106 replies to this topic

[bornhunter04]

Yes they voted to approve the order of content and send it to the house.

If i also understood it correctly, they accepted a amendment to the verb-age of the order of contempt that basically said they don't honor the use of executive privilege.  They said that it didn't come soon enough, should have been issued last October, the due date of the subpoena, along with some other reasons.

I like the guy from S.C. if there's nothing to hide, why is the use of executive privilege being invoked?

Edited by bornhunter04, 20 June 2012 - 02:27 PM.

[Tompo]

TyGuy, on 20 June 2012 - 01:43 PM, said:

Ugh, just vote already.

Waste of time.  So, republicans get the vote they want in committee.  It then goes to the House.  Say it passes the House, it goes to the Senate.  Where it dies.  Like I said, waste of time.  It's all political.

[TyGuy]

Contempt report shall be reported to the House.

[TyGuy]

Tompo, on 20 June 2012 - 02:23 PM, said:

TyGuy, on 20 June 2012 - 01:43 PM, said:

Ugh, just vote already.

Waste of time.  So, republicans get the vote they want in committee.  It then goes to the House.  Say it passes the House, it goes to the Senate.  Where it dies.  Like I said, waste of time.  It's all political.

If nothing happens to Holder at least F&F is over and done with.  So you can't say nothing good came out of it.

[lockman]

Tompo, on 20 June 2012 - 12:50 PM, said:

Drylok, on 20 June 2012 - 10:08 AM, said:

Tompo, on 20 June 2012 - 09:31 AM, said:

Issa was on his way to becoming an object of ridicule for his obvious witch hunt tactics in the face of evidence he had no real case. He should accept this invocation of executive privilege as a gift, and end this charade as gracefully as possible.Bush invoked the privilege repeatedly: to block a Congressional committee’s subpoena for documents relating to the Environmental Protection Agency’s decision to reject California’s efforts to reduce greenhouse gas emissions, in the US attorneys scandal that brought down Alberto Gonzales. The move is certainly not unprecedented: President George W. Bush asserted executive privilege six times during his eight years in office, while President Bill Clinton did so 14 times.

You're not concerned about the contents of the thousands of pages of documents that Holder refuses to release to the committee?

Issa needed to re-write his subpoena because he was asking for material he has no legal right to.  This is nothing more than a political witch hunt.

So the house oversight committee does not have the right to see all the documents they desire relating to the agency in which they oversee?

If they have a national security implication, the documents should still be available to the committee but should not be revealed to the public until vetted by a judge or declassified.

[Buzzard]

Tompo, on 20 June 2012 - 02:23 PM, said:

TyGuy, on 20 June 2012 - 01:43 PM, said:

Ugh, just vote already.

Waste of time.  So, republicans get the vote they want in committee.  It then goes to the House.  Say it passes the House, it goes to the Senate.  Where it dies.  Like I said, waste of time.  It's all political.

Because this is "the  the most transparent and ethical administration in U.S. History!" . . . . right?

[C0untZer0]

Probably 97% of this eveidence is electronic BTW.

It's sitting on tape somewhere.  There wouldn't be a bonfire, but some magnets might happen to come too close to a stack of backup tapes.

Why would the President invoke EP about something that he claims he had no knowledge about?  Because he lied and there is evidence in the memos.

This is an issue that affects all gun owners in all states because the people who run ATF allowed their agency to be pimped out to manipulate public opinion to further a political agenda, and violate the law in the process, not to mention that it resulted in the death, not only of Brian Terry but of Jamie Zapata.

If you want to talk about Operation Wide Reciever - let's talk about it. At least in that operation they had tracking devices in the weapons (which failed) and they coordinated with the Mexican government.  Lanny Breuer knew it was a failure with significant "media risks" he was told in no uncertain terms by his assistant Jacob Weinstein that it was a failure.  So how much more culpable are Newell and Breuer when they repeated an operation that was already a proven failure?  Only this time - instead of trying to get tracking devices in the weapons that work, they just left them out altogether.

F&F doesn't make sense from a law-enforcement perspective.  If someone were trying to  pile up statistics as fodder for an argument that U.S. gun laws are too lax - the operation made perfect sense, until a agent got killed.

Once an agent got killed, decent men and women in BATFE, ICE and other agencies refused to cooperate with the cover up.  Then Napalitano, Holder and Obama had a real problem on their hands.

Edited by C0untZer0, 20 June 2012 - 05:07 PM.

[mauserme]

Tompo, on 20 June 2012 - 02:23 PM, said:

Waste of time.  So, republicans get the vote they want in committee.  It then goes to the House.  Say it passes the House, it goes to the Senate.  Where it dies.  Like I said, waste of time.  It's all political.

I don't claim your level of expertise in this matter so I could be wrong, but I don't believe the Senate would be involved in this.  Rather, if found to be in contempt by the House (a 50% + 1 vote), the matter would be referred to the House General Counsels Office for prosecution.  So it might not be the waste of time you envision.

[Mr. Fife]

Bush must have been a pretty clever guy to have made all these democrats catch so much heat four years later. We could use smart people like that in office today instead of these amateurs.

Edited by Mr. Fife, 20 June 2012 - 06:11 PM.

[Tompo]

Buzzard, on 20 June 2012 - 04:55 PM, said:

Tompo, on 20 June 2012 - 02:23 PM, said:

TyGuy, on 20 June 2012 - 01:43 PM, said:

Ugh, just vote already.

Waste of time.  So, republicans get the vote they want in committee.  It then goes to the House.  Say it passes the House, it goes to the Senate.  Where it dies.  Like I said, waste of time.  It's all political.

Because this is "the  the most transparent and ethical administration in U.S. History!" . . . . right?

If The Obama released the documents Issa demands, Obama would be breaking the law.   This has nothing to do with being transparent.  It has EVERYTHING to do with a political witch hunt.

[Indigo]

bornhunter04, on 20 June 2012 - 10:49 AM, said:

TheHud, on 20 June 2012 - 10:40 AM, said:

This Exec Priv. move to supresss the release of all F&F documents, documents which most likely reveal exactly who is guilty of helping bring about the deaths of many Mexican civilians and one or more U.S. law enforcement personel, seems would constitute charges of interfering with a criminal investigation involving a capital crime.

Would that be ....hmmm...impeachable?

at least 2 problems with that. 1. we have to get the documents to know what's in them and 2. Impeachment starts in the senate, guess who's in control of that

My guess, unless there's an incredible amount of public pressure, those documents will never see the light of day. In fact they're probably trying to figure  way to incinerate them as the hearing is taking place. Bonfire anyone?

A bill of impeachment begins in the House.   By majority vote of the members, it becomes an impeachment of the person who is subject of the bill.  Once voted, it moves to the Senate, where Members of the House present the case for removal from office to the Senate.  The Senate acting as a committee of the whole, vote guilty or innocent, and their action determines if the impeached person remains in office.

[lockman]

Indigo, on 20 June 2012 - 07:33 PM, said:

bornhunter04, on 20 June 2012 - 10:49 AM, said:

TheHud, on 20 June 2012 - 10:40 AM, said:

This Exec Priv. move to supresss the release of all F&F documents, documents which most likely reveal exactly who is guilty of helping bring about the deaths of many Mexican civilians and one or more U.S. law enforcement personel, seems would constitute charges of interfering with a criminal investigation involving a capital crime.

Would that be ....hmmm...impeachable?

at least 2 problems with that. 1. we have to get the documents to know what's in them and 2. Impeachment starts in the senate, guess who's in control of that

My guess, unless there's an incredible amount of public pressure, those documents will never see the light of day. In fact they're probably trying to figure  way to incinerate them as the hearing is taking place. Bonfire anyone?

A bill of impeachment begins in the House.   By majority vote of the members, it becomes an impeachment of the person who is subject of the bill.  Once voted, it moves to the Senate, where Members of the House present the case for removal from office to the Senate.  The Senate acting as a committee of the whole, vote guilty or innocent, and their action determines if the impeached person remains in office.

We're talking contempt of congress which if convicted is a criminal misdemeanor.

[gravyboy77]

Tompo, on 20 June 2012 - 02:23 PM, said:

TyGuy, on 20 June 2012 - 01:43 PM, said:

Ugh, just vote already.

Waste of time.  So, republicans get the vote they want in committee.  It then goes to the House.  Say it passes the House, it goes to the Senate.  Where it dies.  Like I said, waste of time.  It's all political.

So i guess media matters/Daily Kos isn't telling the liberals like Tompo the truth about what happens with the approval of "Contempt Of Congress". The Senate has nothing to do with this and can do NOTHING to stop it.

First the committee votes on C of C (Check-already done!) then it moves to the full house next week (where it is expected to pass) then a grand jury is convened to decide whether Holder should be criminally charged for Holding back the documents (he will), then holder can be formally charged and could be arrested at that point. At no time does the senate do anything since this is strictly a house investigation. This is pretty serious stuff that's happening 5 months before the election.

Most of the legal analysis since yesterday are pointing to the Executive Privilege not holding up or illegal:
http://hotair.com/ar...ge-claim-stick/

Update:This also just got even worse for Obama. The family of murdered Border agent Brian Terry have had enough of the stonewalling and The family of ICE agent Jaime Zapata, who was also killed with a gun involved in Fast & Furious, announced today that they’re filing a wrongful death suit against the DOJ and other federal agencies.

I wonder how long Obama is going to let this go on for?

http://abcnews.go.co...lege-assertion/

Quote

Murdered Border Agent’s Family Says President Obama ‘Compounding This Tragedy’ with Executive Privilege Assertion

Jun 20, 2012 3:31pm

The family of slain U.S. Border Patrol agent Brian Terry, who was killed with guns tied to the Fast and Furious program, issued a statement Wednesday afternoon accusing President Obama of compounding their family tragedy by invoking executive privilege.

President Obama invoked executive privilege to shield the Justice Department from having to release documents sought by House Republican investigating the secret law enforcement program, wherein weapons smugglers were permitted to buy guns so law enforcement could trace them to drug cartels. Law enforcement lost track of hundreds of the guns, which began showing up at crime scenes, most tragically in December 2010, where Terry was killed.

Terry family attorney Pat McGroder on Wednesday released the following statement from Terry’s parents Josephine Terry and Kent Terry Sr.: “Attorney General Eric Holder’s refusal to fully disclose the documents associated with Operation Fast and Furious and President Obama’s assertion of executive privilege serves to compound this tragedy. It denies the Terry family and the American people the truth.”

The Terrys said that their son “was killed by members of a Mexican drug cartel armed with weapons from this failed Justice Department gun trafficking investigation. For more than 18 months we have been asking our federal government for justice and accountability. The documents sought by the House Oversight Committee and associated with Operation Fast and Furious should be produced and turned over to the committee. Our son lost his life protecting this nation, and it is very disappointing that we are now faced with an administration that seems more concerned with protecting themselves rather than revealing the truth behind Operation Fast and Furious.”

Earlier today, Josephine Terry was on Philadelphia Talk Radio 1210 WPHT.
Asked about the president’s assertion, she said, “The only thing I can say is, if he did that they apparently don’t want Issa to get the documents to see what’s in there.”

“My son and I were very, very close,” she continued. “And my son was a person that believed in justice and he believed in telling the truth. He was a man of his honor. And if anybody knew him, they knew that. And I know he would be saying ‘you know what, I died for my country.’ He was a true American and I think he deserves the truth and I think everybody should know the truth. And if this was a bad thing they did with Fast and Furious it should be acknowledged so it never happens to anybody else’s son.”

[mauserme]

gravyboy77, on 21 June 2012 - 08:01 AM, said:

...This is pretty serious stuff that's happening 5 months before the election.

But let's remember that Holder has been completely in control of the timing.  The subpoena return date was last October.  This could all be behind us now if he wanted it to be.

[Sigma]

Did he just say "what does that have to do with an Illinois concealed carry website?'
Until Obama explains what under the radar gun control is, we will assume that Fast and Furious is it. Only problem is it showed up on the radar. This was an attempt to reinstate a permanent NATIONAL Assault Weapon ban. Of course that concerns Illinois Carry.

[mauserme]

The NRA has indicated that the contempt vote will be factored into their scoring.  I guess they see it in a similar light.

[Tompo]

Sigma, on 21 June 2012 - 08:57 AM, said:

Did he just say "what does that have to do with an Illinois concealed carry website?'
Until Obama explains what under the radar gun control is, we will assume that Fast and Furious is it. Only problem is it showed up on the radar. This was an attempt to reinstate a permanent NATIONAL Assault Weapon ban. Of course that concerns Illinois Carry.

"Fast and Furious" concerns gun sales to drug cartels in Mexico.

"Under the radar gun control"?  yeah. ok.  lol

[Sigma]

http://www.politifac...-radar-nra-say/

[Tompo]

Sigma, on 21 June 2012 - 11:11 AM, said:

http://www.politifac...-radar-nra-say/

Did you read your own link??  Your own link rates it "Pants on Fire".  Meaning it's baloney.


Our ruling

In a mailer, the National Rifle Association says that  "Obama admits he’s coming for our guns, telling Sarah Brady, ‘We are working on (gun control), but under the radar.’ "

We found no evidence of an Obama admission anything like the NRA suggests.

[snubjob]

Political witch hunt?   This is one of the biggest blunders in history. There are families who lost loved ones because of someone's idiotic decision. They would like answers. I would like some answers. And as the general public finally becomes aware of this story, i think they are going to want some answers too. I, for one, hope that the hunt is a success. I would rather call it a hunt for justice. If it is someday proven that this whole thing was actually an attempt at furthering someone's political agenda, what would you describe it as? Political posturing?  Strategic planning? Just what the hell would you call something this blatantly stupid?

[Tompo]

snubjob, on 21 June 2012 - 02:40 PM, said:

Political witch hunt?   This is one of the biggest blunders in history. There are families who lost loved ones because of someone's idiotic decision. They would like answers. I would like some answers. And as the general public finally becomes aware of this story, i think they are going to want some answers too. I, for one, hope that the hunt is a success. I would rather call it a hunt for justice. If it is someday proven that this whole thing was actually an attempt at furthering someone's political agenda, what would you describe it as? Political posturing?  Strategic planning? Just what the hell would you call something this blatantly stupid?

Yes, it's a political with hunt.  This program, to sell guns across the border, hoping to nab drug king pins, began under Bush's Justice Dept.  If there was a REAL interest in finding out the truth, wouldn't you want the people who began the program under oath? How can you find the truth, when you cherry pick who you interview?   yet, Bush's Attorney General was never under oath.  And Holder has been before the committee nine times.

[w00dc4ip]

Tompo,
Like many things, it isn't the crime but the cover-up that is going to cause all the problems.  The problem with F&F was not just that it was a bad idea and poorly executed, but that the people in charge tried to keep it going and keep it quiet even after it clearly should have been known that it was a bad idea, and then they tried to claim they knew nothing about it once it did finally all blow up.  Additionally, a lot of the people with boots on the ground were ordered to keep going after they indicated that there was going to be "blowback".  And then, when a US Border Patrol Agent was killed with a weapon linked to F&F, the "boots on the ground" were ordered to cover it up.  At that point, you got whistleblowers, and the question then became how high up in the "chain of command" did this operation go.  That question still hasn't been adequately answered, and this is where Issa's investigation should ultimately lead.

Holder flat-out lied to congress, under oath, when he claimed (the first time he was asked) that he had no knowledge of the operation.  Subsequently he's "retracted" more and more of the "statements" he and his department have made in person and in official documents sent to congress in response to subpoenas.  Holder's actions with respect to Fast and Furious are probably not criminal, and they seem to be politically motivated (at least as much as Issa's investigation is politically motivated).  Holder's actions with regard to the investigation into Fast and Furious are looking more and more to be not only politically damaging to the president, but criminal.

Issa may have gotten very lucky in his pursuit of this issue, he chose to investigate something that could have been politically damaging, and instead got the Attorney General of the United States to commit perjury.  Then, to make matters worse, the president invoked executive privilege, so he’s no longer at arm’s length from this investigation but knee deep in it.  This isn’t going to go away or go well for Obama at this point.

[gravyboy77]

Tompo, on 21 June 2012 - 12:33 PM, said:

Sigma, on 21 June 2012 - 11:11 AM, said:

http://www.politifac...-radar-nra-say/

Did you read your own link??  Your own link rates it "Pants on Fire".  Meaning it's baloney.


Our ruling

In a mailer, the National Rifle Association says that  "Obama admits he’s coming for our guns, telling Sarah Brady, ‘We are working on (gun control), but under the radar.’ "

We found no evidence of an Obama admission anything like the NRA suggests.

I think FactCheck.org had a better analysis from April of 2009.
http://www.factcheck...g-mexicos-guns/

Quote

In recent weeks, efforts by the United States and Mexico to stop the illegal transfer of guns and drugs along their shared border have been on the front burner. U.S. Attorney General Eric Holder and Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano traveled to Mexicoearlier this month to meet with their Mexican counterparts to discuss what can be done. And this week President Barack Obama traveled down south to continue talks between the two nations.

So here's Holder and Nappy traveling to Mexico to try and stop the flow of guns from the U.S to the Mexican drug cartels at the same time they are letting them walk across the border.

[gravyboy77]

Tompo, on 21 June 2012 - 03:39 PM, said:

snubjob, on 21 June 2012 - 02:40 PM, said:

Political witch hunt?   This is one of the biggest blunders in history. There are families who lost loved ones because of someone's idiotic decision. They would like answers. I would like some answers. And as the general public finally becomes aware of this story, i think they are going to want some answers too. I, for one, hope that the hunt is a success. I would rather call it a hunt for justice. If it is someday proven that this whole thing was actually an attempt at furthering someone's political agenda, what would you describe it as? Political posturing?  Strategic planning? Just what the hell would you call something this blatantly stupid?

Yes, it's a political with hunt.  This program, to sell guns across the border, hoping to nab drug king pins, began under Bush's Justice Dept.  If there was a REAL interest in finding out the truth, wouldn't you want the people who began the program under oath? How can you find the truth, when you cherry pick who you interview?   yet, Bush's Attorney General was never under oath.  And Holder has been before the committee nine times.

The Bush program was a collaboration between the U.S and Mexican government, was shut down before Obama took office and no one died as a result.

Operation F&F was done secretly without Mexico's knowledge, the guns that walked were lost track of have been used to kill at least two border agents and hundreds of Mexican civilians and Holder only shut the program down only when it was revealed that people had died.

[Tompo]

the factcheck link has nothing to do with fast and furious.   And the term "Nappy" is offensive.

[Tompo]

w00dc4ip, on 21 June 2012 - 03:45 PM, said:

Tompo,
Like many things, it isn't the crime but the cover-up that is going to cause all the problems.  The problem with F&F was not just that it was a bad idea and poorly executed, but that the people in charge tried to keep it going and keep it quiet even after it clearly should have been known that it was a bad idea, and then they tried to claim they knew nothing about it once it did finally all blow up.  Additionally, a lot of the people with boots on the ground were ordered to keep going after they indicated that there was going to be "blowback".  And then, when a US Border Patrol Agent was killed with a weapon linked to F&F, the "boots on the ground" were ordered to cover it up.  At that point, you got whistleblowers, and the question then became how high up in the "chain of command" did this operation go.  That question still hasn't been adequately answered, and this is where Issa's investigation should ultimately lead.

Holder flat-out lied to congress, under oath, when he claimed (the first time he was asked) that he had no knowledge of the operation.  Subsequently he's "retracted" more and more of the "statements" he and his department have made in person and in official documents sent to congress in response to subpoenas.  Holder's actions with respect to Fast and Furious are probably not criminal, and they seem to be politically motivated (at least as much as Issa's investigation is politically motivated).  Holder's actions with regard to the investigation into Fast and Furious are looking more and more to be not only politically damaging to the president, but criminal.

Issa may have gotten very lucky in his pursuit of this issue, he chose to investigate something that could have been politically damaging, and instead got the Attorney General of the United States to commit perjury.  Then, to make matters worse, the president invoked executive privilege, so he’s no longer at arm’s length from this investigation but knee deep in it.  This isn’t going to go away or go well for Obama at this point.

yes, the program WAS a bad idea.  However, the committee investigating this claims to want to find the truth.  Yet, how do you find the truth, when you never interview, under oath, any of the Bush admin, Justice Dept, where the program originated?  Holder has been before the committee NINE times.
As of this point, Holder has not lied under oath.  That's just your opinion.  As the Attorney General, it's reasonable to assume he's not 'read in" on EVERY ongoing investigation or Justice Dept program.
Holder and Obama, could not--by law--release the documents Issa demanded. That's why Issa had to re-write his own subpoena.
This is going nowhere, criminally.  There is no precedent to prosecute a sitting Attorney General when the POTUS has used Executive Privilege.

[w00dc4ip]

• The question at this point is, "who knew what and when?"
  
• The sitting Attorney General has "incorrectly" answered that question or refused to answer it every time he's been asked.
  
• You're trying really hard to blame this too on the previous administration, but there is no need to ask the previous AG about a program that didn't begin until 2009, 10 months after the current AG assumed the office.
  
• Issa is requesting documents (and has the legal authority to do so) that would answer the primary question.
  
• Pretty much everyone knows what happened, the only question that really remains is when did everyone know and why didn't they stop it before a US Border Patrol agent got killed?
  
• Additionally, ATF firing a whistleblower could have criminal consequences, particularly if that action was politically motivated and came directly from DOJ higher ups at Holder or Obama's request.

[Tompo]

w00dc4ip, on 21 June 2012 - 04:21 PM, said:

• The question at this point is, "who knew what and when?"
  
• The sitting Attorney General has "incorrectly" answered that question or refused to answer it every time he's been asked.
  
• You're trying really hard to blame this too on the previous administration, but there is no need to ask the previous AG about a program that didn't begin until 2009, 10 months after the current AG assumed the office.
  
• Issa is requesting documents (and has the legal authority to do so) that would answer the primary question.
  
• Pretty much everyone knows what happened, the only question that really remains is when did everyone know and why didn't they stop it before a US Border Patrol agent got killed?
  
• Additionally, ATF firing a whistleblower could have criminal consequences, particularly if that action was politically motivated and came directly from DOJ higher ups at Holder or Obama's request.

No, I'm not trying to blame anyone. Current admin or previous.  But the FACT is, gun walking to Mexico DID begin under the Bush admin Justice Dept.   if you were trying to find out the truth, you would naturally want to interview the members of the Justice dept when the program began.  Including AG Mukasey.   iss has not called anyone from Mukasey's Justice Dept.
issa is demanding documents he legally cannot have.  There is precedent for this.  Other admin. has used executive privilege is similar circumstances.  If Holder released the documents Issa wants, he'd be breaking the law.
the program WAS stopped after the agent was killed.

[lockman]

Tompo, on 21 June 2012 - 11:08 AM, said:

Sigma, on 21 June 2012 - 08:57 AM, said:

Did he just say "what does that have to do with an Illinois concealed carry website?'
Until Obama explains what under the radar gun control is, we will assume that Fast and Furious is it. Only problem is it showed up on the radar. This was an attempt to reinstate a permanent NATIONAL Assault Weapon ban. Of course that concerns Illinois Carry.

"Fast and Furious" concerns gun sales to drug cartels in Mexico.

"Under the radar gun control"?  yeah. ok.  lol

And it is a right to carry website not a concealed carry website.

[lockman]

Tompo, on 21 June 2012 - 04:02 PM, said:

yes, the program WAS a bad idea. However, the committee investigating this claims to want to find the truth. Yet, how do you find the truth, when you never interview, under oath, any of the Bush admin, Justice Dept, where the program originated?

This argument reminds me of a schoolyard incident where one student writes on his desk, then another student does the same thing but gets caught. His defense is not that he did not write on the desk or was justified in writing on the desk, his defense is that he should not be punished unless the other guy (who did not get caught) gets punished first. In essence his defense is no defense at all.