General Discussion
Related: Editorials & Other Articles, Issue Forums, Alliance Forums, Region ForumsWhat's your take on Obama asserting Executive Privilege on the 'Fast and Furious' documents?
It goes without saying that Issa is a fuckwit scumbag.
Beyond that, what's your take?
http://tpmmuckraker.talkingpointsmemo.com/2012/06/obama_asserts_executive_privilege_on_fast_and_furious_documents.php?ref=fpa
= new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
BlueToTheBone
(3,747 posts)
dennis4868
(9,774 posts)Issa from day one wanted to "get" Obama and he will lie and create fake controversies in order to do this.
Blue_Tires
(55,445 posts)
riverbendviewgal
(4,252 posts)so did George Washington, Jefferson, Truman, Eisenhower and Clinton.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Executive_privilege
DinahMoeHum
(21,774 posts)n/t
Bluzmann57
(12,336 posts)So he has the right to do it. Now let's sit back and listen to the rw claim "dictatorship" and how Obama should be impeached RIGHT NOW! You know someone on that side will say that.
OneTenthofOnePercent
(6,268 posts)I think it will convey an image that there IS something incriminating to hide.
IMO, if the ATF did order gun stores to complete suspicious transactions (that would normally have been denied a sale) and those guns ended up killing civilians in a drug war... not only do I feel that the mere questions should be COMPLETELY answered, but that the people responsible for running this program should be held accountable (criminally and civil).
TBMASE
(769 posts)I think they should have claimed EP from the start. Doing it now looks bad
SickOfTheOnePct
(7,290 posts)It especially looks bad because Holder asked for EP to be invoked. If they're privileged, they should have been declared such as soon as they were requested.
TheWraith
(24,331 posts)And yes, the ATF pushed through sales which the store owners didn't want to go through with. Holder should have gone under the bus months ago to tie this off.
Nuclear Unicorn
(19,497 posts)PROS: Sticks it to the GOP which rallies Obama's own supporters. Puts Issa on the defensive to explain why his comittee deserves the right to peer into someone else's house.
CONS: Obama loses plausible deniability as he is tacitly admitting whatever is in those documents are part and parcel of his administration's operations. People are naturally suspicious, this will only give the appearance the amdinistration is hiding something.
This will now become a media event so there better be nothing there.
SickOfTheOnePct
(7,290 posts)It isn't an issue of the oversight committee "deserving" the right to peer into the Executive branch - they have that right as part of their duties. Balance of power and all that.
nashville_brook
(20,958 posts)watch today for pre-2008 footage of Dems railing against use of EO.
bottom line, what is the right thing to do? why not come clean on a botched operation and move on?
effyounow
(3 posts)if you have nothing to hide then speak the truth.
on the other hand... if you have something to hide then you better fucking hide it, because if it gets out then you can be screwed..
nashville_brook
(20,958 posts)effyounow
(3 posts)why else pull executive privilege?
nashville_brook
(20,958 posts)way more blunder-y than we've come to expect from Obama.
http://livewire.talkingpointsmemo.com/entries/boehner-accuses-white-house-of-fast-furious-cover
bigtree
(85,977 posts). . . natural curiosity; aroused by the high-level secrecy. I'm thinking that might be the public reaction (or not).
But, I'm inclined to give President Obama the benefit of the doubt that there's no there there. Should ignite a gaggle of talking heads, though.
bullwinkle428
(20,628 posts)I'm sure he'll figure out a way to weave Bill Ayers and Jeremiah Wright into the conspiracy...
nashville_brook
(20,958 posts)Fox News putting that question to the test at this moment #fastandfurious #clinicalquestion
Tierra_y_Libertad
(50,414 posts)If there's nothing in them to prove criminality, the Republicans take a hit. If there is, then it should be dealt with.
KharmaTrain
(31,706 posts)Seems I've seen this movie before staring "Disco" Danny Burton. It's a combination of right wing red meat along with an attempt to embarass the administration in an election year.
I find the timing of this interesting on the heels of the Presiden't announcement last Friday...Fast and Furious has been a right wing witch hunt for a long time in an attempt to try to make this administration look weak on border protection. Issa and his ilk have spent years trying like crazy to find something/anything to investigate about this administration and this is the slim thread they can hang onto.
The corporate media...as expected...will look at the flash and never at the pan...politicizing it and giving Issa his 15 minutes. In the big picture this is just another side show...the great unhinged will now strut and go into poutrage while the media will find another bright shiny thing to play with...
Autumn
(44,984 posts)Yes Issa is a fuck wit candy ass scumbag. If this is another Bush thing then I don't like the Executive Privilege claim. Otherwise Issa can go fuck himself.
B2G
(9,766 posts)if he knew nothing about the operation? I don't get that.
leftynyc
(26,060 posts)
kenny blankenship
(15,689 posts)How can we think of doing so now? That would show us up as vile hypocrites.
B2G
(9,766 posts)The Supreme Court said fuck you Nixon and we impeached him. Remember?
TBMASE
(769 posts)he resigned prior to the vote
B2G
(9,766 posts)But he certainly would have been had he not resigned.
My response to the ludicrous statement that 'we didn't object' to Nixon claiming Executive Privilege stands though...
TBMASE
(769 posts)And I think that post was meant to be sarcastic
B2G
(9,766 posts)kenny blankenship
(15,689 posts)the halcyon days of yore, in fact. And I just can't believe that Democrats would criticize a sitting President. He was fighting a very important war after all! If we didn't fight Communists over there in Indochina, we'd soon be fighting them on Main St., Anytown USA. I know that was commonly understood to be the reason behind the war because I've seen and heard US enlisted men say exactly that in the Vietnam documentary, Hearts and Minds. If the President is to be obeyed and deferred to now during this time of war, in which we are again "fighting them over there" preemptively, then he must also have been so then. After all, that war forty years ago was killing far more Americans than this one is now. Democrats must have maintained appropriate respect for the office of the President, and surely would have cast aside all their possible questions and criticisms of him and his use of Executive Privilege as a unacceptable danger to the Republic in an hour of peril.
No, I don't believe Democrats objected to whatever use Richard Nixon made of Executive Privilege. They are above all consistent. That's the Democratic Party I know.
You may want to correct your recollection of history before you damage your credibility around here, and even have your motives for posting at this Democratic site called into question.
B2G
(9,766 posts)
hack89
(39,171 posts)There were plenty of objections.
frylock
(34,825 posts)
NYC Liberal
(20,135 posts)US v Nixon in fact confirmed that executive privilege does exist and furthermore the burden is on Congress or prosecutor to prove the claim is not legitimate; the president doesn't have to prove it is.
Not all claims of executive privilege are illegitimate.
madokie
(51,076 posts)Don't give an inch Mr President
hack89
(39,171 posts)Hell Hath No Fury
(16,327 posts)"How would I react if it had been W doing this"?
Issa is an unmitigated ass.
Beyond that, I am not a happy camper at such an obvious attempt to shut down an examination of something that was a serious issue. If it were W trying to cover his ass in this manner I would be pissed.
FarCenter
(19,429 posts)Releasing the documents might provide information leading to other matters, etc.
Prism
(5,815 posts)One the one hand, it's good to see President Obama displaying loyalty and solidarity with his attorney general.
On the other, I think Holder deserves to go under the bus.
I don't think the average voter has any idea what Fast and Furious is. They will now. And that is a story where no one in the Justice Department comes out looking good. Holder looks positively perjurious in some of that testimony. Now, President Obama's plausible deniability and distance from the scandal is at an end. He will own this, and I do not think this is something he should be owning.
I feel like, were this not an election year, Holder would be gone by now.
This is a gamble. Do people hate Issa enough (and by extension, Republican obstructionism) and are they ignorant of F&F enough to let this slide until November?
We'll see. Right now, glancing around the web, I see right-wingers are jubilant over this. Why? Because now they think they can pin this all over the President. Until now, they figured Holder would be the farthest it would go.
Quite a gamble here.
RDANGELO
(3,432 posts)is doing this.
steve2470
(37,457 posts)President Obama needs to lay out ALL the facts he can, without endangering the agents in the field and ongoing operations.
If he needs to talk for an hour, then so be it. He can't control what the media reports, but he can at least put all the facts out there. ALL OF THEM.
I do hope he had a damn good reason to do this, otherwise he looks pretty bad. I have faith that President Obama did this for all the right reasons, but EP never sits well with me.
siligut
(12,272 posts)F&F was a risky plan, and Issa seeks to expose and smear by "evaluating" documents. Holder offered what he believes Issa needs to make that evaluation, Issa didn't get what he was looking for so he pushed it. Obama pushed back.
And Sen. Grassley can whine all he wants, 
B2G
(9,766 posts)That's what has kept this going.
siligut
(12,272 posts)I have not followed this closely and don't find much other than from the moonietimes and RW blogs.
Poll_Blind
(23,864 posts)...what documents we're talking about. So I don't have an opinion yet. Regardless, though, as someone upthread said "It's a dangerous game if it winds up in court."
I think there's a good chance the Repukes wouldn't push it that far: Remember, they have their own fantasies about an all-powerful unitary executive. I don't see why they'd move to potentially let a judiciary make a decision which stifled those powers.
PB
RBInMaine
(13,570 posts)Poll_Blind
(23,864 posts)PB
Gold Metal Flake
(13,805 posts)Two wrongs do not make a right. Defending anything by saying "Bush did it" or "you didn't say anything when Bush did it" is some serious bullshit.
The Fast And Furious things seems to be Stupid And Rushed Without Thought To How It Could Go Wrong. Continuing bad Bush policies is a failing on the Obama Admin and no one should feel that they should have to make any lame excuses for it. Now, it looks like stonewalling. More bad after bad. But, also, fuck that car thief Issa, too, additionally.
kudzu22
(1,273 posts)I think this move actually hurts the President. If the administration's contention is that there's nothing there, and that F&F started under Bush, then there's no reason not to release the documents. Exerting privilege only lends credence to Issa's allegations and completely destroys Obama's image as a transparent president.
Bad move, IMO.
DearAbby
(12,461 posts)Testified 8 times before congress, and handed over thousands of pages of documents. This is a fucking witch hunt, fishing expedition. Obama put an end to it.
yep
sarisataka
(18,498 posts)Is that the rational?
Bush's ATF ran Operation wide Receiver from 2006-2007. Estimated 400-500 guns made it into Mexico. Mexican authorities were informed of when the guns crossed the border. No indictments were filed until 2010.
Holder ran F&F from 2009-2011. Estimated ~2000 guns crossed into Mexico but an unknown number remained in the U.S. Neither Mexican authorities nor ATF agents in Mexico were informed the operation was happening. Twenty indictments were filed in January 2011, although none against high-level cartel members, the supposed target of the operation.
Here is the big issue that opened the worm can:
On the evening of December 14, 2010, U.S. Border Patrol agent Brian Terry and others were patrolling Peck Canyon, Santa Cruz County, Arizona, 11 miles from the Mexican border. The group came across five suspected illegal immigrants. When they fired non-lethal beanbag guns, the suspects responded with their own weapons, leading to a firefight. Agent Terry was shot and killed; four of the suspects were arrested and two AK-pattern rifles were found nearby. The rifles were traced to Fast and Furious within hours of the shooting, but the bullet that killed Terry was too badly damaged to be linked to either gun.[3]
After hearing of the incident, Agent Dodson reached out to ATF headquarters, ATF's chief counsel, the ATF ethics section and the Justice Department's Office of the Inspector General, none of whom immediately responded. He and other agents then contacted Senator Chuck Grassley of Iowa (R–IA), ranking member of the Senate Judiciary Committee, who would become a major figure in the investigation of "gunwalking." At the same time, information began leaking to various bloggers and Web sites.[3]
On January 25, 2011, U.S. Attorney Burke announced the first details of the case to become officially public, marking the end of Operation Fast and Furious. At a news conference in Phoenix, he reported a 53-count indictment of 20 suspects for buying hundreds of guns intended for illegal export between September 2009 and December 2010. Newell, who was at the conference, called Fast and Furious a "phenomenal case," while denying that guns had been deliberately allowed to walk into Mexico
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ATF_gunwalking_scandal
Bold 1- Agents attempted to work through the system but were ignored. Had ATF and DOJ looked into the matter, Congress would not have become involved.
Bold 2- the news conference announcing the end of F&F lied about facts the ATF knew. That immediately led to doubt about everything coming from ATF and DOJ and casting a shadow over their transparency and cooperation with inquiries.
IMO Holder should be fired. If he was aware of F&F he should have come forth with that knowledge or kept the operation on track to reach its stated objective. If he was not aware of an operation of this scope, he is not overseeing his duties properly. Also the failure of the ATF and DOJ to reply to agent's ethics reports also causes question of what Holder signals is allowable under his control. Citing EP at this point only gives Repubs ammunition for the upcoming election.
siligut
(12,272 posts)Wiki just isn't a good source for this sort of thing.
sarisataka
(18,498 posts)
Most up to date sites are RW. The portion I took out is generally accepted by both sides
ThomasP
(29 posts)is if this gets into the court system. There is obviously something they feel the need to keep under wraps. A conservative court would love nothing more than to embarrass the POTUS during a campaign season. After the 2000 election I realyl don't want the SCOTUS anywhere near this election. I really think it is time to let Holder take his fall and not take the administration with him.
Capt. Obvious
(9,002 posts)Did anyone say that yet?
Poll_Blind
(23,864 posts)
PB
riderinthestorm
(23,272 posts)He protected this program - kept it running after Bush left. There's something "there" for sure, some covert part of the program we don't know about yet.
Exactly how scummy the truth is remains to be seen but my instinct says the CIA is involved and its bad.
I really hope you are wrong. It would explain why Issa is so pit bullish on this. Get it out while a dem is in office and we take the blame for it.
Response to WilliamPitt (Original post)
devilgrrl This message was self-deleted by its author.
badtoworse
(5,957 posts)Up until now, it's been Issa and Holder. This move escalates that to the House vs Obama. This move will put Obama in the position of defending an operation that resulted in hindreds of people being killed and that was illegal in Mexico and the US. If the facts of Fast and Furious get a full airing, it will refect very badly on the administration.
Holder should resign and leave his boss out of it.
Hippo_Tron
(25,453 posts)Honestly here's the way I see this...
The idea to sell and track guns to cartels was a well intentioned idea that (may have) resulted in a guy getting killed in the line of duty. While I feel bad for Agent Terry's family, people get killed in the line of duty all the time, and sometimes it's in part due to things that could've been prevented. Humans make mistakes. That's a risk you take when you go into a dangerous line of work.
The DOJ should've just come forward and said "look, we fucked up, we're sorry" and moved on.
That said, I also don't think there's really any great conspiracy being covered up here. Issa and the Republicans are making a mountain out of a molehill and the administration is kind of helping their case. Although in the administration's defense, it's not as though Issa and these people are actually reasonable. They've certainly learned that the hard way.
RBInMaine
(13,570 posts)classified documents in such matters. Thousands of others pertaining to the matter have already been released. This won't fly a fucking foot, and everyone sees it for what it is.
Rosa Luxemburg
(28,627 posts)Voters aren't interested in it.
GeorgeGist
(25,311 posts)to be CRUSHED, CRUSHED, CRUSHED.
spanone
(135,795 posts)Bush used the privilege to allow Karl Rove, his senior adviser at the time, to avoid testifying before Congress during its investigation into the firing of nine federal prosecutors, allegedly for partisan reasons.
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/government-elections-politics/when-presidents-invoke-executive-privilege/
whatchamacallit
(15,558 posts)I think these people we hire (elect) don't work for us. They pretend to work for us, but they don't. We give them our votes, our time, our money, our trust... on the presumption that they are accountable to us. But they're not. They have other, more powerful, masters, whose agendas are enacted mostly out of our view. It's been this way for a long time. That's my take.
cherokeeprogressive
(24,853 posts)Executive privilege puts the issue to bed until after the election. Discussion is now effectively tabled.
There is "there" there though, and I think we all know it.
My understanding of "executive privilege" is that the President must be involved. For this to be trouble, someone has to prove that the AG lied before Congress. Here's where it gets foggy... If I heard right, when Holder was asked if he discussed "Fast and Furious" with the President, his response was "I don't think I did". Let me introduce you to "plausible deniability". Remember Al Gore... "I have no specific recollection...".
So here's my take: This whole situation arose from Holder's wish that GUNS could be seen as worse than they are... "See? American guns are responsible for the deaths of Mexican citizens and we should start down the path of strict regulation so as to ensure gun ownership doesn't endanger the lives of foreign nationals".
It got out of hand. An American LEO (maybe at least two) died, and people started asking why and how.
Now comes the phone call... "Uh, Mr. President" trying to explain how this came to pass. Here's where the real trouble starts. The doublespeak of politics takes over and the response is "what are you trying to say?" "I'm not sayin', I'm just sayin'" is what ensues, in recorded phone calls and emails.
The brilliant move was to assert executive privilege so as to push the issue back until after the election so it's a molehill to be stepped over and not a mountain that has to be climbed before ballots are cast.
What happens after the election remains to be seen, but I'll bet my bottom dollar that Eric Holder isn't Obama's AG come January. Plausible deniability and all that.
