1. Issa Has No Case

[kpete]

1. Issa Has No Case: Issa’s uncovered no evidence showing Holder bears any blame for the botched operations begun under George W. Bush, even though the Justice Department turned over thousands of pages of documents concerning the operations. Instead of accepting this fact, Issa has requested many more documents containing confidential information regarding ongoing law enforcement investigations, and is now threatening to hold Holder in contempt if these documents are not turned over. Holder is entirely correct to withhold these documents, however, because Justice Department documents are not subject to congressional subpoena if they would reveal “strategies and procedures that could be used by individuals seeking to evade DOJ’s law enforcement efforts.”

2. Reagan’s Justice Department Agreed With Holder: President Reagan’s Justice Department warned in the 1980s that the Constitution’s separation of powers prevents the kind of documents Issa is seeking from being revealed to Congress because of the risk that the legislature could “exert pressure or attempt to influence the prosecution of criminal cases.”

3. Law Enforcement Rejects Issa’s Witchhunt: Issa’s efforts to embarrass Holder are an unnecessary distraction that hinders the Department of Justice’s ability to do its real job. As an organization representing numerous senior law enforcement officials warned Issa, his efforts are “an impediment to the vigorous enforcement of violence and crime.”

4. Even Top Republicans Think Issa Goes Too Far: After Issa leaked his plans to pursue contempt charges to the media, the House Republican leadership pressured him to back off. Indeed, even House Majority Leader Eric Cantor (R-VA) has indicated that Issa is overreaching.

much more (things we should know):
http://www.balloon-juice.com/2012/06/20/executive-privileges/

[BlueToTheBone]

1. Issa is a criminal and should be in prison

and not Congress.

[SoutherDem]

3. I agree.

Along with other members of congress.

[JDPriestly]

23. Issa is the one who should be investigated.

I hate to say that, but his district is right near Mexico and he has a criminal past. Who knows how subject he might be to blackmail? Who knows why he is doing this when he must know that the documents he is requesting could set our international criminal investigation team back (I would guess)?

I usually am a strong supporter of transparency. But the national security implications here seem so obvious to me. What in the world is Issa up to? Is some criminal or criminal organization holding his feet to the fire? Who wants this information so badly that they will risk Issa's career for it?

I suspect that if Issa got what he claims he wants, the entire nation would be furious with him. One American agent has already died over this mess as I understand it. If these documents got into the wrong hands, how many more might be in danger? That is how I view it. Perhaps I am completely wrong, but that is my view.

[Voice for Peace]

29. hasn't Issa been dying forever to have something to investigate?

and what is his criminal past?

[Initech]

37. He started the California recall election and subsequently dropped out due to multiple DUI convictions.

[Initech]

36. Issa is an asshole and an embarrassment to California.

[butterfly77]

39. Exactly!

[onehandle]

2. Jobs, Jobs, Jobs! nt

[SoutherDem]

4. I know we are hearing screams of how the President shouldn't have used executive privilege

But wasn't that on of Bush/Chaney's favorite tools?

[Tejas]

8. 2 wrongs do not make a right.

[SlimJimmy]

10. Bush used it six times, President Clinton 14 times, and our current President once.

[TBMASE]

13. Why are they protecting the Bush Administration is the real question

If the documents show Bush is responsible, why are they hiding behind EP?

[BlueToTheBone]

15. I think it's more about

the agents in the field.

Not something * would have taken into consideration; but we do have people whose lives are on the line.

[TBMASE]

17. They can redact names of agents

The question is about what Holder and the Administration knew regarding the operation.

Holder made factually inaccurate statements before congress. It's got nothing to do with the agents in the field. Who, BTW, shouldn't still be walking guns across the border today

[jeff47]

20. It's much more than names

Even if you redact the names, which would not be complying with the subpoena anyway, there is plenty of other information that can help you identify the agents. Such as dates, locations and tactics.

The fact that they hide "John Smith" doesn't help if they describe an agent approaching a suspect on a particular date at a particular location, and using particular tactics to earn his trust.

Redact all those, and you're now withholding the entire document.

[JDPriestly]

25. Thanks. That is my opinion too.

This is very different from trying to protect information about a drone attack somewhere. If there is a drone attack or some other overt military action, the people most affected and the identities of those who did the wrong are already known to the public in the area in which the events happened. Thus, the information is being withheld from the American people mostly for the purpose of hiding the truth for political gain.

But, here, in the situation with Fast and Furious, the exchange of weapons, etc. were done in secret, not overtly. And they were done not by soldiers wearing the uniforms of our service or riding in helicopters or sending drones known to be American in origin, but by people who probably were secret agents if you will.

We have to protect these crime fighters. Their secret identities are a part of their job and their usefulness to our country. Issa is way out of place here.

No doubt the idea behind this scheme was stupid. But outing our agents yet again is not the answer to ending it.

[TBMASE]

31. This is no longer an ongoing operation

and since the question is what DOJ officials knew about the operation, I don't see where the e-mails would contain operational details about a now, defunct, operation.

We've already had agents testify there were party to the operation and they, personally, participated with the knowledge of their superiors. If it were a question of agent security, why haven't these men been prosecuted?

[jeff47]

32. Because agents retire after a single operation, and tactics are never reused.

Nor does information from one operation ever get used later, or start a different operation.

Everything is in nice self-contained little boxes where there is never, ever any overlap on anything outside those boxes.

....Alternatively, you could take a moment and realize just how much that contradicts with reality.

We've already had agents testify there were party to the operation and they, personally, participated with the knowledge of their superiors. If it were a question of agent security, why haven't these men been prosecuted?

Because an individual agent may no longer be a field agent. That doesn't mean other agents are no longer under cover.

You are trying very, very hard to grasp at straws here for an investigation that has uncovered no wrongdoing by this administration.

[TBMASE]

33. The administration has just stonewalled any investigation

there needs to be a special prosecutor..

And, I'm pretty sure the Cartels know how the police try and infiltrate their organizations by now. There are documentaries about how the ATF and FBI have infiltrated organized criminal organizations in the past.

[jeff47]

34. The administration has released thousands of documents to Congress

Large numbers of people have testified before this committee, including 8 appearances by the Attorney General.

There is no crime here. There is a Republican hoping to create a distraction.

There are documentaries about how the ATF and FBI have infiltrated organized criminal organizations in the past.

We aren't talking about "get them to trust you".

We're talking about "Agent Smith met suspect Jones at three gun shows and earned his trust. Suspect Jones has a large network of friends who participate in illicit gun sales, and is now relating stories about illegal gun sales to Agent Smith".

The fact that undercover agents earn the trust of suspects doesn't require protection.

The fact that this agent earned this suspect's trust at this time and is reporting about these other suspects does require protection. Assuming you want Agent Smith to not die, and assuming you'd like to keep hearing about illegal gun sales through the grapevine.

That is the kind of information Issa is trolling for, and he's doing so because he knows the administration can not hand it over. That way he can try to make a federal case over it and distract everyone. For example, you aren't talking much about the recent document release proving the W administration lied about 9/11, are you? Instead, you're demanding Holder's head for something that is completely legal.

[TBMASE]

35. redact the names. Problem solved

There's information that doesn't have to be made public which can be turned over.

[jeff47]

38. First, Redacted documents don't comply with subpoenas.

Second, there's plenty of non-name identification still in there. The locations and dates of the gun shows. The dates of the illegal sales, the dates, times and places of meetings, list of illegal sales (the suspect's friends probably didn't tell him about everything). Put that together and the people involved can figure out the names.

This is information that has always been covered by Executive Privilege before, because it covers on-going investigations. Issa knows this. That's why he's demanding it. To create a scandal out of nothing as a distraction.

[rocktivity]

21. DING DING DING! BlueToTheBone, you're our grand prize winner!

I think it's more about the agents in the field. Not something * would have taken into consideration...

As Valerie Plame can tell you.


rocktivity

[SlimJimmy]

24. Under the Bush plan, the guns weren't walked, they were tracked to the buyer

then arrests were made. The Obama administration, under the AG, changed the strategy to walk the guns to see where they were going. I don't believe for a minute that President Obama is trying to cover for Bush. The only reason to use executive privilege in this case is to keep internal policy discussions at the executive level - which is a perfectly legitimate use of the EP doctrine.

[LynneSin]

5. Someone needs to investigate Issa for wasting our taxdollars on these witch hunts

What he is doing is bullshit. If a republican was in the White House, Issa would give that person a free pass to fraud and corruption.

[Voice for Peace]

30. +1

[TBMASE]

6. Holder gave testimony before Congress that wasn't true

that's what has created the problem.
Rather than coming in, laying blame at the feet of the previous administration, Holder's testimony wasn't factually accurate.

[jeff47]

11. Only if your definition of "true" comes from Fox News. (nt)

[TBMASE]

12. Or CBS News

Holder said he knew nothing of the progam - He was receiving weeking Briefing Memos
Holder said Federal Agents weren't gun walking - Factually incorrect

[jeff47]

14. So true you can't provide a link? (nt)

[TBMASE]

16. This isn't a new revelation

http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-31727_162-20115038-10391695.html

[jeff47]

18. So do you always skip the later paragraphs in a story?

The Justice Department told CBS News that the officials in those emails were talking about a different case started before Eric Holder became Attorney General. And tonight they tell CBS News, Holder misunderstood that question from the committee - he did know about Fast and Furious - just not the details.

So....one email wasn't about Fast and Furious....and wasn't to Holder.

The other is a dispute about what question was asked. And since you and CBS failed to provide that question, we have no way of deciding how much legal leeway there was in that question.

For example, Clinton did not perjure himself when he said he never had sex with Lewinsky. His lawyers asked the judge to define what 'sex' meant and she restricted 'sex' to intercourse. Having only received a blowjob, Clinton's "no" answer was not perjury. One can make an argument about the ethics of only saying "no", but ethics are not law.

[madashelltoo]

7. Even Michael Steele can't back up Issa on this one.

Regardless of how it came to this, it is time for all of the adults to end it and get down to doing something constructive. This is like monitoring a children who would prefer doing anything except the assignment you have given them. Enough already.

[wiggs]

9. would be great if he went ahead with vote and...lost. nt

[B Calm]

19. I don't trust this hypocritical finger pointer!

[aint_no_life_nowhere]

22. Screwing around with this fishing expedition while Americans worry over the economy

is a big loser for Issa. Democrats should get out there are drive the point home. Although I know Issa feels he's doing something glorious, Americans see it as just another example of a 'do nothing' Congress.

[ScruffyTheJanitor]

26. Can someone help me out here...

I understand that a similar "gun running" operation was deployed under the Bush presidency (Operation Wide Receiver), but I have yet to read anything which states that it wasn't shut down in 2007.

Also, despite the very obvious similarities between the two operations, wasn't Wide Receiver performed under the consent of the Mexican government, while Fast and Furious was not?

Just looking for some info. TIA.

[oldhippydude]

28. how about another angle...

a DOJ busy shuffling paper for Issa, can't bust Alec under Rico ,for conspiracy to deny voting rights