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 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.

It may well be a security issue for which EP is appropriate, but I don't buy the rationale that EP is for protecting those kinds of secrets. EP is for insuring that the POTUS gets full and frank counsel. The classification system is for protecting national security secrets. Members of Congress are briefed on extremely sensitive national security secrets all the time (e.g. Pelosi et al being briefed on enhanced interrogation and international wiretaps involving known associates of terror organizations).

[cosmo20002]

Originally Posted by Iz Zat Chew

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.

But most of what you believe is based on chain e-mail and websites of questionable credibility and almost always turns out to be demonstrably incorrect. Are you keeping that in mind?

[Thatguy]

The same people in this thread bitching about Zimmerman being condemed by the media and others before knowing the facts...are doing the same shit now with the POTUS.

[cosmo20002]

Originally Posted by patteeu

It may well be a security issue for which EP is appropriate, but I don't buy the rationale that EP is for protecting those kinds of secrets. EP is for insuring that the POTUS gets full and frank counsel. The classification system is for protecting national security secrets. Members of Congress are briefed on extremely sensitive national security secrets all the time (e.g. Pelosi et al being briefed on enhanced interrogation and international wiretaps involving known associates of terror organizations).

Actually, the main purpose is security. If the issue were to go to court, that's what would have to be shown. And that's why Clinton lost one of his privilege assertions in the Lewinsky deal--it wasn't related to security.

[cosmo20002]

Originally Posted by Thatguy

The same people in this thread bitching about Zimmerman being condemed by the media and others before knowing the facts...are doing the same shit now with the POTUS.

Very, very true. And with Zimmerman, there was actually no question that he actually did kill someone.

With this, there is absolutely nothing there except desperate hope that Obama did do something wrong.

[Iz Zat Chew]

Originally Posted by cosmo20002

But most of what you believe is based on chain e-mail and websites of questionable credibility and almost always turns out to be demonstrably incorrect. Are you keeping that in mind?

That may be your impression, but it is very far off the mark as are most of your assumptions.

Where are you getting your staunch defense of Obama and this case of EP? What websites? What news agencies?

Are you keeping in mind that YOUR president has opened the door for an investigation that might not come out the way you want?

Your perception that he can do no wrong is just stupid!

[Iz Zat Chew]

Originally Posted by cosmo20002

Actually, the main purpose is security. If the issue were to go to court, that's what would have to be shown. And that's why Clinton lost one of his privilege assertions in the Lewinsky deal--it wasn't related to security.

What makes you feel this is related to security? Daydreams?

Why would the U.S. run an operation to give automatic weapons to the drug cartel? Were they afraid the drug lords didn't have the funds to buy their own?

[cosmo20002]

Originally Posted by Iz Zat Chew

That may be your impression, but it is very far off the mark as are most of your assumptions.

Where are you getting your staunch defense of Obama and this case of EP? What websites? What news agencies?

Are you keeping in mind that YOUR president has opened the door for an investigation that might not come out the way you want?

Your perception that he can do no wrong is just stupid!

My "defense" of Obama isn't based on something I've read. Its based on what I haven't read--which is anything that would indicate he's done something wrong.

If it is determined he did something wrong, then so be it. There's just not even a circumstantial case supporting it at the moment.

[LiveSteam]

Originally Posted by cosmo20002

My "defense" of Obama isn't based on something I've read. Its based on what I haven't read--which is anything that would indicate he's done something wrong.

If it is determined he did something wrong, then so be it. There's just not even a circumstantial case supporting it at the moment.

[cosmo20002]

Originally Posted by Iz Zat Chew

What makes you feel this is related to security? Daydreams?

Because it involved law enforcement dealing with illegal drug and weapons sales.

Originally Posted by Iz Zat Chew

Why would the U.S. run an operation to give automatic weapons to the drug cartel? Were they afraid the drug lords didn't have the funds to buy their own?

To track where they were going in order to indentify and locate the leaders. Its not rocket science to figure outthe purpose of the tactic. These type of operations pre-date Obama.

[Iz Zat Chew]

Originally Posted by cosmo20002

If it is determined he did something wrong, then so be it. There's just not even a circumstantial case supporting it at the moment.

You obviously don't know the meaning of circumstantial. Holder had an operation going on that Obama wasn't supposed to know about. Obama invokes EP. Pretty circumstantial looking to me.

[Iz Zat Chew]

Originally Posted by cosmo20002

Because it involved law enforcement dealing with illegal drug and weapons sales.



To track where they were going in order to indentify and locate the leaders. Its not rocket science to figure outthe purpose of the tactic. These type of operations pre-date Obama.

Law Enforcement and illegal drugs and weapons is a problem for national security how? And why was Obama's administration involved at the level it was?

Of those operations that pre-date Obama how many of them included the government supporting gun running?

Your suppositions are weak and your responses area actually to laugh at.

[Munson]

Originally Posted by cosmo20002

My "defense" of Obama isn't based on something I've read. Its based on what I haven't read--which is anything that would indicate he's done something wrong.

If it is determined he did something wrong, then so be it. There's just not even a circumstantial case supporting it at the moment.

So invoking EP at the last minute before Holder is to meet Chairman Issa doesn't make you the least bit suspicious of Obama?

Why didn't he just invoke EP a year and a half ago?

[patteeu]

Originally Posted by cosmo20002

Actually, the main purpose is security. If the issue were to go to court, that's what would have to be shown. And that's why Clinton lost one of his privilege assertions in the Lewinsky deal--it wasn't related to security.

You misunderstand. Security is important because Executive Privilege is supposed to be used by the POTUS for issues involving the areas in which he has superiority over the other branches as defined by the Constitution. In large part, that means issues involving national security and diplomatic relations. IMO, this F&F does indeed fall in that category so EP is potentially valid here.

Where you're confused is that this doesn't mean EP is intended to be used to protect national security secrets. Protecting national secrets is not a valid use of EP IMO. The classification system is the proper method for protecting those secrets and when classified information is subpoenaed, there are procedures in place to deal with whether or not those materials are turned over and the manner in which such disclosures take place.

[cosmo20002]

Originally Posted by Munson

So invoking EP at the last minute before Holder is to meet Chairman Issa doesn't make you the least bit suspicious of Obama?

Why didn't he just invoke EP a year and a half ago?

It is generally a contentious issue if it is invoked and presidents generally avoid doing so unless necessary.