Fast & Furious

[Sistrin]

White House Asserts Executive Privilege in ‘Fast and Furious’ Case

By REUTERS

Published: June 20, 2012 at 12:29 PM ET


The Obama administration on Wednesday defied the Republican-led U.S. House of Representatives, invoking a claim of executive privilege as it refused to turn over some documents related to a Mexican gun-running operation.

The move prompted the House Oversight and Government Operations Committee to go ahead with plans to vote on charging U.S. Attorney General Eric Holder with contempt of Congress.

Source: http://www.nytimes.com/reuters/2012/06/20/world/americas/20reuters-usa-mexico-guns.html?_r=3&hp

The last time this happened, a U. S. President assserting executive privilege to withold evidence of criminal activity, was during the Nixon administration. And look what happened to him.

But then Nixon didn't have a cult following and wasn't worshiped as a god. Obama does and is, so I won't expect much here.

 

[RETS]

Ret - are you saying the vote was 22 - 6 to bring contempt charges against Holder? Been away from the computer and can't find it yet.

No, no- Just the vote for Assured's poll.

According to the news I'm getting, (just 20 minutes old), the actual contempt vote has yet to happen- It was about to get underway when Obama made his little speech, and the vote was postponed.

 

[RETS]

White House Asserts Executive Privilege in ‘Fast and Furious’ Case

By REUTERS

Published: June 20, 2012 at 12:29 PM ET


The Obama administration on Wednesday defied the Republican-led U.S. House of Representatives, invoking a claim of executive privilege as it refused to turn over some documents related to a Mexican gun-running operation.

The move prompted the House Oversight and Government Operations Committee to go ahead with plans to vote on charging U.S. Attorney General Eric Holder with contempt of Congress.

Source: http://www.nytimes.com/reuters/2012/06/20/world/americas/20reuters-usa-mexico-guns.html?_r=3&hp

The last time this happened, a U. S. President assserting executive privilege to withold evidence of criminal activity, was during the Nixon administration. And look what happened to him.

But then Nixon didn't have a cult following and wasn't worshiped as a god. Obama does and is, so I won't expect much here.

I was actually just thinking about Nixon.

For the record, Nixon did in fact have a cult following of a sort. The man was a hero among Republicans at the time. Moreover, his move to end Vietnam made him all the more popular.

I don't believe that a comparison between Nixon and Obama is too far out of the realm of possibility.

 

[Abatis]

I've been bouncing around hearing many varied takes on today's developments and some people have been drawing similarities to Nixon's claim of EP surrounding Watergate and there are some interesting points. Nixon's EP claim pertained to subpoenas issued by a Special Prosecutor not by Congressional Oversight.

The subpoenas were for tape recordings of conversations between the President and those administration members suspected of or actually indicted for crimes connected with the Watergate break in and coverup.

Nixon's claim of Executive Privilege was slapped down by SCOTUS; the case was UNITED STATES v. NIXON, 418 U.S. 683 (1974)

SCOTUS in a 8-0 decision held that (in plain English):

"The president is not immune from judicial process, and must turn over evidence subpoenaed by the courts. The doctrine of executive privilege entitles the president to a high degree of confidentiality from the courts if the evidence involves matters of national security or other sensitive information, but the president cannot withhold evidence."

(law.jrank.org/pages/25156/United-States-v-Nixon-Significance.html
​

I can't see how any EP over conversations focused on how to frustrate Congressional Oversight subpoenas will be preserved.

Just for fun I've been reading the articles of impeachment for Nixon and substituting "Barack Obama" for "Richard Nixon" LOL . . .It's a very easy thing to do with minimal editing needed regarding the offenses . . .

In his conduct of the office of the President of the United States, Barack Hussein Obama, in violation of his constitutional oath faithfully to execute the office of President of the United States and, to the best of his ability, preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution of the United States, and in violation of his constitutional duty to take care that the laws be faithfully executed, has prevented, obstructed, and impeded the administration of justice, in that: On February 4, 2011, and prior thereto, unknown employees of the Department of Justice, for the purpose of deceiving Congress issued a letter to House Oversight misrepresenting the actions of ATF and DoJ that permitted the illegal transference of 2000 firearms to the Sinaloa drug cartel of Mexico. Subsequent thereto, Barack Hussein Obama, using the powers of his high office, engaged personally and through his subordinates and agents in a course of conduct or plan designed to delay, impede and obstruct investigations of the operation known as "Fast and Furious"; to cover up, conceal and protect those responsible and to conceal the existence and scope of other unlawful covert activities. The means used to implement this course of conduct or plan have included one or more of the following:

(1) Making or causing to be made false or misleading statements to lawfully authorized investigative officers and employes of the United States.

(2) Withholding relevant and material evidence or information from lawfully authorized investigative officers and employes of the United States.

(3) Approving, condoning, acquiescing in, and counseling witnesses with respect to the giving of false or misleading statements to lawfully authorized investigative officers and employes of the United States and false or misleading testimony in congressional proceedings.

(4) Interfering or endeavoring to interfere with the conduct of investigations by congressional committees duly empowered to investigate such actions.

(5) Approving, condoning, and acquiescing in, the intimidation of witnesses and whistleblowers to obtain the silence or influencing the testimony of witnesses, potential witnesses or individuals who participated in "Fast and Furious".

(6) Endeavoring to misuse the ATF, an agency of the United States in a scheme to arm international narco-terrorists in a way that contravenes US firearm law and International law.

(7) Making false or misleading public statements for the purpose of deceiving the people of the United States into believing that a thorough and complete investigations were been conducted by Doj Office of Inspector General when so report was ever intended to be released.

In all of this, Barack Hussein Obama has acted in a manner contrary to his trust as President and subversive of constitutional government, to the great prejudice of the cause of law and justice and to the manifest injury of the people of the United States.

Wherefore Barack Hussein Obama, by such conduct, warrants impeachment and trial, and removal from office.​

Sounds good to me!

 

[Sistrin]

Reads well.

Anyway, so much for that 2008 campaign promise of transparency.

 

[Rion]

Obama 2005: 'The President is not the Attorney General’s client; the people are' | WashingtonExaminer.com

 

[Vylo]

White House Asserts Executive Privilege in ‘Fast and Furious’ Case

By REUTERS

Published: June 20, 2012 at 12:29 PM ET


The Obama administration on Wednesday defied the Republican-led U.S. House of Representatives, invoking a claim of executive privilege as it refused to turn over some documents related to a Mexican gun-running operation.

The move prompted the House Oversight and Government Operations Committee to go ahead with plans to vote on charging U.S. Attorney General Eric Holder with contempt of Congress.

Source: http://www.nytimes.com/reuters/2012/06/20/world/americas/20reuters-usa-mexico-guns.html?_r=3&hp

The last time this happened, a U. S. President assserting executive privilege to withold evidence of criminal activity, was during the Nixon administration. And look what happened to him.

But then Nixon didn't have a cult following and wasn't worshiped as a god. Obama does and is, so I won't expect much here.

Actually Bush Jr. was the last time this happened with Joshua Bolten.

 

[RETS]

Actually Bush Jr. was the last time this happened with Joshua Bolten.

I'm afraid not.

Bush 45 issued an EO regarding Bolten and Harriet Miers barring them from testifying to Congress regarding the dismissal of lawyers. The EO was specifically for their testimony. This was over the seven dismissed U.S. Attorneys, which was later ruled to be political, but not criminal. Later examination of the case by several sources determined that the move was made due to the dismissed attorneys' objection to Gitmo and the War on Terror.

---------------------------------------------------------------------

However, Richard Nixon, in July of 1973, refused to turn over the Watergate Tapes as they came to be called; he cited Executive Privilege.

In June of 2012, Barack Obama refused to turn over the Fast and Furious files, citing Executive Privilege.

-----

In 1973, the Congressional Oversight Committee was investigating the clandestine operations of a group of men under the Nixon administration, who had been caught breaking into the DNC Headquarters at the Watergate Complex.

The Congressional Oversight Committee in 2011 began to hold hearings on Operation Fast and Furious, a clandestine operation carried out by men under the Obama administration in southern Arizona.

-----

In July of 1973, a whistle blower testified that Nixon kept taped copies of all his conversations. Congress immediately subpoenaed them in an attempt to move forward in the investigation.

In 2011, a whistle blower stated that he had been ordered to "watch, but not intervene in" gun smuggling operations. Congress, after further testimony and investigation, subpoenaed the documentation regarding Operation Fast and Furious.

-----

One more thing: On August 29, 1972, Nixon stated in regards to Watergate:

I can say categorically that... no one in the White House staff, no one in this Administration, presently employed, was involved in this very bizarre incident.

On March 23, 2011, Obama stated in regards to Operation Fast and Furious:

...First of all, I did not authorize it; Eric Holder, the Attorney General, did not authorize it; he's been very clear that our policy is to catch gunrunners and put them into jail. ...We don't have all the facts, and that's why the IG is in business. ...[I was] absolutely not [informed about it.] ...There may be a situation here which a serious mistake was made and if that's the case then we'll find out and well hold somebody accountable.

-----

So, now we come to the present and the past, wherein we hear both Nixon and Obama, less than a month from being exactly 39 years apart, state their refusal to part with material evidence by appealing to Executive Privilege.

So, no. Not much like Bush 45 at all, and very much like Nixon.

 

[RETS]

Also thought this was interesting...

Most other sources are reporting on this as news with only the slightest hint of bias. For instance, the Times Record News out of Witchita Falls, Texas:

In a mounting confrontation with congressional Republicans, President Barack Obama invoked executive privilege Wednesday to withhold documents a House committee is seeking. The panel neared a vote on citing Attorney General Eric Holder for contempt.

Comments rapidly grew more heated. A spokesman for House Speaker John Boehner suggested administration officials had lied earlier or were now "bending the law," while Democratic Rep. Elijah Cummings said the committee's GOP chairman "had no interest" in resolving the issue and was trying to pick a fight.

In a letter to the committee chairman, Darrell Issa of California, a Justice Department official said the executive privilege applies to documents that explain how the department learned there were problems with an investigation in Arizona of gun-running into Mexico, called Operation Fast and Furious.

At the start of a hearing, Issa called the president's action "an untimely" assertion of privilege. The committee was later to vote on whether to cite Holder for contempt of Congress for failing to turn over the documents. If the panel approved that, the contempt citation would then go to the full House. Technically, if the full House approved, there could be a federal case against Holder, but history strongly suggests the matter won't get that far.

However, BET, (Black Entertainment Television), has taken an entirely different tact. They have, apparently, figured the whole thing out. See for yourself:

Moments before the Obama administration asserted executive privilege in a political battle with a GOP-led committee in Congress, Republicans in the House of Representatives were prepared to take an extraordinary step on Wednesday by voting in a blatantly partisan committee to hold Attorney General Eric Holder in contempt of Congress.

Rep. Darrell Issa has complained that Holder had failed to produce documents related to the government's "Fast and Furious" program, which provided weapons along the border in an effort to track and stop the flow of illegal firearms crossing into the United States.

...Issa even interrupted the attorney general and lectured him that he was "not a good witness" when he met with Issa's committee. MSNBC's Chris Matthews compared Issa's committee's treatment of Holder to the "stop-and-frisk" policy often deployed against young Black men on the street by police officers.

...the Holder case is not about government accountability. It's about embarrassing and delegitimizing President Obama and his government.

Yup. That race card comes out the moment things get hot. Yeesh.

 

[MachZer0]

Gotta love it. Now, the questions for the day are: Will the American people be stupid enough to vote Obama back into the White House regardless? And if he is reelected, will he then be impeached? (I'm going with the assumption for the sake of conversation that Holder is scrawed.)

Also, Mach? Your link goes nowhere. Wasn't sure if that was intentional or not, because it seemed like it might be a rather ingenious illustration, but just in case... Yeah. That just takes everyone to the main CF page.



Finally... 22 to 6- For Contempt- And who's in contempt now?

Yeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeee-ah.

That's the second time I posted a link and it errantly went back to CF, but I fixed it and here's the right link even though I'm sure everyone's seen it elsewhere by now.

 

[MachZer0]

23-17 by the committee in favor of contempt. It goes to the House now

 

[NightHawkeye]

Here's a link: House Committee Cites Attorney General Holder For Contempt : The Two-Way : NPR

The House committee has cited Holder for contempt.

 

[Vylo]

Bah you guys beat me to it.

 

[MachZer0]

Here's a link: House Committee Cites Attorney General Holder For Contempt : The Two-Way : NPR

The House committee has cited Holder for contempt.

All the Democrats voted against it and I'm reminded of ow not so long ago the Democrats were up in arms about Scooter Libby. My how things change

 

[RETS]

23-17 by the committee in favor of contempt. It goes to the House now

Not necessarily. Chances are the Committee will now use the Contempt charge to barter with Obama for the documents.

Also, THIS ARTICLE is rather interesting. It lists the rather impressive list of folks who have also been cited for contempt.



As an aside- Yep. That's a very... Uh... Enlightening article video there, Mach.

 

[MachZer0]

Boehner is saying the vote by the full House will be some time next week. I'm guessing there won't be one Democrat with the integrity to vote in favor

 

[freezerman2000]

So, after he is found guilty of contempt, what happens then, a slap on the wrist?

 

[Vylo]

Boehner is saying the vote by the full House will be some time next week. I'm guessing there won't be one Democrat with the integrity to vote in favor

Just like with the Bolten vote and republicans.

Defend your own, they must be doing the right thing....right?

 

[NightHawkeye]

So, after he is found guilty of contempt, what happens then, a slap on the wrist?

I'm reminded of a Bible verse. It's a quaint document, really. Written many years ago ... it has some fascinating stories ...

Rev 12:9-12 And the great dragon was cast out, that old serpent, called the Devil, and Satan, which deceiveth the whole world: he was cast out into the earth, and his angels were cast out with him. And I heard a loud voice saying in heaven, Now is come salvation, and strength, and the kingdom of our God, and the power of his Christ: for the accuser of our brethren is cast down, which accused them before our God day and night. And they overcame him by the blood of the Lamb, and by the word of their testimony; and they loved not their lives unto the death. Therefore rejoice, ye heavens, and ye that dwell in them. Woe to the inhabiters of the earth and of the sea! for the devil is come down unto you, having great wrath, because he knoweth that he hath but a short time.

​

 

[freezerman2000]

I'm reminded of a Bible verse. It's a quaint document, really. Written many years ago ... it has some fascinating stories ...

Rev 12:9-12 And the great dragon was cast out, that old serpent, called the Devil, and Satan, which deceiveth the whole world: he was cast out into the earth, and his angels were cast out with him. And I heard a loud voice saying in heaven, Now is come salvation, and strength, and the kingdom of our God, and the power of his Christ: for the accuser of our brethren is cast down, which accused them before our God day and night. And they overcame him by the blood of the Lamb, and by the word of their testimony; and they loved not their lives unto the death. Therefore rejoice, ye heavens, and ye that dwell in them. Woe to the inhabiters of the earth and of the sea! for the devil is come down unto you, having great wrath, because he knoweth that he hath but a short time.

​

very appropro (sp)..(my spell check has let me down)