Fast & Furious: Obama claims executive privilege

[Preacher Man]

IF he had nothing to do with it, then at the very least this is a HUGE gamble, if he's just protecting Holder. I haven't looked into this enough to be able to determine what sort of benefit could be gained from such a gamble. I personally can not see any real benefit to this unless it was to forestall my own impeachment. This feels more like a time to cover my own ass now, Holder's done all he can.

The Huffington Post published the letter Holder sent Obama (8 pages) where Holder requests that Obama asserts Executive Privilege. The letter is at the end of the article. In the the letter Holder gives his reasons for this and his legal opinion why Obama can and should assert this privilege at this time as well as a general idea of the documents he should assert the privilege over. As I see it, the whole thing is to protect Holder or the individuals involved in planning and execution of F&F.

[Preacher Man]

I'd read it was much less;

I read different numbers, but my numbers may be wrong. In any case, the point is that asserting the privilege is not rare.

[Triton]

I read different numbers, but my numbers may be wrong. In any case, the point is that asserting the privilege is not rare.

It's still going to have to be justified, and that's going to have to be done in a court if the Republicans have a clue. Keeping your AG out of trouble isn't a justification.

[Preacher Man]

It's still going to have to be justified, and that's going to have to be done in a court if the Republicans have a clue. Keeping your AG out of trouble isn't a justification.

Agreed. My original point was that the use of Executive Privilege is not contrary to the President's Oath of Office. That been said, it doesn't set Executive Privilege above scrutiny or justification.

[philwar]

But he needs to get better at not giving the appearance of being totally indifferent to the fact that a pair of US federal agents and hundreds or thousands of Mexicans have died as a result of his little misstep.

You mean it would be nice if he did that. He doesn't actually need to do that at all, since no one so far is giving him any cause whatsoever to feel that need.

[timcsaw]

The Huffington Post published the letter Holder sent Obama (8 pages) where Holder requests that Obama asserts Executive Privilege. The letter is at the end of the article. In the the letter Holder gives his reasons for this and his legal opinion why Obama can and should assert this privilege at this time as well as a general idea of the documents he should assert the privilege over. As I see it, the whole thing is to protect Holder or the individuals involved in planning and execution of F&F.

Thanks for the link Preacher Man... an interesting read. I note that Holder refers to the Nixon case a couple of times... and we all know how that worked out.

To me it seems like Holder isn't trying to hide information about F&F itself, but more trying to hide the paper trail that might show the "conversations" internal to the DOJ and White House about how to "stone wall" the committee's investigation... which might not be criminal, but could be embarrassing to say the least. Sort of a cover-up of a cover-up if you will.

ON EDIT: Having done a bit more reading, I found this little bit. I wonder if/when the actual index list with explanations mentioned (my first bold) will be offered by the Administration?

Also of critical importance IMO, is the document that has been, so far refused to the committee which shows who the ultimate decision maker was for the whole F&F disaster (my second bold).

In a desperate attempt to prevent the contempt vote in the last few hours, Holder asked President Obama to invoke executive privilege to shield these 1,300 pages of documents from Congress, and the President apparently agreed to do so. Yet that is not the end of the story. Even if properly involved, the Supreme Court has made clear that executive privilege is not absolute. DOJ must provide an explanation why all those documents fit one of the recognized categories of executive privilege. It is questionable whether they all are legitimately subject to executive privilege, for several reasons.

First, the Supreme Court in United States v. Nixon (1974) held that executive privilege cannot be invoked at all if the purpose is to shield wrongdoing. The courts held that Nixon’s purported invocation of executive privilege was illegitimate, in part, for that reason. There is reason to suspect that this might be the case in the Fast and Furious cover-up and stonewalling effort. Congress needs to get to the bottom of that question to prevent an illegal invocation of executive privilege and further abuses of power. That will require an index of the withheld documents and an explanation of why each of them is covered by executive privilege—and more.

Second, even the “deliberative process” species of executive privilege, which is reasonably broad, does not shield the ultimate decisions from congressional inquiry. Congress is entitled to at least some documents and other information that indicate who the ultimate decision maker was for this disastrous program and why these decisions were made. That information is among the most important documents that are being withheld.

[skyhorse]

I read different numbers, but my numbers may be wrong. In any case, the point is that asserting the privilege is not rare.

I think sometimes people may get Executive Privilege confused with the Executive Order,anyhow these Futher Muckers have far to much power IMHO.

[Bronco]

I think sometimes people may get Executive Privilege confused with the Executive Order,anyhow these Futher Muckers have far to much power IMHO.

Let's please dispense with the thinly veiled profanities. Thanks.

[ttoney83]

The Huffington Post published the letter Holder sent Obama (8 pages) where Holder requests that Obama asserts Executive Privilege. The letter is at the end of the article. In the the letter Holder gives his reasons for this and his legal opinion why Obama can and should assert this privilege at this time as well as a general idea of the documents he should assert the privilege over. As I see it, the whole thing is to protect Holder or the individuals involved in planning and execution of F&F.

I can't wait to read the letter. Can't access it right now. BUT, I have a HUGE problem with even the IDEA of Executive Privilage AND Executive Orders and Signing Statements.

The invocation of executive privilege allows the president to defy requests and subpoenas by members of the legislative and judicial branches for information the White House deems sensitive. Obama's decision will allow him to refuse to provide certain documents pertaining to the Fast and Furious program.

WHAT are you doing that is so "sensitive" that you feel a need to deny Congress, or the Judiciary, the ability to see certain documents?! THAT is insane....Essentially, what we are dealing with, is an Executive branch which can do whatever it wants, whenever it wants, and hide it from any and all attempts to discover the truth simply by claiming a privilage. This is another example of a Power granted which is NOT granted by the Constitution.

IF the issue is over sensitive documents/information, no one can tell me that there aren't the means available to view the information by certain persons involved with an investigation without divulging 'sensitive" information to the general public OR even Congress in general. We might as well have a King if Executive Privilage can be invoked to keep evidence from an investigation.....We are saying that the President is above the Law......

[timcsaw]

I can't wait to read the letter. Can't access it right now. BUT, I have a HUGE problem with even the IDEA of Executive Privilage AND Executive Orders and Signing Statements.

WHAT are you doing that is so "sensitive" that you feel a need to deny Congress, or the Judiciary, the ability to see certain documents?! THAT is insane....Essentially, what we are dealing with, is an Executive branch which can do whatever it wants, whenever it wants, and hide it from any and all attempts to discover the truth simply by claiming a privilage. This is another example of a Power granted which is NOT granted by the Constitution.

IF the issue is over sensitive documents/information, no one can tell me that there aren't the means available to view the information by certain persons involved with an investigation without divulging 'sensitive" information to the general public OR even Congress in general. We might as well have a King if Executive Privilage can be invoked to keep evidence from an investigation.....We are saying that the President is above the Law......

The "kicker" is, it's clearly defined in the law and cited cases, that Executive Privilege CANNOT be used to suppress information of possible "wrongdoing". (see Nixon)

Seems to me, that this issue must be pushed down the line until a court (SCOTUS?) gets involved and FORCES the administration to provide them these "too sensitive documents" so that THEY can determine whether or not they are being suppressed to hide "wrongdoing". At least to me, that's what NEEDS to happen.

I have a feeling that somewhere... paper shredders are just a flyin'!!

[ttoney83]

Agreed. My original point was that the use of Executive Privilege is not contrary to the President's Oath of Office. That been said, it doesn't set Executive Privilege above scrutiny or justification.

I disagree. If the Congress has the Power to constitute Tribunals inferior to the supreme Court (Article 1, Section 8, clause 9); and the President is to "take Care that the Laws be faithfully executed(Article II, Sec. 3, clause 4) , then denial of a request for evidence by a lawfully constituted Tribunal of the Congress is a violation of the Law as the President is not allowing the Law to be faithfully executed....

That constitutes a violation of his Oath to preserve, protect and defend the Constitution. The President is impeding an investigation by a lawfully constituted Tribunal of the Congress.

[ttoney83]

The "kicker" is, it's clearly defined in the law and cited cases, that Executive Privilege CANNOT be used to suppress information of possible "wrongdoing". (see Nixon)

Seems to me, that this issue must be pushed down the line until a court (SCOTUS?) gets involved and FORCES the administration to provide them these "too sensitive documents" so that THEY can determine whether or not they are being suppressed to hide "wrongdoing". At least to me, that's what NEEDS to happen.

I have a feeling that somewhere... paper shredders are just a flyin'!!

I figure it was intended as a delaying action, the creation of the notion of "Executive privilage." and yes, I'm sure shredders and or redacters are working feverishly, 24/7, to wipe out any incriminating evidence which could be used against either Holder or the current president.

IMO, if EVEN the President is being investigated or subpoenad, he should be required to cough up the evidence, or himself ASAP or be arrested for contempt of Congress.....Een though they may be a contemptable lot....

[Triton]

I figure it was intended as a delaying action, the creation of the notion of "Executive privilage." and yes, I'm sure shredders and or redacters are working feverishly, 24/7, to wipe out any incriminating evidence which could be used against either Holder or the current president.

IMO, if EVEN the President is being investigated or subpoenad, he should be required to cough up the evidence, or himself ASAP or be arrested for contempt of Congress.....Een though they may be a contemptable lot....

That's exactly what this is. Executive privilege has its limits as laid out by supreme court decision, and I suspect that the obama knows that ultimately the documents will have to be handed over. If he can delay it until after the election however then win or lose he comes out ahead. He's rolling the dice. I'm just surprised that all our liberals are happy about this. Or not.

[timcsaw]

That's exactly what this is. Executive privilege has its limits as laid out by supreme court decision, and I suspect that the obama knows that ultimately the documents will have to be handed over. If he can delay it until after the election however then win or lose he comes out ahead. He's rolling the dice. I'm just surprised that all our liberals are happy about this. Or not.

It was the best transparent administration.
It was the worst transparent administration.

In the span of just a few days, he ignores the Separation of Powers and unconstitutionally circumvents and usurps the power of Congress (illegals), and then calls on the Constitutional Separation of Powers to stone-wall Congress.

He is NOTHING if not consistent (ergo, he's nothing).

"We can't wait for Congress to do its job [and pass laws that I like]," Obama told supporters on a recent campaign stop. "So where they won't act [the big Meanies], I will [As the "Great and Powerful Ob', pass the laws that I like].[and the pesky Constitution and Separation of Powers be DAMNED (unless those Separation of Powers can get my a$$ out of a sling and save my butt from the wolves)]"

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

The greatest crisis of American democracy is not getting your way.

And when a sluggish republic hinders progress, it’s time to act. Just ask Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, who advanced an astonishing argument the other day on the Senate floor: The president, explained Reid, is free to unilaterally craft immigration policy because we’ve tried to do that for years, and we can’t because they won’t let us.

Ah, they.

For those of you who have forgotten, in “The Federalist,” Paper 51, Publius writes: “In a republic, all the power surrendered by the people is submitted to the administration of a single government; and the usurpations are guarded against by a division of the government into distinct and separate departments. … Then again, if ‘they don’t let you,’ well, feel free to disregard the previous 900,000 words.”

Today’s Democratic logic goes like this: If Congress is unable to pass progressive agenda items with a simple majority of legislators (and thankfully, that’s the case), the vote of a single person will do just fine. President Obama is, after all, on his “We Can’t Wait” tour. “We can’t wait for Congress to do its job,” Obama told supporters on a recent campaign stop. “So where they won’t act, I will. We’re going to look every single day to figure out what we can do without Congress.”

That’s the spirit!

One might forgive a little autocratic hyperbole in the heat of a campaign season, but Obama isn’t joking. He can’t wait. Only recently, he circumvented Congress on college loans and mortgages; he directed the Justice Department to stop defending the Defense of Marriage Act; through rulemaking, he empowered the Environmental Protection Agency to effectively institute legislation that Democrats could not pass; he involved the United States in military action in Libya (the right kind of warring, apparently) without congressional consent; he installed four recess appointments without a recess; and that’s just for starters.

[Triton]

It was the best transparent administration.
It was the worst transparent administration.

In the span of just a few days, he ignores the Separation of Powers and unconstitutionally circumvents and usurps the power of Congress (illegals), and then calls on the Constitutional Separation of Powers to stone-wall Congress.

He is NOTHING if not consistent (he's nothing).

LOL. Nice one.

[timcsaw]

LOL. Nice one.

Check my edit... it gets better...

[ttoney83]

The greatest crisis of American democracy is not getting your way.

And when a sluggish republic hinders progress, it’s time to act. Just ask Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, who advanced an astonishing argument the other day on the Senate floor: The president, explained Reid, is free to unilaterally craft immigration policy because we’ve tried to do that for years, and we can’t because they won’t let us.

Ah, they.

For those of you who have forgotten, in “The Federalist,” Paper 51, Publius writes: “In a republic, all the power surrendered by the people is submitted to the administration of a single government; and the usurpations are guarded against by a division of the government into distinct and separate departments. … Then again, if ‘they don’t let you,’ well, feel free to disregard the previous 900,000 words.”

Today’s Democratic logic goes like this: If Congress is unable to pass progressive agenda items with a simple majority of legislators (and thankfully, that’s the case), the vote of a single person will do just fine. President Obama is, after all, on his “We Can’t Wait” tour. “We can’t wait for Congress to do its job,” Obama told supporters on a recent campaign stop. “So where they won’t act, I will. We’re going to look every single day to figure out what we can do without Congress.”

That’s the spirit!

One might forgive a little autocratic hyperbole in the heat of a campaign season, but Obama isn’t joking. He can’t wait. Only recently, he circumvented Congress on college loans and mortgages; he directed the Justice Department to stop defending the Defense of Marriage Act; through rulemaking, he empowered the Environmental Protection Agency to effectively institute legislation that Democrats could not pass; he involved the United States in military action in Libya (the right kind of warring, apparently) without congressional consent; he installed four recess appointments without a recess; and that’s just for starters.

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

We are currently living under a dictatorship in all but name. The next 5 or 6 months will determine whether or not We are able to keep this Republic.....

[Triton]

We are currently living under a dictatorship in all but name. The next 5 or 6 months will determine whether or not We are able to keep this Republic.....

Levine calls it a soft tyranny I think he's right. Having that stuff that Tim just posted up is pretty sobering. It would seem that liberals myopically think that all of this stuff is okay because it is "their guy" and he is advancing their liberal agenda. Do they believe that it will always be "their guy" in office from now on? Do they really want a super powerful presidency that is not checked by either of the other branches?

[timcsaw]

We are currently living under a dictatorship in all but name. The next 5 or 6 months will determine whether or not We are able to keep this Republic.....

Ditto. This is one of the most critical elections I have ever seen in my lifetime.

[ttoney83]

Ditto. This is one of the most critical elections I have ever seen in my lifetime.

What do you mean? I thought you were around for Wilson's election!

Or was that Codger.....