Obama claims executive privilege over 'Fast and Furious' documents

[qabbaan]

Obama claims executive privilege over 'Fast and Furious' documents

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.

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

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

The move by Holder and Obama to lock down some requested documents
only complicates the fight over the botched anti-gunrunning operation
between the legislative and executive branches.

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.

Wednesday's developments follow a flurry of activity Tuesday, as
Holder tried to negotiate a way to avert the contempt proceedings.
Issa had earlier 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.

Issa told Fox News that Holder didn't provide "anything in writing,"
and said the family of murdered Border Patrol agent Brian Terry wants
the documents as much as he does.

"We want the documents. Brian Terry's family would like the documents
that are responsive to how in fact their son was gunned down with
weapons that came from lawful dealers but at the ... behest of the
Justice Department," Issa told Fox News.

Weapons from the Fast and Furious anti-gunrunning operation were found
at Terry's murder scene.
Issa suggested earlier Tuesday that the vote could still be up in the air.

"The deadline will always move to the last minute," said Issa,
chairman of the House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform.
"We're not looking to hold people responsible. We're looking for
document production."

The failed Fast and Furious operation attempted selling thousands of
guns to arms dealers along the U.S.-Mexico border to trace them to
leaders of drug cartels. However, many of them showed up in crime
scenes.

Congressional investigators have been trying to determine if and when
high-level Justice officials knew about problems with the operation.

[patteeu]

Originally Posted by Iz Zat Chew

Invoking executive privlege one time is not criminal, the possibilities that he invoked it to cover up his participation and/or knowledge of the event tends to cast a long shadow.

More than his predicessors? Who even was discussing that issue? For the record why don't you point out how many times Bill Clinton and GWB invoked EP?

Links to support your comment?

You were when you quoted Chuck Grassley. Good grief.

[Iz Zat Chew]

Originally Posted by patteeu

You were when you quoted Chuck Grassley. Good grief.

Technically correct, but the jist of the conversation was about Obama exposing possible collusion with Holder in the Fast and Furious debaucle.

To keep with my initial response, how many times did Clinton invoke EP? I don't remember and obviously the other guy did. Also, I don't remember Bush doing so and it seems the other guy did again. Reagan was pretty far back and I would still like to see the proof that Reagan used EP AFTER he was out of office. I'm not saying he didn't try to use it, but I didn't find anything indicating he did.

[cosmo20002]

Originally Posted by Iz Zat Chew

To keep with my initial response, how many times did Clinton invoke EP? I don't remember and obviously the other guy did. Also, I don't remember Bush doing so and it seems the other guy did again. Reagan was pretty far back and I would still like to see the proof that Reagan used EP AFTER he was out of office. I'm not saying he didn't try to use it, but I didn't find anything indicating he did.

1. Go to Google. Or Yahoo.
2. Type 'executive privilege'
3. Scan results.

[Iz Zat Chew]

Originally Posted by cosmo20002

1. Go to Google. Or Yahoo.
2. Type 'executive privilege'
3. Scan results.

So, what did you find? Afraid to post the results?

Look, I'm not in a pissing contest with you. All I asked is that you provide proof of what you said. I did search and found nothing that indicated Reagan used EP AFTER he was out of office. If you found something, show it.

History of presidential use of executive privilege

President Barack Obama asserted executive privilege for the first time Wednesday. He applied the presidential power to withhold documents a House committee is seeking in an investigation of a flawed gun-smuggling probe called Operation Fast and Furious.

Presidents have the right to invoke executive privilege to preserve the confidentiality of information and documents in the face of legislative inquiries. The White House says presidents have asserted that privilege 25 times since 1980.

Here's a look at how many times each president since Ronald Reagan has asserted executive privilege:
—President Barack Obama: 1
—President George W. Bush: 6
—President Bill Clinton: 14
—President George H.W. Bush: 1
—President Ronald Reagan: 3 (gonna be tough proving your point)

[patteeu]

Originally Posted by Iz Zat Chew

Technically correct, but the jist of the conversation was about Obama exposing possible collusion with Holder in the Fast and Furious debaucle.

To keep with my initial response, how many times did Clinton invoke EP? I don't remember and obviously the other guy did. Also, I don't remember Bush doing so and it seems the other guy did again. Reagan was pretty far back and I would still like to see the proof that Reagan used EP AFTER he was out of office. I'm not saying he didn't try to use it, but I didn't find anything indicating he did.

All of them did it more than Obama has so far. Clinton did it more than any of the Republicans. I don't think the number of times is a very telling measure anyway. The question is whether they were legitimate uses or not. More intrusive demands for info will naturally result in more invocations.

[notorious]

Originally Posted by cosmo20002

Because invoking EP 1 time almost 4 years is more than his predecesors? Reagan even invoked EP after leaving office.

The amount of times EP is used doesn't matter. The situation for which it's used does.

[Iz Zat Chew]

Originally Posted by patteeu

All of them did it more than Obama has so far. Clinton did it more than any of the Republicans. I don't think the number of times is a very telling measure anyway. The question is whether they were legitimate uses or not. More intrusive demands for info will naturally result in more invocations.

Cosmo didn't give a shit about why it was used and the numbers I supplied showed that you are correct about Clinton. In this case there seems to be collusion between the White House and Holder, otherwise there wouldn't be a need for EP.

The apparent action of F&F was to get drugs off the streets in the U.S., what harm would come out of releasing information that would prove that your best interest was for America?

[KC Dan]

Originally Posted by patteeu

The question is whether they were legitimate uses or not.

The bottom line here is that since Obama never knew about F&F until the press got it, why invoke EP for all documents especially those from before that time? Whether there is collusion or illegality or anything, this EP act at the last moment shines a light that there is more than likely issues that would be uncovered that this administration doesn't want out in the open. Obama said it himself before President that invoking EP in a non-US security protection situation gives the impression of impropriety and shouldn't be done. But, now that hes the Prez, well.....that was different.

[HonestChieffan]

Originally Posted by notorious

The amount of times EP is used doesn't matter. The situation for which it's used does.

Nice summation.

[cosmo20002]

Originally Posted by KC Dan

The bottom line here is that since Obama never knew about F&F until the press got it, why invoke EP for all documents especially those from before that time? Whether there is collusion or illegality or anything, this EP act at the last moment shines a light that there is more than likely issues that would be uncovered that this administration doesn't want out in the open. Obama said it himself before President that invoking EP in a non-US security protection situation gives the impression of impropriety and shouldn't be done. But, now that hes the Prez, well.....that was different.

Because it is quite reasonably possible that the documents requested contain information that could compromise current or planned undercover / crime-fighting / security operations. That's not a partisan answer, that is a very reasonable explanation of why EP is often invoked.

This does involve US security and protection.

[KC Dan]

Originally Posted by cosmo20002

Because it is quite reasonably possible that the documents requested contain information that could compromise current or planned undercover / crime-fighting / security operations. That's not a partisan answer, that is a very reasonable explanation of why EP is often invoked.

This does involve US security and protection.

That's what black sharpies are for

[Iz Zat Chew]

Originally Posted by cosmo20002

Because it is quite reasonably possible that the documents requested contain information that could compromise current or planned undercover / crime-fighting / security operations. That's not a partisan answer, that is a very reasonable explanation of why EP is often invoked.

This does involve US security and protection.

[cosmo20002]

Originally Posted by KC Dan

That's what black sharpies are for

Somehow I don't think handing over documents with black highlights is going the satisfy the Rs document request.

[Mr. Flopnuts]

Thanks for all the transparency, hope, and change Mr. President.

[Iz Zat Chew]

Originally Posted by cosmo20002

Somehow I don't think handing over documents with black highlights is going the satisfy the Rs document request.

Somehow I don't believe that there is anything in the documents that are significant to the security of the country, with any ongoing investigations or places anyone in any danger. I do believe that the implications of what Obama was driving for are revealed inside the documents and they are most likely career enders.