Fast & Furious: Obama claims executive privilege

[timcsaw]

You don't know if the president should have knowledge of his underlings causing potential international incidents?

It's a bit like watching Michael Flatley's "Lord of the Dance" where his feet and legs look inexplicably disconnected from the rest of his body and seem to flail about all by themselves.

(I thought it was a pretty simple, straight forward question I'd asked...)

[Nordic Viking]

It's a bit like watching Michael Flatley's "Lord of the Dance" where his feet and legs look inexplicably disconnected from the rest of his body and seem to flail about all by themselves.

(I thought it was a pretty simple, straight forward question I'd asked...)

You have on numerous occasions alluded to Obama being involved and covering up F&F. Now even the guy in charge of the investigation (Issa) says that the Obama Adminstration is not involved. So your next veiled attempt at linking him is pretending that he should know about all agency operations.

I will repeat what I wrote; I don't know what he knows or the detail in which is informed of such operations (while currently running and not after the fact). Neither do you. So all you have is your little cough, cough, wink, wink innuendo which doesn't amount to much outside your circle of ODS acolytes.

[Triton]

I will repeat what I wrote; I don't know what he knows or the detail in which is informed of such operations (while currently running and not after the fact).

You answered a question (twice) that wasn't asked. He didn't ask if the obama knew. He asked if you think the obama should have known. Also, Issa isn't giving the regime a pass. He's saying that he wants the rest of the paperwork to determine what the regime knew. He doesn't have anything that leads him to think that the Whitehouse was involved... yet.

[timcsaw]

You have on numerous occasions alluded to Obama being involved and covering up F&F. Now even the guy in charge of the investigation (Issa) says that the Obama Adminstration is not involved. So your next veiled attempt at linking him is pretending that he should know about all agency operations.

I will repeat what I wrote; I don't know what he knows or the detail in which is informed of such operations (while currently running and not after the fact). Neither do you. So all you have is your little cough, cough, wink, wink innuendo which doesn't amount to much outside your circle of ODS acolytes.

Yes, I think he may have known about it from the beginning, but I have no problem admitting that I don't KNOW that (yet). Yes, I think that if he didn't know about it from the beginning, that he's now trying to cover something up, but don't have any problem admitting that I don't know that (yet). Yes, I think he SHOULD have known (if he didn't) just as I would expect any President should have known...<-- are you willing to admit THAT?

It isn't a tough or loaded question... In your opinion, should a President be informed of an Op. that could lead to international incidents with other countries or not?

If Obama did know about it from the beginning... well there you go... but if he didn't know about it, someone skrewed up and I don't necessarily imply that Obama was at fault for NOT knowing.

[Nordic Viking]

It isn't a tough or loaded question... In your opinion, should a President be informed of an Op. that could lead to international incidents with other countries or not?

I'm guessing any potential international incidents would involve the Secretary of State. Is she implicated too?

When you're done coughing and winking, here's the official report about Holder's and Obama's involvement (Don't hold your breath for any spectacular announcements, arrests or Watergate type scandals).

http://democrats.oversight.house.gov...port_13112.pdf

C. No Evidence that Senior Officials Authorized or Condoned Gunwalking in Fast and Furious

Contrary to some claims, the Committee has obtained no evidence thatOperation
Fast and Furious was conceived and directed by high-level political
appointees at the Department of Justice. Rather, the documents obtained and
interviews conducted by the Committee reflect that Fast and Furious was the latest
in a series of fatally flawed operations run by ATF’s Phoenix Field Division and the
Arizona U.S. Attorney’s Office during both the previous and current administrations.
The Acting Director of ATF, the Deputy Director of ATF, and the U.S. Attorney
in Arizona each told the Committee that they did not approve of gunwalking in
Operation Fast and Furious, were not aware that agents in ATF-Phoenix were using
the tactic, and never raised any concerns with senior officials at the Department of
Justice in Washington, D.C. In addition, the Deputy Attorney General and Assistant
Attorney General for the Criminal Division both stated that ATF and prosecutors
never raised concerns about gunwalking in Operation Fast and Furious to their
attention, and that, if they had been told about gunwalking, they would have shut
it down. The Attorney General has stated consistently that he was not aware of
allegations of gunwalking until 2011, and the Committee has received no evidence
that contradicts this assertion.

[5.56]

Time will tell.

For now, it's important that the American people know that the government authorized weapon transfers to the Mexican cartels.

It makes it much more difficult to place the blame solely on American gun owner's, when guns cross the border.

[ttoney83]

I'm guessing any potential international incidents would involve the Secretary of State. Is she implicated too?

When you're done coughing and winking, here's the official report about Holder's and Obama's involvement (Don't hold your breath for any spectacular announcements, arrests or Watergate type scandals).

http://democrats.oversight.house.gov...port_13112.pdf

Evidence is what is being sought. The implication is that one or more of his senior advisors is/was involved.
ANYway, Issa has upped the ante as it were. (Edited to retract the he from original post as this is not what Issa is actually implying by this letter.)http://firstread.msnbc.msn.com/_news...privilege?lite

In the letter, Issa challenges the president's assertion of executive privilege over documents sought by the committee in the "Operation Fast & Furious" investigation.

Issa requests the president provide a formal, legal justification for the privilege claim and a list of specific documents covered by it.

Issa points to case law that maintains executive privilege is reserved for direct presidential decision-making.

The California Republican ratchets up the pressure by stating that either the president's "most senior advisers were involved in managing Operation Fast & Furious ... and the fallout" or the White House is asserting "a presidential power that you know to be unjustified solely for the purpose of further obstructing a congressional investigation."

ETA: As if to say, you do realize, mr. congressional "law professor" that this privilage is reserved for direct presidential decision making....SOOOooo, be careful how you proceed mr. president.....

Are you beginning to see how this stuff works? Notice that Issa isn't making any claims of the current president's direct involvement, but IS HINTING at the implications of potential coverup, i.e. Nixon.....

I, on the other hand, am free to speculate about what I see evidence telling me (mostly because it is fun to think about the various scenarios) as I am not the one making the case. IF I were the one making the case, I would have to be more careful. Issa has to build this case, step by step, by the book, or the case goes away.

Time will tell.

[timcsaw]

I'm guessing any potential international incidents would involve the Secretary of State. Is she implicated too?

When you're done coughing and winking, here's the official report about Holder's and Obama's involvement (Don't hold your breath for any spectacular announcements, arrests or Watergate type scandals).

http://democrats.oversight.house.gov...port_13112.pdf

Yes, if the Secretary is normally called in on such matter, and she new about it, then she is also complicit (strike one... but please, don't try to pin this on a Clinton). If she knew and didn't tell the Obama, strike two.

===========================

You still didn't answer the question... so we'll take your avoidance of it as answer enough then.

How predictable.

[timcsaw]

Evidence is what is being sought.

And "evidence" is what may be what's being withheld (also ala' Nixon).

[Nordic Viking]

You still didn't answer the question... so we'll take your avoidance of it as answer enough then. How predictable.

No, I haven't stopped beating my wife

[ttoney83]

And "evidence" is what may be what's being withheld (also ala' Nixon).

Which is what Issa is warning of in the last sentence of the quote I used from the article above. Issa is giving the president EVery opportunity to come clean, or remain clean (not cover up). It will be interesting to see how this plays out.

[ttoney83]

http://firstread.msnbc.msn.com/_news...privilege?lite

In addition to pointing out that case law supports the idea that Executive privilage is only reserved for "direct presidential decision-making," Issa asks

why the attorney general was offering certain documents last week with the conditoin that the contempt citation be dropped but the next day those same documents were shielded by executive privilege.

The letter to the president included the president's own public statements that neither he nor Holder knew about or authorized the operation....

The chairman goes through the history of the case, the death of border agent Brian Terry and reminds the president that Attorney General Holder provided false information to Congress on Feb. 4, 2011 in a letter that denied the gun operation permitted illegally bought weapons to cross into Mexico.
The Justice Department retracted that denial months later. Issa pointedly states that lying to Congress is a crime itself and says the subpoenaed documents pertain to Holder's denial and internal communications that brought about the subsequent correction.

In a new request, Issa also asks for any communications between the White House and Justice between the date of the false denial and June 18, 2012, the day before privilege was asserted.

So, Holder has already committed a crime by lying to Congress. Things aint lookin so good for the current president or Holder....

[timcsaw]

No, I haven't stopped beating my wife

It's no such question and you know it (as does everyone else). You do do a nice dance though "Mr. Flatley.

So for what it's worth ... some Svedish guy doesn't think that any President of the US should have knowledge of covert operations that violate the laws of other soverign states. (and that's worth about as much as that load your dog left on your lawn (to use your own analogy) "that" being the content of your post, and not you the person of course.)

But I'm cool with your thinking that a President shouldn't be apprised of such things... because at the end of the day, YOU CAN'T VOTE HERE!.

[Nordic Viking]

It's no such question and you know it (as does everyone else). You do do a nice dance though "Mr. Flatley.

Of course it is. Should I now refer to you as Mr. Houdini because of your verbal contortion?

So for what it's worth ... some Svedish guy doesn't think that any President of the US should have knowledge of covert operations that violate the laws of other soverign states. (and that's worth about as much as that load your dog left on your lawn (to use your own analogy) "that" being the content of your post, and not you the person of course.)

But I'm cool with your thinking that a President shouldn't be apprised of such things... because at the end of the day, YOU CAN'T VOTE HERE!.

And some Anti-Obama partisan thinks the president should know about everything so that when things go south, he has an avenue to vent his pent up frustration.

Ps. I'M NOT VOTING THERE, I'M POSTING HERE.

[Triton]

And some Anti-Obama partisan thinks the president should know about everything so that when things go south, he has an avenue to vent his pent up frustration.

I know that if I were president and ultimately responsible for the actions of my administration that I would want to be informed as to what those actions were. Maybe that's just me.

Either the president did know about this in which case there ought to be charges or he didn't in which case he should be interested in having charges brought.

[timcsaw]

Of course it is. Should I now refer to you as Mr. Houdini because of your verbal contortion?

Then go ahead and "contort" the question as YOU'D like in order to actually answer it; Do you think that any world leader should have knowledge of his own countries covert activities being conducted inside another country, when that Op. risks international incidents?"

For example, do you think that the Emperor/Mayor/Whatever of Swedishland should know if people within his own Empire/Politburo/Whatever are repeatedly selling the countries top secret holey-cheese and the holey-cheese recipe to the French "Cheese-with-holes-in-it-Mafia" without getting approval from the French Government (thus risking international incident)? (I'll "man-up" and even go on the record and say "yes", I think the Governor of Swedishville probably would know, and definitely SHOULD know about the covert cheese-caper being conducted by his Knights in a foreign land.)

And some Anti-Obama partisan thinks the president should know about everything so that when things go south, he has an avenue to vent his pent up frustration.

Who said a President should know "everything"? I said he probably would know/should know about COVERT Operations being conducted within the boarders of another soverign nation, without that nation's knowledge, that could lead to an international incident.

[Nordic Viking]

Then go ahead and "contort" the question as YOU'D like in order to actually answer it; Do you think that any world leader should have knowledge of his own countries covert activities being conducted inside another country, when that Op. risks international incidents?"

Maybe he does receive briefings. I don't know which detail they go into. Do you? Of course you would want him to know about the F&F, because you're desperate to stick something on him.

For example, do you think that the Emperor/Mayor/Whatever of Swedishland should know if people within his own Empire/Politburo/Whatever are repeatedly selling the countries top secret holey-cheese and the holey-cheese recipe to the French "Cheese-with-holes-in-it-Mafia" without getting approval from the French Government (thus risking international incident)? (I'll "man-up" and even go on the record and say "yes", I think the Governor of Swedishville probably would know, and definitely SHOULD know about the covert cheese-caper being conducted by his Knights in a foreign land.)

If you don't know the proper name or the make up of Sweden (not Swedishland ) then you're either stupid or being a dick. I'm rooting for number 2 but neither option deserves an answer.

Who said a President should know "everything"? I said he probably would know/should know about COVERT Operations being conducted within the boarders of another soverign nation, without that nation's knowledge, that could lead to an international incident.

Yeah yeah, and if the operation was a success you'd be contorting it to show how little he should know since just the president and shouldn't be micromanaging things to boost his ego

[philwar]

If you don't know the proper name or the make up of Sweden (not Swedishland ) then you're either stupid or being a dick. I'm rooting for number 2 but neither option deserves an answer.

Wow, touchy.

[bulgron]

More conspiracy theories without proof. If Reagan, Bush and Clinton could claim execitive privilege then they were covering up stuff too.

Agreed. They were covering stuff up.

Why didn't they resign or get booted?

Because those things they claimed executive privilege on didn't get people killed.

And because those things they claimed executive privilege on didn't infringe on the territory of a sovereign nation not our own.

AND because those things they claimed executive privilege on didn't have the effect of arming forces hostile to a legitimate foreign government.

The thing that the Obama administration is trying to cover up via executive privilege is way, WAY more serious than anything Reagan, Bush or Clinton used EP to hide.

That said, there's also the fact that whistleblowers have come forward on Obama, when there were none for Reagan, Bush or Clinton. Sometimes what matters is not the relative seriousness of the crime, but rather whether people are willing to testify. In this case, the crimes committed on Obama's watch are VERY serious and people are willing to testify.

And that is why Obama should either resign or get booted for this, if he doesn't get the boot anyway come this November just due to the American people finally figuring out that he's way too incompetent for the job.

[skyhorse]

Wow, touchy.

Uh oh,thinly veiled something or other.