increase it's power in such a blatant and Unconstitutional way then it goes well past its original purpose and previous executions. For should this misuse stand Executive privilege can be used by the President regarding any part of the Federal government, which clearly has never been the case before!
It is an ARROGANT power grab and also being used to sheild obama, remeber the administration's previous stand was that the administration was not involved at all in FAST AND FURIOUS, so begs the question , what's the justification for invoking Executive privilege? The obvious answer is that there is none but obama never lets minor details like that stop him, no sir, he is the messiah, dont ya know! Now here is the kicker, obama doesnt care so long as fast and furious doesnt yield evidence of his wrong doing before the November vote! He knows should he win, no matter what harmful evidence it yields it would still take impeachment and prosecution to remove him and he'll never allow that IMHO. Therfore the evidence being hidden from Congress must be extremely damaging to OBAMA, not just Holder! Else why would he set precedent and stir a shit storm by by using EP in this unprecedented way? Answer could be that the evidence from fast and furious is just that damN bad on HIM! For he was repeatedly shown in the past that he throws people under the bus without any qualms at all (EXS. , Rev. Wright, his grandmother , certain czars) to save his hide and Holder's career means not a damn thing to him when it's his career being jeopardised! My guess is that releasing what ISSA is demanding would quite likely be a anchor around his miserable neck that he believes would seal his defeat! I believe this audacious misuse of EP may just do that trick as well but we will have to wait and see !
A side benefit from this for him, small though it maybe , is that this rising "storm" about his invoking EP to possibly conceal a crime (which Nixon- Watergate case proved was not legal) may carry on long and give him a break from having to truly explain his miserable job performance and failing economic policies!--Tyr

EDIT:
A question if I may, who truly believes obama is facing this coming shit storm to protect Holder!!??

[jimnyc]

Contempt of Congress is contempt of Congress. Doesn't matter what the charges are.
Dubya is even MORE guilty because he outright LIED to Congress about the alleged presence of WMD in Iraq. Pretty much every reason he presented as basis of his invasion was a lie.

Every single thing passed across the national security committee - which was lead by Democrats, and they ALL, including the president of the committee, said the same thing as Bush.

Furthermore - WHY are you acting like the idiot in the WH and using EVERY thread you post in to blame or bring up GWB? Can the little baby in the office not stand on his own 2 feet and accept responsibility for his actions yet?

[Kathianne]

EDIT:
A question if I may, who truly believes obama is facing this coming shit storm to protect Holder!!??

It could be that Obama really wasn't much involved, look at what he did with Health Care Reform, basically handed it to Pelosi and Reid to do what they wanted with it.

If that is the case, the claim of executive privilege is an attempt to get the media watching something more closely, so they're not so focused on something else. Could be the Health Care ruling or something that is to come we're not seeing yet.

Then again, it could be he was more involved than one would predict.

What really strikes me odd is that he's neither a micro or macro manager from what I can see. A Jimmy Carter would never have turned HC over to Congress. A 'big picture view' president wouldn't have been basically ignoring Congress, including those in his own party, for 3 years. He wouldn't have failed to pass a budget or hold beer meetings between a cop and a professor.

The only consistency I've seen regarding policy foreign or domestic, is a serious belief in government will make it better.

[gabosaurus]

Furthermore - WHY are you acting like the idiot in the WH and using EVERY thread you post in to blame or bring up GWB? Can the little baby in the office not stand on his own 2 feet and accept responsibility for his actions yet?

Because every point you bring up against Obama (whether he is guilty or not) is pretty much the exact same type of argument that Dems brought up against Dubya when he was in order. You just don't want to admit that there is sauce for both the goose and the gander here. Or perhaps it escapes your tiny mind.

[ConHog]

Because every point you bring up against Obama (whether he is guilty or not) is pretty much the exact same type of argument that Dems brought up against Dubya when he was in order. You just don't want to admit that there is sauce for both the goose and the gander here. Or perhaps it escapes your tiny mind.

Listen dammit, only people I disagree with should EVER be called out for their own bad behavior.

[jimnyc]

Because every point you bring up against Obama (whether he is guilty or not) is pretty much the exact same type of argument that Dems brought up against Dubya when he was in order. You just don't want to admit that there is sauce for both the goose and the gander here. Or perhaps it escapes your tiny mind.

Regardless of what the idiot above me writes, many of us did call out Bush for his executive orders. They suck no matter who is doing it. Some of us remain constant on what we believe, while others embellish things and flip flop. Oh, and I notice you clipped out the portion about Bush lying, lying about the stuff that the Democrat led committee apparently lied to us about. Smart move on your part.

[Tyr-Ziu Saxnot]

It could be that Obama really wasn't much involved, look at what he did with Health Care Reform, basically handed it to Pelosi and Reid to do what they wanted with it.

If that is the case, the claim of executive privilege is an attempt to get the media watching something more closely, so they're not so focused on something else. Could be the Health Care ruling or something that is to come we're not seeing yet.

Then again, it could be he was more involved than one would predict.

What really strikes me odd is that he's neither a micro or macro manager from what I can see. A Jimmy Carter would never have turned HC over to Congress. A 'big picture view' president wouldn't have been basically ignoring Congress, including those in his own party, for 3 years. He wouldn't have failed to pass a budget or hold beer meetings between a cop and a professor.

The only consistency I've seen regarding policy foreign or domestic, is a serious belief in government will make it better.

Your bolded above^^^^^
Something in those documents being demanded is FAR WORSE for obama than the controversy of his setting precedent by extending the use of Executive privilege down to a cabinent department and his trying to block investigation into possible illegal activities is going to bring. Clearly something he desperately does not want to be known before votes are cast in November! I am a very good poker player and he is trying his best to conceal a weak hand, weak for him that is.. For if he is even involved at all he has lied about it from the start then but my guess is that it's worse than that, far worse!-Tyr

[Kathianne]

It appears 'no last minute deal':

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/2chambers/post/fast-and-furious-talks-between-white-house-house-gop-fail-to-yield-agreement/2012/06/26/gJQAmdFN5V_blog.html


Posted at 08:00 PM ET, 06/26/2012 <!-- For AP News Registry --> TheWashingtonPost <!-- /For AP News Registry --> Fast and Furious talks between White House, House GOP fail to yield agreement By Ed O'Keefe (http://www.washingtonpost.com/ed-okeefe/2011/02/02/ABqNUZE_page.html) and Sari Horwitz (http://www.washingtonpost.com/sari-horwitz/2011/03/02/ABR0vmP_page.html)

The White House and House Republicans failed to reach a deal Tuesday to fend off a contempt vote against Attorney General Eric H. Holder Jr. (http://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/eric-holder/gIQAF5RR9O_topic.html), all but assuring that the House will move forward. White House Counsel Kathryn Ruemmler and Justice Department (http://www.justice.gov/) officials met Tuesday afternoon with aides to House Speaker John A. Boehner (R-Ohio) (http://projects.washingtonpost.com/congress/members/B000589) and House Oversight and Government Reform Committee Chairman Darrell Issa (R-Calif.) (http://projects.washingtonpost.com/congress/members/I000056) and showed them roughly 30 documents requested by Issa as part of an ongoing investigation into Operation “Fast and Furious,” (http://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/fast-and-furious-investigation/gJQAVNCUqV_topic.html) according to several administration and congressional officials.

But the GOP aides declined to accept Ruemmler’s offer that the Obama administration hand over the documents in exchange for Republicans permanently dropping plans to hold a contempt vote, the officials said.


One person familiar with Tuesday’s meeting said that Justice and White House officials showed the GOP staffers some of the requested internal deliberations from a period beginning in February 2011 and some information related to whistleblowers at the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives that had been requested by Issa’s committee.


The administration and congressional officials spoke on the condition of anonymity because they were not authorized to speak publicly about the meeting. ...

[ConHog]

so turns out I have something in common with Holder after all, we both have contempt for Congress.

[Kathianne]

Looks like it will be a 'bi-partisan' vote:

http://thehill.com/homenews/house/235053-second-house-dem-backs-placing-holder-in-contempt-


Four House Dems back measure to place Holder in contempt
By Jordy Yager - 06/27/12 01:48 PM ET

At least four Democrats say they will vote Thursday in favor of placing Attorney General Eric Holder in contempt of Congress.


Democratic Reps. John Barrow (Ga.), Collin Peterson (Minn.) and Nick Rahall (W.Va.) will all vote in favor of contempt in addition to Rep. Jim Matheson (Utah) when the measure comes to the House floor on Thursday.
The vote is expected to generally be a party-line vote, but one report by Fox News on Wednesday said as many as 20 Democrats could break with President Obama and support the measure.


Republicans are moving forward with the vote because they say Holder has refused to hand over documents dealing with the Justice Department’s handling of the botched “Fast and Furious” operation.

In announcing his decision, Barrow criticized Holder for withholding the documents.

...

The House is scheduled to vote on the measure on Thursday, even as last-ditch efforts to iron out an agreement between the Justice Department, the White House and Rep. Darrell Issa (R-Calif.) — the lead congressional investigator of the gun-tracking program — fell apart on Tuesday.


All four Democrats were among the 31 who sent a letter to Obama last year expressing their grave concern over the "gun-walking" tactics used in Fast and Furious and the administration's handling of the fallout after becoming aware of them.


Last week, the president asserted executive privilege over the documents in question, which could set Congress up for a legal battle in the courts if the House passes the contempt resolution.