Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature currently requires accessing the site using the built-in Safari browser.
Still trying to figure out if she's a partisan bigot or a bigoted partisan.Holy shit.
All they were doing..it seems, was MONITORING gun sales.
It wasn't even like Wide Reciever..where the ATF actually had the guns to begin with.
So basically..they just watched the sales..went to prosecutors in Arizona to arrest these folks..and the prosecutors refused.
THAT'S THE BIG SCANDAL?
Well it is, sorta, because it's the gun nuts that kept the ATF from stopping the gun walking.
Congratulations, you have proven what I have said all along--you are completely ignorant.
Still trying to figure out if she's a partisan bigot or a bigoted partisan.Congratulations, you have proven what I have said all along--you are completely ignorant.
Another fag?
Can't tell the difference between men and women?
Cause men are women and women are men?
You fucks are freaks.
If those documents have bearing on cases that are on-going? Or have information in them that might be important to national security?
Heck yeah.
In fact..the President and Holder would violate the law..if those sorts of Documents were released.
The Fortune magazine article is based on Ms. Eban's opinion. Hardly anyone in the administration denies the allegations that the ATF allowed the guns to be shipped to Mexico. As a matter of fact even Obama spokespeople and democrats acknowledge that the program was a complete and abject failure and some ATF agents were fired. The question remains why the A.G. refuses to comply with the congressional subpoena as he is required to by law.
1. Because there are "other" ongoing investigations.
2. President Obama invoked Executive Privilege (as Bush did SIX times).
Ongoing investigations is not an excuse to not provide documents to a Congressional investigation.
Further, on June 28, 2007, Bush invoked executive privilege in response to congressional subpoenas requesting documents from former presidential counsel Harriet Miers and former political director Sara Taylor,[10] citing that:
The reason for these distinctions rests upon a bedrock presidential prerogative: for the President to perform his constitutional duties, it is imperative that he receive candid and unfettered advice and that free and open discussions and deliberations occur among his advisors and between those advisors and others within and outside the Executive Branch.
Executive privilege - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
The Fortune magazine article is based on Ms. Eban's opinion. Hardly anyone in the administration denies the allegations that the ATF allowed the guns to be shipped to Mexico. As a matter of fact even Obama spokespeople and democrats acknowledge that the program was a complete and abject failure and some ATF agents were fired. The question remains why the A.G. refuses to comply with the congressional subpoena as he is required to by law.
1. Because there are "other" ongoing investigations.
2. President Obama invoked Executive Privilege (as Bush did SIX times).
Ongoing investigations is not an excuse to not provide documents to a Congressional investigation.
Holy shit.
All they were doing..it seems, was MONITORING gun sales.
It wasn't even like Wide Reciever..where the ATF actually had the guns to begin with.
There was no effort to get more guns to the straw purchasers, Eban said in an interview with host Al Sharpton, summarizing her findings. The ATF agents in question did everything that they could to seize guns, and basically prosecutors determined that they didnt have grounds under the laws as written to seize most of the guns that wound up flowing ultimately to criminals; that is a far cry from guns being walked.
Fortune report complicates Fast and Furious story. Writer: 'There was no effort to get more guns to the straw purchasers' - Lean Forward
So basically..they just watched the sales..went to prosecutors in Arizona to arrest these folks..and the prosecutors refused.
THAT'S THE BIG SCANDAL?
Well it is, sorta, because it's the gun nuts that kept the ATF from stopping the gun walking.
Still trying to figure out if she's a partisan bigot or a bigoted partisan.
Another fag?
Can't tell the difference between men and women?
Cause men are women and women are men?
You fucks are freaks.
You are a classless, ignorant, bigot, piece of human excrement--your posts demonstrates that very well.
1. Because there are "other" ongoing investigations.
2. President Obama invoked Executive Privilege (as Bush did SIX times).
Ongoing investigations is not an excuse to not provide documents to a Congressional investigation.
Oh really?
Further, on June 28, 2007, Bush invoked executive privilege in response to congressional subpoenas requesting documents from former presidential counsel Harriet Miers and former political director Sara Taylor,[10] citing that:
The reason for these distinctions rests upon a bedrock presidential prerogative: for the President to perform his constitutional duties, it is imperative that he receive candid and unfettered advice and that free and open discussions and deliberations occur among his advisors and between those advisors and others within and outside the Executive Branch.
Executive privilege - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Another fag?
Can't tell the difference between men and women?
Cause men are women and women are men?
You fucks are freaks.
You are a classless, ignorant, bigot, piece of human excrement--your posts demonstrates that very well.
Oh go fuck yourself, asswipe.
And learn to stick with your own battles you cowardly piece of dog shit.
1. Because there are "other" ongoing investigations.
2. President Obama invoked Executive Privilege (as Bush did SIX times).
Ongoing investigations is not an excuse to not provide documents to a Congressional investigation.
Oh really?
Further, on June 28, 2007, Bush invoked executive privilege in response to congressional subpoenas requesting documents from former presidential counsel Harriet Miers and former political director Sara Taylor,[10] citing that:
The reason for these distinctions rests upon a bedrock presidential prerogative: for the President to perform his constitutional duties, it is imperative that he receive candid and unfettered advice and that free and open discussions and deliberations occur among his advisors and between those advisors and others within and outside the Executive Branch.
Executive privilege - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
[Further, on June 28, 2007, Bush invoked executive privilege in response to congressional subpoenas requesting documents from former presidential counsel Harriet Miers and former political director Sara Taylor,[10] citing that:
The reason for these distinctions rests upon a bedrock presidential prerogative: for the President to perform his constitutional duties, it is imperative that he receive candid and unfettered advice and that free and open discussions and deliberations occur among his advisors and between those advisors and others within and outside the Executive Branch.
Executive privilege - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Ongoing investigations is not an excuse to not provide documents to a Congressional investigation.
Oh really?
Further, on June 28, 2007, Bush invoked executive privilege in response to congressional subpoenas requesting documents from former presidential counsel Harriet Miers and former political director Sara Taylor,[10] citing that:
The reason for these distinctions rests upon a bedrock presidential prerogative: for the President to perform his constitutional duties, it is imperative that he receive candid and unfettered advice and that free and open discussions and deliberations occur among his advisors and between those advisors and others within and outside the Executive Branch.
Executive privilege - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
REALLY
You haven't a clue.
If those documents have bearing on cases that are on-going? Or have information in them that might be important to national security?
Heck yeah.
In fact..the President and Holder would violate the law..if those sorts of Documents were released.
Read this and then say that....
The POTUS can not use E/P unless he is DIRECTLY involved, or he/she is hiding something... thats the law buddy.
"It seems", as you like to say, that you sir do not know what you are talking about.
June 25, 2012
The President
The White HouseWashington, D.C. 20500
Dear Mr. President:
On June 19, 2012, shortly after leaving a meeting in the U.S. Capitol, Attorney GeneralEric Holder wrote to request that you assert executive privilege with respect to Operation Fastand Furious documents he is withholding from this Committee. The next day, Deputy AttorneyGeneral James Cole notified me in a letter that you had invoked executive privilege. The Committee received both letters minutes before the scheduled start of a vote to recommend thatthe full House hold the Attorney General in contempt of Congress for refusing to comply with its subpoena. Courts have consistently held that the assertion of the constitutionally-based executive privilege the only privilege that ever can justify the withholding of documents from a congressional committee by the Executive Branch is only applicable with respect to documents and communications that implicate the confidentiality of the Presidents decision-making process, defined as those documents and communications to and from the President and his most senior advisors. Even then, it is a qualified privilege that is overcome by a showing of the committees need for the documents. The letters from Messrs. Holder and Cole cited no caselaw to the contrary. Accordingly, your privilege assertion means one of two things. Either you or your most senior advisors were involved in managing Operation Fast & Furious and the fallout from it, including the false February 4, 2011 letter provided by the Attorney General to the Committee, or, you are asserting a Presidential power that you know to be unjustified solely for the purpose of further obstructing a congressional investigation. To date, the White House has steadfastly maintained that it has not had any role in advising the Department with respect to the congressional investigation. The surprising assertion of executive privilege raised the question of whether that is still the case.
As you know, the Committee voted to recommend that the full House hold AttorneyGeneral Holder in contempt of Congress for his continued refusal to produce relevant documentsin the investigation of Operation Fast and Furious. Last weeks proceeding would not haveoccurred had the Attorney General actually produced the subpoenaed documents he said hecould provide. The House of Representatives is scheduled to vote on the contempt resolutionthis week. I remain hopeful that the Attorney General will produce the specified documents sothat we can work towards resolving this matter short of a contempt citation. Furthermore, I amhopeful that, consistent with assertions of executive privilege by previous Administrations, youwill define the universe of documents over which you asserted executive privilege and providethe Committee with the legal justification from the Justice Departments Office of Legal Counsel(OLC).
Background
U.S. Border Patrol Agent Brian Terry was killed in a firefight with a group of armedMexican bandits who preyed on illegal immigrants in a canyon west of Rio Rico, Arizona onDecember 14, 2010. Two guns traced to Operation Fast and Furious were found at the murder scene. The Terry family appeared before the Committee on June 15, 2011, to ask for answersabout the program that put guns in the hands of the men who killed their son and brother.Having been stonewalled for months by the Attorney General and his senior staff, the Committeeissued a subpoena for documents that would provide the Terry family the answers they seek.The subpoena was served on October 12, 2011.
Internally, over the course of the next eight months, the Justice Department identified140,000 pages of documents and communications responsive to the Committees subpoena. Yet,the Department handed over only 7,600 of these pages. Through a series of accommodationsand in recognition of certain Executive Branch and law enforcement prerogatives, the Committee prioritized key documents the Department needed to produce to avoid contempt proceedings.These key documents would help the Committee understand how and why the JusticeDepartment moved from denying whistleblower allegations to understanding they were true; theidentities of officials who attempted to retaliate against whistleblowers; the reactions of senior Department officials when confronted with evidence of gunwalking during Fast and Furious,including whether they were surprised or already aware of the use of this reckless tactic, and;whether senior Department officials are being held to the same standard as lower-levelemployees who have been blamed for Fast and Furious by their politically-appointed bosses inWashington.
I met with Attorney General Holder on June 19, 2012, to attempt to resolve this matter inadvance of the Committees scheduled contempt vote. We were joined by Ranking Member Elijah Cummings and Senators Patrick Leahy and Charles Grassley, respectively the Chairmanand Ranking Member of the Senate Committee on the Judiciary. The Department had previouslyidentified a small subset of documents created after February 4, 2011 the date of its letter containing the false claim that no gunwalking had occurred that it would make available tothe Committee. The Justice Department described this small subset as a fair compilation of thefull universe of post-February 4th documents responsive to the subpoena
During the June 19th meeting, the Attorney General stated he wanted to buy peace. Heindicated a willingness to produce the fair compilation of post-February 4th documents. Hetold me that he would provide the fair compilation of documents on three conditions: (1) that I permanently cancel the contempt vote; (2) that I agree the Department was in full compliancewith the Committees subpoenas, and; (3) that I accept the fair compilation, sight unseen.
As Chairman of the primary investigative Committee of the U.S. House of Representatives, I considered the Attorney Generals conditions unacceptable, as would have my predecessors from both sides of the aisle. I simply requested that the Department produce thefair compilation in advance of the contempt vote, with the understanding that I would postponethe vote to allow the Committee to review the documents.
The short meeting in the Capitol lasted about twenty minutes. The Attorney General leftthe meeting and, shortly thereafter, sent an eight-page letter containing more than forty citationsrequesting that you assert executive privilege. The following morning, the Deputy AttorneyGeneral informed me that you had taken the extraordinary step of asserting the privilege that isdesigned to protect presidential decision making.
In his letter, the Attorney General stated that releasing the documents covered by thesubpoena, some of which he offered to the Committee hours earlier, would have significant,damaging consequences.
It remains unclear how in a matter of hours the AttorneyGeneral moved from offering those documents in exchange for canceling the contempt vote andending the congressional investigation to claiming that they are covered by executive privilegeand that releasing them which the Attorney General was prepared to do hours earlier would now result in significant, damaging consequences.
The Scope of Executive Privilege
Deputy Attorney General Coles representation that the President has asserted executive privilege over the relevant post-February 4, 2011, documents raised concerns that there wasgreater White House involvement in Operation Fast and Furious than previously thought Thecourts have never considered executive privilege to extend to internal Executive Branchdeliberative documents.
Absent from the Attorney Generals eight-page letter were the controlling authoritiesfrom the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia. As the court held in the seminalcase of In re Sealed Case (Espy):
The privilege should not extend to staff outside the White House inexecutive branch agencies. Instead, the privilege should apply only tocommunications authored or solicited and received by those members of an immediate White House advisers staff who have broad and significantresponsibility for investigating and formulating the advice to be given thePresident on the particular matter to which the communications relate.
The D.C. Circuit established the operational proximity test to determine whichcommunications are subject to privilege.
Espy made clear that it is operational proximity to thePresident that matters in determining whether the presidents confidentiality interest isimplicated.
In addition, even if the presidential communications privilege did apply to some of thesesubpoenaed documents, Espy made clear that the presidential communications privilege is, at alltimes, a qualified one, and that a showing of need could overcome it. Such a need indeed acompelling one plainly exists in this case.
The Justice Department has steadfastly maintained that the documents sought by theCommittee do not implicate the White House whatsoever. If true, they are at best deliberativedocuments between and among Department personnel who lack the requisite operational proximity to the President. As such, they cannot be withheld pursuant to the constitutionally- based executive privilege. Courts distinguish between the presidential communications privilegeand the deliberative process privilege. Both, the Espy court observed, are executive privilegesdesigned to protect the confidentiality of Executive Branch decision-making. The deliberative- process privilege, however, which applies to executive branch officials generally, is a commonlaw privilege that requires a lower threshold of need to be overcome, and disappears altogether when there is any reason to believe government misconduct has occurred.
The Committee must assume that the White House Counsels Office is fully aware of the prevailing authorities of Espy discussed above, and Judicial Watch v. Dept of Justice If theinvocation of executive privilege was proper, it calls into question a number of public statementsabout the involvement of the White House made by you, your staff, and the Attorney General.
Finally, the Attorney Generals letter to you cited numerous authorities from prior Administrations of both parties. It is important to note that the OLC opinions provided asauthorities to justify expansive views of executive privilege are inconsistent with existing caselaw.
Remarks about White House Involvement in Fast and Furious
For the past sixteen months, Senator Grassley and I have been investigating OperationFast and Furious. In response to a question about the operation during an interview withUnivision on March 22, 2011, you stated that, Well first of all, I did not authorize it. EricHolder, the Attorney General, did not authorize it. You also stated that you were absolutelynot informed about Operation Fast and Furious. Later in the interview, you said that theremay be a situation here in which a serious mistake was made and if thats the case then well findout and well hold somebody accountable.
From the early stages of the investigation, the White House has maintained that no WhiteHouse personnel knew anything about Operation Fast and Furious. Your assertion of executive privilege, however, renews questions about White House involvement.
White House Press Secretary Jay Carney emphasized your denial that you knew aboutFast and Furious. Mr. Carney stated, I can tell you that, as the president has already said, he didnot know about or authorize this operation. A few weeks later, Mr. Carney reiterated the point, stating, I think he made clear . . . during the Mexican state visit and the press conferencehe had then that he found out about this through news reports. And he takes it very seriously.
In an October 6, 2011 news conference, you maintained that Attorney General Holder indicated that he was not aware of what was happening in Fast and Furious. Regarding your own awareness, you went on to state, Certainly I was not. And I think both he and I would have been very unhappy if somebody had suggested that guns were allowed to pass through that couldhave been prevented by the United States of America.
On March 28, 2012, Senator Grassley and I wrote to Kathryn Ruemmler, who serves asyour Counsel, to request that she grant our numerous requests to interview Kevin OReilly, amember of the White House National Security Staff. We needed Mr. OReillys testimony toascertain the extent of White House involvement in Operation Fast and Furious. In her response,Ms. Ruemmler advised us that the e-mail communications between Mr. OReilly and William Newell, the Special Agent in Charge of ATFs Phoenix Field Division, did not reveal theexistence of any of the inappropriate investigative tactics at issue in your inquiry, let alone anydecision to allow guns to walk. She further emphasized the absence of any evidence thatsuggests that Mr. OReilly had any involvement in Operation Fast and Furious or was aware of the existence of any inappropriate investigative tactics.Your assertion of executive privilegerenews concerns about these denials.
Earlier this month, when House Judiciary Committee Chairman Lamar Smith asked theAttorney General when the Justice Department first informed the White House about thequestionable tactics used in Fast and Furious, he responded, I dont know. He informedChairman Smith that his focus was on dealing with the problems associated with Fast andFurious, and that he was not awfully concerned about what the knowledge was in the WhiteHouse.
Attorney General Holder has assured the public that he takes this matter very seriously,stating that to the extent we find that mistakes occurred, people will be held accountable. Yet, he has described the Committees vote as an election-year tactic. Nothing could befurther from the truth. This statement not only betrays a total lack of understanding of our investigation, it exemplifies the stonewalling we have consistently faced in attempting to work with the Justice Department. If the Attorney General had produced the responsive documentsmore than eight months ago when they were due, or at any time since then, we would not bewhere we are today.
Moving Forward
At the heart of the congressional investigation into Operation Fast and Furious aredisastrous consequences: a murdered Border Patrol Agent, his grieving family, countless deathsin Mexico, and the souring effect on our relationship with Mexico. Members of the Committeefrom both sides of the aisle agree that the Terry family deserves answers. So, too, do AgentTerrys brothers-in-arms in the border patrol, the Mexican government, and the American people. Unfortunately, your assertion of executive privilege raises more questions than itanswers. The Attorney Generals conditional offer of a fair compilation of a subset of documents covered by the subpoena, and your assertion of executive privilege, in no waysubstitute for the fact that the Justice Department is still grossly deficient in its compliance withthe Committees subpoena. By the Departments own admission, it has withheld more than130,000 pages of responsive documents
I still believe that a settlement, rendering further contempt of Congress proceedingsunnecessary, is in the best interests of the Justice Department, Congress, and those most directlyaffected by Operation Fast and Furious. In light of the settled law that confines theconstitutionally-based executive privilege to high-level White House communications, I urge you to reconsider the decision to withhold documents that would allow Congress to complete itsinvestigation
In the meantime, so that the Committee and the public can better understand your role,and the role of your most senior advisors, in connection with Operation Fast and Furious, pleaseclarify the question raised by your assertion of executive privilege: To what extent were you or your most senior advisors involved in Operation Fast and Furious and the fallout from it,including the false February 4, 2011 letter provided by the Attorney General to the Committee?Please also identify any communications, meetings, and teleconferences between the WhiteHouse and the Justice Department between February 4, 2011 and June 18, 2012, the day beforethe Attorney General requested that you assert executive privilege.
I appreciate your prompt attention to this important matter.
Sincerely,
Darrell IssaChairman