PDA

View Full Version : Obama grants Holder request on 'Furious' documents as contempt vote looms



txradioguy
06-20-2012, 10:17 AM
DEVELOPING ...

President Obama has granted an 11th-hour request by Attorney General Eric Holder to exert executive privilege over Fast and Furious documents, a last-minute maneuver that appears unlikely to head off a contempt vote against Holder by Republicans in the House.

The House Oversight and Government Reform Committee is expected to forge ahead with its meeting on the contempt resolution anyway.

ORIGINAL STORY ...

House Republicans appear to be charging ahead with a high-drama contempt vote against Eric Holder, after GOP Rep. Darrell Issa said the attorney generally failed to produce the documents he requested for the probe into the Justice Department's botched Fast and Furious operation.

The House Oversight and Government Reform Committee is scheduled to meet at 10 a.m. ET on Wednesday. Barring a last-minute document dump from Holder, lawmakers are poised to vote on a contempt resolution following debate this morning.

If the vote proceeds, Republicans have more than enough votes on committee to pass the resolution. However, Holder would not be considered to be held in contempt of Congress unless and until the full House approves the measure.

Issa and Holder have been going back and forth since last week over Issa's request for documents. Issa, R-Calif., indicated a willingness to postpone the vote after Holder indicated a willingness to make compromises and supply some documents in response to House Republicans' subpoena.

But Issa told reporters after a roughly 20-minute meeting with Holder Tuesday that the attorney general instead briefed them on the documents in lieu of delivering them.

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2012/06/20/house-republicans-tee-up-imminent-contempt-vote-against-holder/

bijou
06-20-2012, 10:18 AM
http://cdn.breitbart.com/mediaserver/Breitbart/Big-Government/2012/fast%20and%20furious/holder-scramble.jpg

Fox News is reporting that the White House has approved AG Eric Holder's request to protect Fast and Furious documents under executive privilege.

link (http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Government/2012/06/20/wh-grants-holders-FF-docs-exec-priv?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+BigGovernment+%28Big+Governme nt%29)

txradioguy
06-20-2012, 10:21 AM
GMTA...dupe. :smile-new:

bijou
06-20-2012, 10:24 AM
GMTA...dupe. :smile-new:

Beat me by a minute! :star:

txradioguy
06-20-2012, 10:26 AM
Beat me by a minute! :star:

LOL! At my age I'll take it!


Not surprised that "the most transparent administration in history" would pull a stunt like this.

All it proves is Holder...and possibly Obama are in it up to their ears where F&F are concerned.

txradioguy
06-20-2012, 10:31 AM
After Holder made the request to Obama via letter on Tuesday, Deputy Attorney General James Cole wrote to Rep. Darrell Issa, R-Calif., on Wednesday informing him that the president has granted the request.

"We regret that we have arrived at this point, after the many steps we have taken to address the committee's concerns and to accommodate the committee's legitimate oversight interests regarding Operation Fast and Furious," Cole wrote. "Although we are deeply disappointed that the committee appears intent on proceeding with a contempt vote, the department remains willing to work with the committee to reach a mutually satisfactory resolution of the outstanding issues."

Obama's decision pertains to documents from February 2011 and afterward examining how Justice officials learned about the Fast and Furious probe.

Holder, in his letter to Obama, said those documents pertain to the "deliberative process" on how to respond to congressional and media inquiries.

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2012/06/20/house-republicans-tee-up-imminent-contempt-vote-against-holder/

bijou
06-20-2012, 11:01 AM
Forgive my ignorance, but does executive privilege mean the President's privilege, and if so doesn't that mean that he has the relevant documents?

txradioguy
06-20-2012, 11:03 AM
CNN’S LARRY KING: “Do you favor executive privilege or should Karl Rove and others in that like position be forced to testify before the House or Senate?

OBAMA: “Well, you know, I think we’ll — we’ll determine over the next several weeks how this administration responds to the very appropriate call by Patrick Leahy, the chairman of the Judiciary Committee, to have these individuals come in and testify. You know, there’s been a tendency on the part of this administration to — to try to hide behind executive privilege every time there’s something a little shaky that’s taking place. And I think, you know, the administration would be best served by coming clean on this. There doesn’t seem to be any national security issues involved with the U.S. attorney question. There doesn’t seem to be any justification for not offering up some clear, plausible rationale for why these — these U.S. attorneys were targeted when, by all assessments, they were doing an outstanding job. I think the American people deserve to know what was going on there.”

SOURCE: CNN’s “Larry King Tonight,” 3/20/2007

http://dailycaller.com/2012/06/20/flashback-2007-obama-attacked-trying-to-hide-behind-executive-privilege/#ixzz1yLVdhIW7

txradioguy
06-20-2012, 11:07 AM
Forgive my ignorance, but does executive privilege mean the President's privilege, and if so doesn't that mean that he has the relevant documents?

Executive privilege is defined as:



The ability of the president and executive officials to withhold information from or refuse to appear before Congress or the courts.

They can claim because of the sensitivity of what they are being asked to reveal that they can refuse to testify about it or give doccuments relating to it.

Adam Wood
06-20-2012, 11:12 AM
Forgive my ignorance, but does executive privilege mean the President's privilege, and if so doesn't that mean that he has the relevant documents?The DOJ is an executive department, meaning that those in the DOJ are appointed by and serve at the will of the President nominally with Congressional approval. So, technically, executive privilege applies to anyone to whom the President deems it applies to.

That having been said, the courts have often construed executive privilege pretty narrowly in the past. The most famous example is United States v. Nixon (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_v._Nixon), which ultimately led to Nixon's downfall. I think we're probably going to see the exact same thing play out here when all is said and done.


Personally, I rather doubt that Obama's hands are dirty in this particular mess, and the program did technically start under Bush, but Obama has placed sooooo much interest in keeping Holder in place to advance his agenda, from the protection of voter intimidation to selectively prosecuting "civil rights" cases (e.g. Trayvon Martin) in order to reach Cosmic Sameness that he can't throw Holder under the bus until after November.

Hubie
06-20-2012, 11:15 AM
CNN’S LARRY KING: “Do you favor executive privilege or should Karl Rove and others in that like position be forced to testify before the House or Senate?

OBAMA: “Well, you know, I think we’ll — we’ll determine over the next several weeks how this administration responds to the very appropriate call by Patrick Leahy, the chairman of the Judiciary Committee, to have these individuals come in and testify. You know, there’s been a tendency on the part of this administration to — to try to hide behind executive privilege every time there’s something a little shaky that’s taking place. And I think, you know, the administration would be best served by coming clean on this. There doesn’t seem to be any national security issues involved with the U.S. attorney question. There doesn’t seem to be any justification for not offering up some clear, plausible rationale for why these — these U.S. attorneys were targeted when, by all assessments, they were doing an outstanding job. I think the American people deserve to know what was going on there.”

SOURCE: CNN’s “Larry King Tonight,” 3/20/2007

http://dailycaller.com/2012/06/20/flashback-2007-obama-attacked-trying-to-hide-behind-executive-privilege/#ixzz1yLVdhIW7

So, Obama's a fucking hypocrite. What else is new?

bijou
06-20-2012, 11:25 AM
Thanks TX and Adam.

Apocalypse
06-20-2012, 11:41 AM
WZ has about the best on it.

Flashback

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bpwYh9TD6Nc

Now the letter Holder sent his overlord.

http://www.docstoc.com/docs/document-preview.aspx?doc_id=123092707

Their crapping their pants. Holder knows their in deep, and unless they halt this, it will start taking them out one by one.

But this will look bad going into a tough election for Obumble. He likely will have no choice but to toss Holder under his bus and run him over in hope of saving his re-election chances.

Odysseus
06-20-2012, 11:58 AM
Executive Privilege is something that Democrats try to avoid invoking, because it smacks of Nixon, who was their bete noire for many years. It's become the Presidential equivalent of invoking the Fifth Amendment. The Clintons considered using it during the Lewinsky hearings, but decided to stonewall and play other games instead. If Obama is willing to go that far, then he needs to change his middle name from Hussein to Milhous and announce that he is not a crook.

TVDOC
06-20-2012, 12:28 PM
Executive Privilege is something that Democrats try to avoid invoking, because it smacks of Nixon, who was their bete noire for many years. It's become the Presidential equivalent of invoking the Fifth Amendment. The Clintons considered using it during the Lewinsky hearings, but decided to stonewall and play other games instead. If Obama is willing to go that far, then he needs to change his middle name from Hussein to Milhous and announce that he is not a crook.

True, however in an election year this action is (at east to the uninitiated) an admission of guilt for voters. Compared to all of the other economic and foreign policy issues that the US faces, in the grand scheme of things this is somewhat minor, unless there is really something damning that needs to stay hidden.

doc

NJCardFan
06-20-2012, 01:02 PM
It can be challenged in the Supreme Court. EP didn't work for Nixon and it shouldn't work for Obama.

NJCardFan
06-20-2012, 01:10 PM
True, however in an election year this action is (at east to the uninitiated) an admission of guilt for voters. Compared to all of the other economic and foreign policy issues that the US faces, in the grand scheme of things this is somewhat minor, unless there is really something damning that needs to stay hidden.

doc

What makes it major is that Holder was complicit in a scam that led to the death of a Border Patrol agent let alone the countless deaths along the Mexican border. This makes it worse than Watergate as Watergate was just trying to steal Democratic strategies(which, oddly enough, he didn't really need). Holder's gaffe cost innocent lives.

Gina
06-20-2012, 01:13 PM
via Facebook

https://fbcdn-sphotos-a.akamaihd.net/hphotos-ak-ash4/270829_373515772702594_556632831_n.jpg

Generation Why?
06-20-2012, 04:18 PM
In other news, the sun is hot. It shouldn't come as too much of a surprise that this happened. POTUS has done nothing but skirt around any and everything of relevance since January 2009.

Odysseus
06-20-2012, 04:35 PM
True, however in an election year this action is (at east to the uninitiated) an admission of guilt for voters. Compared to all of the other economic and foreign policy issues that the US faces, in the grand scheme of things this is somewhat minor, unless there is really something damning that needs to stay hidden.

doc

Unlike a lot of other Obama scams, this one is relatively simple. Fast and Furious was an attempt to remove the safeguards against selling guns to bad guys in order to create fake crime spike with American guns, so that the administration could impose more draconian laws. People get that, and the administration knows that if the evidence comes out, even its own supporters will have a hard time defending that.


What makes it major is that Holder was complicit in a scam that led to the death of a Border Patrol agent let alone the countless deaths along the Mexican border. This makes it worse than Watergate as Watergate was just trying to steal Democratic strategies(which, oddly enough, he didn't really need). Holder's gaffe cost innocent lives.

People forget that Watergate occurred when the DNC was in bed with radical groups that had ties to the NVA, and were actively trying to undermine the Vietnam War. There were real national security implications there, and if Nixon's people had gone through the FBI and used legal wiretaps, they'd have been attacked in the press, but there would have been no scandal, or at least no lawbreaking.