Fast & Furious: Obama claims executive privilege

[Preacher Man]

Regardless of the reason that President Obama decided to invoke executive privilege, IMO, he has overplayed his hand on this one. I am not a regular listener to right wing radio, but I did hear something this week that struck me as being true and I think that people have mentioned it on here. Before this week, most of the people who were closely following the F&F story were "gun people." It got minimal coverage in much of the media. Over the last couple of weeks and particularly the last few days. it is EVERYWHERE. The assertion that some of the media is trying to minimize it or act as apologists for the Attorney General and President is less important than the fact that it is now front page news for whatever reason. SOMETHING resembling the facts will come out of this now.

Agreed.

[Nordic Viking]

My question is, if Obama is doing all these things that are wrong according to our laws (and I agree that they are, all the way back to firing the head of GM) how does he keep getting away with it?

The same way every other president got away with it. You can't blame him for playing from the rulebook others have created. The only thing he has done wrong, in this case is, be a hypocrite about executive priviledge.

[protourist]

The same way every other president got away with it. You can't blame him for playing from the rulebook others have created. The only thing he has done wrong, in this case is, be a hypocrite about executive priviledge.

So, the cover up of a program that resulted in untold Mexican citizens and at least two US border agents killed equals "none wrong"?

[Nordic Viking]

So, the cover up of a program that resulted in untold Mexican citizens and at least two US border agents killed equals "none wrong"?

The Whitehouse is only claiming executive privilege on documents after the investigation began, so nothing is being covered up about the killing of agents or Mexicans.

[timcsaw]

The Whitehouse is only claiming executive privilege on documents after the investigation began, so nothing is being covered up about the killing of agents or Mexicans.

That might be true if it weren't for this;

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.

Maybe the "protected documents" include correspondence between Holder and Obama that discusses how to stall and stone-wall the Congressional Committee (hiding information obstruction/wrongdoing)? Maybe one or two of the "private correspondence" talks about how their plan to heighten the US public's desire to implement stronger gun control laws didn't work now that this all became so public... "Oh krap Eric, now their going to see that we did this 'under the radar' to try to lead to the implementation of stronger gun control, so how do we hide that fact?"... Maybe the documents involve "Wanna' have lunch today?", I don't know, but what's to hide all of a sudden?

One day Obama essentially said, 'I don't know what documents you are talking about.' and the next day he essentially said, 'No, I'm going to hide the documents I didn't know existed.'...

Yes, I think suspicion about the discussions/correspondence "after the fact" is warranted. Was Nixon booted because he ORCHESTRATED Watergate (where no one died), or because he tried to cover it up?

[lepto]

First, where 'ya been? Anyway, good to hear from you again.

Second, I can't disagree that Issa wouldn't have been MY choice to run the investigation, but I do think the issue DID need Oversight to look into it... would you agree?

Welcome back and please curb your dog.

I apologize, Tim, for getting back so late. I thought I would have time to respond to any posts on a bidness trip the end of this week, however, between a 3 hour presentation on "How To Lobby" and all those expense account meals I was plumb worn out.

Seriously, my understanding is there may be some actual legal question as regards the gunrunning issue but, it appears to me, Issa's mishandling of it greatly increases the likelihood that everything will be excused under the "partisan politics as usual" umbrella. While I'm not afraid of losing the right to arm bears, like many in this forum, I do have real problems with the administration's record on 4th amendment type amendment issues. In this instance, from a purely political position, I think the republicans would have done well to appoint someone known for their even-handedness and upstanding character as opposed to a former car thief best known for his partisan thuggery. If that had been done, combined with real efforts at reaching across the aisle along with dealing with the administration in a less partisan manner, then we might have had a shot at getting to the truth of things--where ever that truth might have lain. Now, this is just another exercise in demagoguery further exposing the ultimate dysfunction running through the body politic.

I suppose the only silver lining to this whole cloudy affair is that our citizens are so poorly informed that most cannot compare the functioning of the US republic to that of the Weimar Republic. And, of course, that is our fault!

[philwar]

Some very inept and ignorant individuals planned this, and when the whole thing went south they tried to find ways to get some political benefits out of their mess.

You are right, but that still doesn't mean it's not a conspiracy. Here's a very good summary:



Unlike you, I do think it's likely that the whole thing was planned, particularly when you put it in the context that Whittle shows.

[Triton]

Seriously, my understanding is there may be some actual legal question as regards the gunrunning issue but, it appears to me, Issa's mishandling of it greatly increases the likelihood that everything will be excused under the "partisan politics as usual" umbrella.

What has he done precisely to "mishandle" this issue?

[lepto]

What has he done precisely to "mishandle" this issue?

Oops, I forgot you had responded earlier also, my apologies. Issa has mishandled this, IMO, by squandering any opportunities to make this a bipartisan investigation that might actually get at the truth. His antics have greatly increased the likelihood this will be swept under the rug as just another election-year, partisan hit piece. Of course, I would imagine this is because he's no stranger to criminality himself so getting to the "truth" of any supposed crime has always been furthest from his mind--its always been pure politics aimed at beating Obama this November. And that's why he was made chair in the first place.

[timcsaw]

I apologize, Tim, for getting back so late. I thought I would have time to respond to any posts on a bidness trip the end of this week, however, between a 3 hour presentation on "How To Lobby" and all those expense account meals I was plumb worn out.

Seriously, my understanding is there may be some actual legal question as regards the gunrunning issue but, it appears to me, Issa's mishandling of it greatly increases the likelihood that everything will be excused under the "partisan politics as usual" umbrella. While I'm not afraid of losing the right to arm bears, like many in this forum, I do have real problems with the administration's record on 4th amendment type amendment issues. In this instance, from a purely political position, I think the republicans would have done well to appoint someone known for their even-handedness and upstanding character as opposed to a former car thief best known for his partisan thuggery. If that had been done, combined with real efforts at reaching across the aisle along with dealing with the administration in a less partisan manner, then we might have had a shot at getting to the truth of things--where ever that truth might have lain. Now, this is just another exercise in demagoguery further exposing the ultimate dysfunction running through the body politic.

I suppose the only silver lining to this whole cloudy affair is that our citizens are so poorly informed that most cannot compare the functioning of the US republic to that of the Weimar Republic. And, of course, that is our fault!

Didn't mind the wait at all Lepto...

I do agree that Issa wouldn't have been my first choice to head the committee... and I do agree that the political demogogary has reached a level that is a distraction. Frankly I think it distracts from the seriousness of the issue... It shouldn't be as much about "gotcha' for political reasons", but more about getting whoever (be it Holder, Obama or their dogs) for the failures than came from the operation. Someone approved the procedures. First, who. Second, why? If it was just stupidity on someones part, so be it... can them. If it was someone with a goal to implement some hard-line gun control "under the radar", then can them also.

Unfortunately the process may be getting in the way of the product.

[jdm61]

Good point, Lepto. But I still think that Obama gave up a fair bit of any advantage he may have had in the cockfight with Issa by going with the nook-you-lar option this week.

[lepto]

Good point, Lepto. But I still think that Obama gave up a fair bit of any advantage he may have had in the cockfight with Issa by going with the nook-you-lar option this week.

Thanks! We all knew the nuclear option was coming because Issa meant to force it (at least that's the way it appears to me). This whole thing is another sickening example of the dysfunction in our government when we NEED a working congress to push back against an executive branch that, seemingly, hasn't ever seen a civil liberty it didn't want to curtail. Instead we've got tit for tat with Mitt at the end of the rainbow (if the tit wins over the tat). Regardless which side takes the White House or Congress we are in serious trouble my friend.

[skyhorse]

Remember this speech from King Obama?I guess that's why he chose a dishonest AG.

[Preacher Man]

You are right, but that still doesn't mean it's not a conspiracy. Here's a very good summary:



Unlike you, I do think it's likely that the whole thing was planned, particularly when you put it in the context that Whittle shows.

This is my problem. An ideological analysis helps to show possible motive, not actual motive. To show actual motive we need more evidence than just what is possible. I hope Congress is able to get the necessary documents and let the chips fall where they may.

Is it a possibility that the documents Holder asked Obama to protect show the motive guessed by you and others? Yes, it is possible, but it is not likely. This is how I reach that conclusion. It was not until Holder asked Obama to claim Executive Privilege that Obama did so. Had Obama been involved in something, he would know about it. That means he would not need a 7 page legal request from Eric Holder requesting Obama to claim executive privilege nor an idea of what documents needed to be protected. If Obama was involved, what we would have seen is a letter from Obama requesting a legal opinion from Holder and an answer from Holder addressing Obama's concern, not a request from Holder trying to convince Obama to claim EP. This points at an attempt to protect Holder or the Department of Justice, not Obama directly. My opinion is influenced in part by some passages in Holder's letter to Obama. Holder specifically mentions communications regarding how to handle the media. I think (and this is just my guess) that after F&F went south individuals within the DOJ decided to (a) no disclose F&F to the American public and (b) use the operation to justify new gun control legislations. Since Emails regarding parts of this have already surfaced, why protect the documents? Because they probably show how this was more than just thoughts by some employees, but actual strategic planning for policy after the fact coming directly from Holder or one of his lieutenants. Something like that not only would embarrass the Obama administration to no end, but push back the efforts and public opinion of Gun-Control advocates for a long time.

[jdm61]

Yes, you can blame him BECAUSE of that very hypocrisy. Does this means he gets to mess around on Michelle with some chubby intern, bone a blonde Hollywood starlet and send arms to the Contras too.

The same way every other president got away with it. You can't blame him for playing from the rulebook others have created. The only thing he has done wrong, in this case is, be a hypocrite about executive priviledge.

[keepitsimple]

I gotta say, that Obama is a very tricky fella. The Fast and Furious program started in 2006 under Bush's justice department. How Senator Obama tricked President Bush into starting this program is the next big story.
Stay tuned.

[timcsaw]

I gotta say, that Obama is a very tricky fella. The Fast and Furious program started in 2006 under Bush's justice department. How Senator Obama tricked President Bush into starting this program is the next big story.
Stay tuned.

No, the Bush era program was called Wide Receiver and it ENDED in 2007. Obama's Fast and Furious started in 2009 and was SIGNIFICANTLY different than Wide Receiver.

Here are some details for your edification;

The key differences between Bush's (Wide Receiver 2006-2007) and Obama's (Fast and Furious 2009–2011)... <-- note the dates... and that Obama's was NOT a "continuation" (Bush's Wide Receiver ended in 2007).

Differences between Bush's "Wide Receiver" and Obama's "Fast & Furious" explained for stupid liberals:

Wide Receiver - The number of guns used in the operation from the beginning until the end of the operation was 300
Fast & Furious - The number of guns used in the operation from the beginning until the end of the operation was 2,000

Wide Receiver - Guns were traced with miniature GPS devices inserted inside the guns
Fast & Furious - No tracking devices were used

Wide Receiver - ATF agents were ordered to follow the gun smugglers from the gun store to the US/Mexico border.
Fast & Furious - ATF agents were ordered to stand down and not follow the gun smugglers after they left the gun store

Wide Receiver - Mexican army and police was in the loop about Wide Receiver. They took over the surveillance of the gun smugglers after they crossed with the guns in Mexico.
Fast & Furious - Mexican authorities were kept in the dark by the ATF and the US DOJ. They had no idea about Fast & Furious and the fact that guns provided to gun smugglers by the American authorities were "walked" in Mexico into the hands of drug cartel murderers.

Wide Receiver - When a small number of guns (30-40) were lost due to the malfunctioning GPS tracking devices operation Wide Receiver was immediately aborted and cancelled
Fast and Furious - Operation continued even after ATF and DOJ lost track of all 2,000 guns sold to Mexican drug cartels

Wide Receiver - The operation was planned in such a way the gun smugglers and their cargo were kept under surveillance step by step, from the gun store to the US/Mexico border, across the border into Mexico and to their final destination: the hands of the drug cartel killers. This could have led to arrests made in joint operations by the Mexican authorities and DEA and ATF agents.
Fast & Furious - The operation was planned to let the guns go without any surveillance. Guns were supposed to be recovered at the murder scenes. One of the 150+ murder scenes where Fast & Furious guns were recovered was that of US border patrol agent Brian Terry. So far DOJ and ATF didn't came with any explanation about how they were planning to make arrests of the drug cartel murderers BEFORE THEY KILLED PEOPLE with the Fast & Furious guns, and how they were supposed to do those arrest in Mexico without the Mexican authorities knowing anything about this operation.

[Bronco]

I gotta say, that Obama is a very tricky fella. The Fast and Furious program started in 2006 under Bush's justice department. How Senator Obama tricked President Bush into starting this program is the next big story.
Stay tuned.

Clearly you've not been paying attention.

[Triton]

Oops, I forgot you had responded earlier also, my apologies. Issa has mishandled this, IMO, by squandering any opportunities to make this a bipartisan investigation that might actually get at the truth. His antics have greatly increased the likelihood this will be swept under the rug as just another election-year, partisan hit piece. Of course, I would imagine this is because he's no stranger to criminality himself so getting to the "truth" of any supposed crime has always been furthest from his mind--its always been pure politics aimed at beating Obama this November. And that's why he was made chair in the first place.

So I'm curious, just which democrat do you believe would have pursued this issue exactly?

[skyhorse]

Now I'm starting to wonder if Bush is at fault for Clinton putting ( sailors ) all over that poor interns pretty blue dress. Thickly veiled humor